1 Brunei Dollar = 4.0562 Brazilian Real

1 Brunei Dollar = 4.8793 Bolivian Boliviano

1 Brunei Dollar = 1.2775 Bulgarian Lev

1 Brunei Dollar = 1.0829 Australian Dollar

Final Score: 71-53

The PCI-SIG finalized the PCIe 4.0 specification with doubling the data to 16GT/s from 8GT/s in PCIe 3.0 in 2017. Products implementing this technology have begun to hit the market in 2019. Earlier this year, AMD announced it X570 chipset would support the PCIe 4.0 interface and Phison also introduced the world’s first PCIe 4.0 SSD.  With the increasing companies are working on PCIe 4.0 related product development, Cadence, as the key and leading PCIe IP solution vendor in the market, has strived for continuous enhancement of its PCIe 4.0 to be the best in the class IP solution. From our initial PCIe 4.0 solution in 4 years ago (revealed in 2015), we have made many advancements and improvements adding features such as Multi-link with any lane assignment, U.2/U.3 connector, and Automotive support. The variety of applications that PCIe4 finds a home in require extensive robustness and reliability testing over and above the compliance tests mandated by the standard body, i.e., PCI-SIG.

PCIe 4.0 TX Eye-Diagram, Loop-back Test (Long-reach) and RX JTOL Margin Test

Cadence IP team has also implemented additional "stress tests" in conjunction to its already comprehensive IP characterization plan, covering electrical, functional, ESD, Latch-up, HTOL, and yield sorting. Take the Receiver Jitter Tolerance Test (JTOL) for instance. JTOL is a key index to test the quality of the receiver of a system. This test use data generator/analyzer to send data to a SerDes receiver which is then looped back through the transmitter back to the instrument. The data received is compared to the data generated and the errors are counted. The data generator introduce jitter into the transmit data pattern to see how well the receiver functions under non-ideal conditions. While PCI-SIG compliance can be obtained on a single lane implementation, real world scenarios require wider implementations under atypical operating conditions. Cadence’s PCIe 4.0 IP was tested against to additional stressed conditions, such as different combination of multi-lanes operations, “temperature drift” conditions, e.g., bring up the chip at room temperature and check the JTOL at high temperature. 

PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test Setup

Besides complying with electrical parameters and protocol requirements, real world systems have idiosyncrasies of their own. Cadence IP team also built a versatile “System test” setup in house to perform a system level stress test of its PCIe 4.0 sub-system. The Cadence PCIe 4.0 sub-system is connected to a large number of server and desktop motherboards. This set up is tested with 1000s of cycles of repeated stress under varying operating conditions. Stress tests include speed change from 2.5G all the way to 16G and down, link enable/disable, cold boot, warm boot, entering and exiting low power states, and BER test sweeping presets across different channels. Performing this level of stress test verifies that our IP will operate to spec robustly and reliably when presented with the occasional corner cases in the real world.

More Information

For the demonstration of Cadence PCIe4 PHY Receiver Test and Sub-system Stress Test, see the video:

• PCIe 4.0 Sub-system Stress Test
• PCIe 4.0 PHY Receiver JTOL Test

For more information on Cadence's PCIe IP offerings, see our PCI Express page.

For more information on PCIe in general, and on the various PCI standards, see the PCI-SIG website.

Related Posts

• Blog: PCIe Gen4: It’s Official, We’re Compliant
• Blog: PCIe 3.0 Still Shines While PCIe Keeps Evolving
• Blog: The PCIe 4.0 Era Continues at PCI-SIG Developers Conference 2016

Once while eating dinner in Montreal, our friendly, intoxicated waitress plopped herself in my lap and proceeded to tell us about how obsessed she was with the CD that was playing - singing out the lyrics at an ungodly volume and flinging her arms about. Wow, I thought to myself, people who listen to Morcheeba sure seem to have a lot of fun, and promised to check them out.

Several CDs later, they are firmly one of my favorites. And their trip hop meditation, 2003’s Charango remains one of my most played CDs.

Morcheeba (Mor = more, Cheeba = pot) are brothers Ross and Paul Godfrey with singer Skye Edwards (who has since been replaced). Part trance, part ambience, Charango is full of smooth, snogworthy jams. And just as you surrender to its seductive groove, Slick Rick shows up with a rap called “Women Lose Weight”.

