I see mention of the voltage of 200 mV/mm, though no mention if AC or DC, presume it is DC.
I have seen a few articles over the years on stimulating wound healing and did a little digging and found it goes back further than I appreciated:
1843: Carlo Matteucci (Italy) observes that wounded tissue generates a steady current — the first evidence of endogenous “healing current.”
Modern experimental era (1950s–1980s)
1950s–1960s: F. W. Smith and others at the Royal Free Hospital (London) and USSR researchers start applying DC microcurrents to chronic ulcers.
1960s–1970s: Robert O. Becker (NYU, later VA Medical Center) systematically studies wound and bone healing with DC and pulsed currents — showing accelerated healing and even partial limb regeneration in amphibians.
1972: Becker and Murray publish seminal paper: “Low intensity direct current stimulation of bone growth and wound healing.”
Late 1970s–1980s: Clinical trials on pressure ulcers and diabetic wounds using microamp DC show improved epithelialization.
Clinical device development (1990s–present)
1990s: FDA approvals for electrical bone-growth stimulators, later expanded to soft-tissue wound dressings.
2000s: Research into pulsed DC, AC, and capacitive coupling grows; low-frequency (1–200 Hz) electrotherapy devices enter wound-care practice.
2010s–2020s: Rise of microfluidic and bioelectronic dressings (like the Chalmers study, 2023), nanogenerators, and self-powered wound patches — merging electronics and biology.
Looking into the AC/DC aspects:
DC = best for directional healing and wound closure.
AC = best for tissue conditioning, circulation, and long-term comfort.
Combination or cycling gives the fastest and safest overall healing, especially for chronic or deep wounds. Also, prevent polarisation irritation over prolonged usage.
Certainly does feel like a technology that has been sleeping in the wind, and a future first aid tool. Of note, electronically, such a device could also aid in cleaning the wound by killing bacteria, which may be one reason that healing is improved.
I wished such sentiments prevailed in upper management, as it is true. Much like owning a car that can drive itself - you still need to pass a driving test to be allowed to use it.
The quote from Yes, Prime Minster - "The only way to understand the press, is to remember that they pander to their readers prejudices" which makes those news aggregations sites more appealing, though cheaper to stick with other avenues for balance.
Having worked on reinsurance software in the 90s, one question that springs to mind, which came to light from the asbestos claims era, was brokers commission. What did happen was brokers would package up risks and sell those off (taking commission) which would see other brokers bundle those up and again package them and others up into a bundle and sell those off. So when a claim came down the line, that was huge, like the asbestos claim in period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London which saw such a diluted risk and brokers commission leaching all profit, brought many down financially due to exposure.
So interested how things are today regarding brokers endlessly packaging up risks they sell on, rinse repeat. I'm aware of certain changes that came about to reinsurance brokers in both the Lloyds and London Markets on the back of the asbestos claim era, but not sure of the the CAT model risks/insurance regarding brokers endlessly packaging up to offset risk exposure vs regulations limiting how much they can do that - more so the USA market.
So curious - is there a risk from brokers diluting risks for commission profits in this market or is that saftly covered against and regulated?
Finally, France will be happy after years of being pushed back on this with the drive for solar and wind turbines, which sadly all got supplemented via gas on the back that nuclear was bad.
Sadly, with electricity becoming more reliant on gas and other fossil fuels when it is not so sunny in winter, or on those cloudy days with no wind, means fossil fuel usage ends up higher than if they had stayed and expanded nuclear - instead they closed many plants(Germany a prime example, in favour of....gas).
Then the whole over-dependence on Russian gas and oil really did whammy the energy price market, not just for Europe, but with a knock-on effect across the world. One we still pay for today.
Depends on the model - if you have a sparse model with MoE, then you can divide it up into smaller nodes, your dense 30b models, I do not see them flying anytime soon.
Intel pro B50 in a dumpster PC would do you well better at this model (not enough ram for dense 30b alas) and get close to 20 tokens a second and so much cheaper.
I think many would be amazed at how the space used on a game today is broken down in space usage. Most will be along the lines of cut scenes, graphics, audio......library and librarys galore...logic code of the program that is unique to the game and finally some text file hidden away.
But talking your AAA kind of titles that seem to be the norm, not your chess games, though even then, graphics sure has gained space in those programs. Though I'm sure somebody active in the industry could paint a better picture.
Anybody active in the industry able to offer or point to better breakdown?
In general: code << world < audio << textures << video
Executable code is pretty tiny relative to everything else, including libraries. Libraries only get really big when they include media assets. When it comes to media, even high fidelity audio is relatively small. 44kHz stereo 16-bit sample audio, uncompressed, is 176kb per second of audio. A 1024x1024 texture, at 32bpp, is 4mb, uncompressed. Video depends heavily on codec, but roughly consider that 4k video is something like 4096x2160, so eight times the size of our static texture for a single frame. Encodings don't just store every frame whole, of course, but keyframes add up quick.
I had “Sargon” (chess game) on cassette tape for the Apple 2. Slow load times though it took very little memory. (The Apple 2 typically had 64kb of ram)
I gave it a puzzle recently to test it out "An Ex-cop lost has home, his car and his girlfriend. What did he loose first?"
The AI thought and concluded that he had lost his job first, until I pointed out that it was not the first thing he had lost - which was his umbilical cord, a far better answer, in the AI's opinion.
Which raises many aspects - Can an AI disagree with you? Will AI develop solid out-of-the-box thinking as well as in-the-box thinking, will it grasp applying both for a thru the box thinking and solutions...
After all, we have yet to perfect the teaching of children, so the training of AI, has a long way to go and will get down to quality over quantity, just deciding what is quality and what is not. After all - Garbage in, Garbage out, is probably more important today than it ever was in the history of technology.
I have seen a few articles over the years on stimulating wound healing and did a little digging and found it goes back further than I appreciated:
1843: Carlo Matteucci (Italy) observes that wounded tissue generates a steady current — the first evidence of endogenous “healing current.”
Modern experimental era (1950s–1980s)
1950s–1960s: F. W. Smith and others at the Royal Free Hospital (London) and USSR researchers start applying DC microcurrents to chronic ulcers.
1960s–1970s: Robert O. Becker (NYU, later VA Medical Center) systematically studies wound and bone healing with DC and pulsed currents — showing accelerated healing and even partial limb regeneration in amphibians.
1972: Becker and Murray publish seminal paper: “Low intensity direct current stimulation of bone growth and wound healing.”
Late 1970s–1980s: Clinical trials on pressure ulcers and diabetic wounds using microamp DC show improved epithelialization.
Clinical device development (1990s–present)
1990s: FDA approvals for electrical bone-growth stimulators, later expanded to soft-tissue wound dressings.
2000s: Research into pulsed DC, AC, and capacitive coupling grows; low-frequency (1–200 Hz) electrotherapy devices enter wound-care practice.
2010s–2020s: Rise of microfluidic and bioelectronic dressings (like the Chalmers study, 2023), nanogenerators, and self-powered wound patches — merging electronics and biology.
Looking into the AC/DC aspects: DC = best for directional healing and wound closure. AC = best for tissue conditioning, circulation, and long-term comfort.
Combination or cycling gives the fastest and safest overall healing, especially for chronic or deep wounds. Also, prevent polarisation irritation over prolonged usage.
Certainly does feel like a technology that has been sleeping in the wind, and a future first aid tool. Of note, electronically, such a device could also aid in cleaning the wound by killing bacteria, which may be one reason that healing is improved.