Lamenting his wife putting on weight after having kids and stalled by his mistress who wants a clean break before she shacks up with him, he decides the easiest way out of it all is to kill the spouse. Considering different ways to do the deed, he finally rams his car into her Chevy over a long lunch break one fine day. It is an unexpected, stunning, tongue-in-cheek social commentary that makes it a CD you won’t forget easily.

Rave Out © 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 20th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Amit Shah’s induction into the union cabinet is such an interesting moment. Even partisans who oppose the BJP, as I do, would admit that Shah is a political genius. Under his leadership, the BJP has become an electoral behemoth in the most complicated political landscape in the world. The big question that now arises is this: can Shah do for India what he did for the BJP?

This raises a perplexing question: in the last five years, as the BJP has flourished, India has languished. And yet, the leadership of both the party and the nation are more or less the same. Then why hasn’t the ability to manage the party translated to governing the country?

I would argue that there are two reasons for this. One, the skills required in those two tasks are different. Two, so are the incentives in play.

Let’s look at the skills first. Managing a party like the BJP is, in some ways, like managing a large multinational company. Shah is a master at top-down planning and micro-management. How he went about winning the 2014 elections, described in detail in Prashant Jha’s book How the BJP Wins, should be a Harvard Business School case study. The book describes how he fixed the BJP’s ground game in Uttar Pradesh, picking teams for 147,000 booths in Uttar Pradesh, monitoring them, and keeping them accountable.

Shah looked at the market segmentation in UP, and hit upon his now famous “60% formula”. He realised he could not deliver the votes of Muslims, Yadavs and Jatavs, who were 40% of the population. So he focussed on wooing the other 60%, including non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits. He carried out versions of these caste reconfigurations across states, and according to Jha, covered “over 5 lakh kilometres” between 2014 and 2017, consolidating market share in every state in this country. He nurtured “a pool of a thousand new OBC and Dalit leaders”, going well beyond the posturing of other parties.

That so many Dalits and OBCs voted for the BJP in 2019 is astonishing. Shah went past Mandal politics, managing to subsume previously antagonistic castes and sub-castes into a broad Hindutva identity. And as the BJP increased its depth, it expanded its breadth as well. What it has done in West Bengal, wiping out the Left and weakening Mamata Banerjee, is jaw-dropping. With hindsight, it may one day seem inevitable, but only a madman could have conceived it, and only a genius could have executed it.

Good man to be Home Minister then, eh? Not quite. A country is not like a large company or even a political party. It is much too complex to be managed from the top down, and a control freak is bound to flounder. The approach needed is very different.

Some tasks of governance, it is true, are tailor-made for efficient managers. Building infrastructure, taking care of roads and power, building toilets (even without an underlying drainage system) and PR campaigns can all be executed by good managers. But the deeper tasks of making an economy flourish require a different approach. They need a light touch, not a heavy hand.

The 20th century is full of cautionary tales that show that economies cannot be centrally planned from the top down. Examples of that ‘fatal conceit’, to use my hero Friedrich Hayek’s term, include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and even the lady Modi most reminds me of, Indira Gandhi.

The task of the state, when it comes to the economy, is to administer a strong rule of law, and to make sure it is applied equally. No special favours to cronies or special interest groups. Just unleash the natural creativity of the people, and don’t try to micro-manage.

Sadly, the BJP’s impulse, like that of most governments of the past, is a statist one. India should have a small state that does a few things well. Instead, we have a large state that does many things badly, and acts as a parasite on its people.

As it happens, the few things that we should do well are all right up Shah’s managerial alley. For example, the rule of law is effectively absent in India today, especially for the poor. As Home Minister, Shah could fix this if he applied the same zeal to governing India as he did to growing the BJP. But will he?

And here we come to the question of incentives. What drives Amit Shah: maximising power, or serving the nation? What is good for the country will often coincide with what is good for the party – but not always. When they diverge, which path will Shah choose? So much rests on that.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

Let’s face it – the EDA industry needs new people and new ideas. One of the best places to find both is academia, and a presentation at the Cadence Theater at the recent Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) described collaboration models that are working today.

The presentation was titled “Industry/Academia Engagement Models – From PhD Contests to R&D Collaborations.” It included these speakers, shown from left to right in the photo below:

• Prof. Xin Li, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU)
• Chuck Alpert, Senior Software Architect, Cadence
• Prof. Laleh Behjat, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary

Alpert, who was filling in for Zhuo Li, Software Architect at Cadence, was the vice chair of DAC 2015 and will be the general chair of DAC 2016 in Austin, Texas. “My team at Cadence really likes to collaborate with universities,” he said. “We’re a big proponent of education because we really need the best and brightest students in our industry.”

Contests Boost EDA Research

One way that Cadence collaborates with academia is participation in contests. “It’s a great way to formulate problems to academia,” Alpert said. “We can have the universities work on these problems and get some strategic direction.”

For example, Cadence has been involved with the annual CAD contest at the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD) since the contest was launched in 2012. This is the largest worldwide EDA R&D contest, and it is sponsored by the IEEE Council on EDA (CEDA) and the Taiwan Ministry of Education. Its goals are to boost EDA research in advanced real-world problems and to foster industry-academia collaboration.

Contestants can participate in one of more problems in the three areas of system design, logic synthesis and verification, and physical design. The 2015 contest has attracted 112 teams from 12 regions. Cadence contributes one problem per year in the logic synthesis area. Zhuo Li was the 2012 co-chair and the 2013 chair. The awards will be given at ICCAD in November 2015.

Another step that Cadence has taken, Alpert said, is to “hire lots of interns.” His own team has four interns at the moment. One advantage to interning at Cadence, he said, is that students get to see real-world designs and understand how the tools work. “It helps you drive your research in a more practical and useful direction,” he said.

The Cadence Academic Network co-sponsors the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC, and Xin Li and Zhuo Li are on the organizing committee. This event is a poster session for PhD students to present and discuss their dissertation research with people in the EDA community. This year’s forum was “packed,” Alpert said, and it’s clear that the event needs a bigger room.

Finally, Alpert noted, Cadence researchers write and publish technical papers at DAC and other conferences, and Cadence people serve on the DAC technical program committee. “We try to be involved with the academic community on a regular basis,” Alpert said. “We want the best and the brightest people to go into EDA because there is still so much innovation that’s needed. It’s a really cool place to be.”

Research Collaboration Exposes Failure Rates

Xin Li presented an example of a successful research collaboration between CMU and Cadence. The challenge was to find a better way to estimate potential failure rates in memory. As noted in a previous blog post, PhD student Shupeng Sun met this challenge with a new statistical methodology that won a Best Poster award at the ACM SIGDA PhD Forum at DAC 2014.

The new methodology is called Scaled-Sigma Sampling (SSS). It calculates the failure rate and accounts for variability in the manufacturing process while only requiring a few hundred, or a few thousand, sample circuit blocks. Previously, millions of samples were required for an accurate validation of a new design, and each sample could take minutes or hours to simulate. It could take a few weeks or months to run one validation.

The SSS methodology requires greatly reduced simulation times. It makes it possible, Li noted, to run simulations overnight and see the results in the morning.

Li shared his secret for success in collaborations. “I want to emphasize that before the collaboration, you have to understand the goal. If you don’t have a clear goal, don’t collaborate. Once you define the goal, stick to it and make it happen.”

Contest Provides Learning Experience

Last year Laleh Behjat handed two of her new PhD students a challenge. “I told them there is an ISPD [International Symposium for Physical Design] contest on placement, and I expect you to participate and I expect you to win. Not knowing anything about placement, I don’t think they realized what I was asking them.”

The 2015 contest was called the Blockage-Aware Detailed Routing-Driven Placement Contest. Results were announced at the end of March at ISPD. And the University of Calgary team, despite its lack of placement experience, took second place.

Such contests provide a good learning tool, according to Behjat. Graduate students in EDA, she said, “have to be good programmers. They have to work in teams and be collaborative, be able to innovate, and solve the hardest problems I have seen in engineering and science. And they have to think outside the box.” A contest can bring out all these attributes, she said.

Further, Behjat noted, contest participants had access to benchmarks and to a placement tool. They didn’t have to write tools to find out if their results were good. Industry sponsors, meanwhile, got access to good students and new approaches for solving problems.

“You can see Cadence putting a big amount of time, effort and money to get students here and get them excited about doing contests,” she said. She advised students in the theater audience to “talk to people in the Cadence booth and see if you can have more ideas for collaboration.”

Richard Goering

Related Blog Posts

EDA Plus Academia: A Perfect Game, Set and Match

Cadence Aims to Strengthen Academic Partnerships

BSIM-CMG FinFET Model – How Academia and Industry Empowered the Next Transistor

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails myloweslife.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I'm working on a mixed-signal chip in Innovus. I've got a few analog LEF files that I've imported into my floorplan as macros.

My chip has got two power domains - VCC and VBAT.

One of the macro in the VBAT domain uses VBAT and GND as power rails KrogerFeedback.com.

On doing Special-Route, I've got a lot of minute power rails for the standard cells, as expected.

But, the VBAT power rails are not getting extended till the outer power rings. Only the GND rails are correctly getting extended till the outer power rings.

A screen shot is attached for reference.

Thanks for any help

It's been a while since you've heard from me...it has been a busy year for sure. One of the reasons I've been so quiet is that I was part of a team working diligently on our latest best kept secret: The MMSIM 12.1.1/MMSIM 13.1 Documentation has...(read more)

I have a modeless informational dialog box defined at the beginning of a SKILL script, but its contents don't display until the script finishes.

How do you get a modeless dialog box contents to display while a SKILL script is running?

procedure(myproc()

   prog((myvars)

     hiDisplayAppDBox()    ; opens blank dialog box - no dboxText contents show until script completes!

     ....rest of SKILL code in script...launches child processes

   );prog

);proc

Here we conclude the blog series and highlight the results of Mediatek 's use of Cadence Perspec™ System Verifier for their SoC level verification. In case you missed it, Part 1 of the blog is here , and Part 2 of the blog is here . One of their key...(read more)

Hi, I want to add values to components in my SiP design such as 1nF or 15nH. There is already in existence a COMP_VALUE property reserved for this as shown during BOM generation. This property is not visible under the Edit/Properties dialog for component or symbol find filters. We have already created user properties called COMP_MFG and COMP_MFG_PN that it editable at a component level. When we try to add COMP_VALUE it is reported as a reserved name in Cadence but this name is not listed in the properties dialog. Is there a way to turn on the visibility and editablility of this or other hidden reserved Cadence property names? How can I assign a string value to the COMP_VALUE property?

Thanks

Hi all,

I have a question regarding the manufacture : how to check a cluster of same net vias spacing, with have no shape or cline covered

All PCB designers know the importance of proper power delivery for successful board design. Integrated circuits need the power to turn on, and ICs with marginal power delivery will not operate reliably. Since power planes can...(read more)

If you weren't able to attend the 2013 DVCon, you missed out on a great IEEE 1801/UPF tutorial delivered by members of the IEEE committee. Accellera had the event recorded and that recording is now posted on the Accellera.org website. Regardless of your work so far with low power design and verification, you need to watch this video.

Power management is becoming ubiquitous in our world. The popular aspect is that reduced power is good for the evironment and that is true. But for those teams that have been building chips around the 40nm node and below, there is another truth. Power management is required simply to get working silicon in many cases. As the industry expands the number of designs with power management and forges deeper into advanced nodes, we steadily identify improvements to the power format descriptions. The most recent set of imporvements to the IEEE 1801 standard are now available in the 2013 version of that standard.

To help bring the standard to life, five representatives from the IEEE joined to deliver a tutorial at DVCon in 2013. Qi Wang (Cadence), Erich Marschner (Mentor), Jeffrey Lee (Synopsys), John Biggs (ARM), and Sushma Honnavarra-Prasad (Broadcom) each contributed to the tutorial. It started with a review of the UPF basics that led to the IEEE 1801 standard delivered by the EDA companies. The IEEE 1801 users then presented tutorial content on how to apply the standard. The session then concluded with a look forward to the IEEE 1801-2013 (UPF 2.1) standard. The standard was released two months after the DVCon tutorial and is available through the Accellera Get program.

So after the bowl games are over and you'vre returned through the woods and back over the river from Grandma's, grab a cup of hot cocoa and learn more about the power standards you may well be using in 2014.

Regards,

Adam "The Jouler" Sherer

This is the 15th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

It’s election season, and promises are raining down on voters like rose petals on naïve newlyweds. Earlier this week, the Congress party announced a minimum income guarantee for the poor. This Friday, the Modi government released a budget full of sops. As the days go by, the promises will get bolder, and you might feel important that so much attention is being given to you. Well, the joke is on you.

Every election, HL Mencken once said, is “an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” A bunch of competing mafias fight to rule over you for the next five years. You decide who wins, on the basis of who can bribe you better with your own money. This is an absurd situation, which I tried to express in a limerick I wrote for this page a couple of years ago:

POLITICS: A neta who loves currency notes/ Told me what his line of work denotes./ ‘It is kind of funny./ We steal people’s money/And use some of it to buy their votes.’

We’re the dupes here, and we pay far more to keep this circus going than this circus costs. It would be okay if the parties, once they came to power, provided good governance. But voters have given up on that, and now only want patronage and handouts. That leads to one of the biggest problems in Indian politics: We are stuck in an equilibrium where all good politics is bad economics, and vice versa.

For example, the minimum guarantee for the poor is good politics, because the optics are great. It’s basically Garibi Hatao: that slogan made Indira Gandhi a political juggernaut in the 1970s, at the same time that she unleashed a series of economic policies that kept millions of people in garibi for decades longer than they should have been.

This time, the Congress has released no details, and keeping it vague makes sense because I find it hard to see how it can make economic sense. Depending on how they define ‘poor’, how much income they offer and what the cost is, the plan will either be ineffective or unworkable.

The Modi government’s interim budget announced a handout for poor farmers that seemed rather pointless. Given our agricultural distress, offering a poor farmer 500 bucks a month seems almost like mockery.

Such condescending handouts solve nothing. The poor want jobs and opportunities. Those come with growth, which requires structural reforms. Structural reforms don’t sound sexy as election promises. Handouts do.

A classic example is farm loan waivers. We have reached a stage in our politics where every party has to promise them to assuage farmers, who are a strong vote bank everywhere. You can’t blame farmers for wanting them – they are a necessary anaesthetic. But no government has yet made a serious attempt at tackling the root causes of our agricultural crisis.

Why is it that Good Politics in India is always Bad Economics? Let me put forth some possible reasons. One, voters tend to think in zero-sum ways, as if the pie is fixed, and the only way to bring people out of poverty is to redistribute. The truth is that trade is a positive-sum game, and nations can only be lifted out of poverty when the whole pie grows. But this is unintuitive.

Two, Indian politics revolves around identity and patronage. The spoils of power are limited – that is indeed a zero-sum game – so you’re likely to vote for whoever can look after the interests of your in-group rather than care about the economy as a whole.

Three, voters tend to stay uninformed for good reasons, because of what Public Choice economists call Rational Ignorance. A single vote is unlikely to make a difference in an election, so why put in the effort to understand the nuances of economics and governance? Just ask, what is in it for me, and go with whatever seems to be the best answer.

Four, Politicians have a short-term horizon, geared towards winning the next election. A good policy that may take years to play out is unattractive. A policy that will win them votes in the short term is preferable.

Sadly, no Indian party has shown a willingness to aim for the long term. The Congress has produced new Gandhis, but not new ideas. And while the BJP did make some solid promises in 2014, they did not walk that talk, and have proved to be, as Arun Shourie once called them, UPA + Cow. Even the Congress is adopting the cow, in fact, so maybe the BJP will add Temple to that mix?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” This election season, my friends, the people of India are on the menu. You have been deveined and deboned, marinated with rhetoric, seasoned with narrative – now enter the oven and vote.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 16th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Steven Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now, relates an old Russian joke about two peasants named Boris and Igor. They are both poor. Boris has a goat. Igor does not. One day, Igor is granted a wish by a visiting fairy. What will he wish for?

“I wish,” he says, “that Boris’s goat should die.”

The joke ends there, revealing as much about human nature as about economics. Consider the three things that happen if the fairy grants the wish. One, Boris becomes poorer. Two, Igor stays poor. Three, inequality reduces. Is any of them a good outcome?

I feel exasperated when I hear intellectuals and columnists talking about economic inequality. It is my contention that India’s problem is poverty – and that poverty and inequality are two very different things that often do not coincide.

To illustrate this, I sometimes ask this question: In which of the following countries would you rather be poor: USA or Bangladesh? The obvious answer is USA, where the poor are much better off than the poor of Bangladesh. And yet, while Bangladesh has greater poverty, the USA has higher inequality.

Indeed, take a look at the countries of the world measured by the Gini Index, which is that standard metric used to measure inequality, and you will find that USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom all have greater inequality than Bangladesh, Liberia, Pakistan and Sierra Leone, which are much poorer. And yet, while the poor of Bangladesh would love to migrate to unequal USA, I don’t hear of too many people wishing to go in the opposite direction.

Indeed, people vote with their feet when it comes to choosing between poverty and inequality. All of human history is a story of migration from rural areas to cities – which have greater inequality.

If poverty and inequality are so different, why do people conflate the two? A key reason is that we tend to think of the world in zero-sum ways. For someone to win, someone else must lose. If the rich get richer, the poor must be getting poorer, and the presence of poverty must be proof of inequality.

But that’s not how the world works. The pie is not fixed. Economic growth is a positive-sum game and leads to an expansion of the pie, and everybody benefits. In absolute terms, the rich get richer, and so do the poor, often enough to come out of poverty. And so, in any growing economy, as poverty reduces, inequality tends to increase. (This is counter-intuitive, I know, so used are we to zero-sum thinking.) This is exactly what has happened in India since we liberalised parts of our economy in 1991.

Most people who complain about inequality in India are using the wrong word, and are really worried about poverty. Put a millionaire in a room with a billionaire, and no one will complain about the inequality in that room. But put a starving beggar in there, and the situation is morally objectionable. It is the poverty that makes it a problem, not the inequality.

You might think that this is just semantics, but words matter. Poverty and inequality are different phenomena with opposite solutions. You can solve for inequality by making everyone equally poor. Or you could solve for it by redistributing from the rich to the poor, as if the pie was fixed. The problem with this, as any economist will tell you, is that there is a trade-off between redistribution and growth. All redistribution comes at the cost of growing the pie – and only growth can solve the problem of poverty in a country like ours.

It has been estimated that in India, for every one percent rise in GDP, two million people come out of poverty. That is a stunning statistic. When millions of Indians don’t have enough money to eat properly or sleep with a roof over their heads, it is our moral imperative to help them rise out of poverty. The policies that will make this possible – allowing free markets, incentivising investment and job creation, removing state oppression – are likely to lead to greater inequality. So what? It is more urgent to make sure that every Indian has enough to fulfil his basic needs – what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his fine book On Inequality, called the Doctrine of Sufficiency.

The elite in their airconditioned drawing rooms, and those who live in rich countries, can follow the fashions of the West and talk compassionately about inequality. India does not have that luxury.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

This is the 20th installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

Amit Shah’s induction into the union cabinet is such an interesting moment. Even partisans who oppose the BJP, as I do, would admit that Shah is a political genius. Under his leadership, the BJP has become an electoral behemoth in the most complicated political landscape in the world. The big question that now arises is this: can Shah do for India what he did for the BJP?

This raises a perplexing question: in the last five years, as the BJP has flourished, India has languished. And yet, the leadership of both the party and the nation are more or less the same. Then why hasn’t the ability to manage the party translated to governing the country?

I would argue that there are two reasons for this. One, the skills required in those two tasks are different. Two, so are the incentives in play.

Let’s look at the skills first. Managing a party like the BJP is, in some ways, like managing a large multinational company. Shah is a master at top-down planning and micro-management. How he went about winning the 2014 elections, described in detail in Prashant Jha’s book How the BJP Wins, should be a Harvard Business School case study. The book describes how he fixed the BJP’s ground game in Uttar Pradesh, picking teams for 147,000 booths in Uttar Pradesh, monitoring them, and keeping them accountable.

Shah looked at the market segmentation in UP, and hit upon his now famous “60% formula”. He realised he could not deliver the votes of Muslims, Yadavs and Jatavs, who were 40% of the population. So he focussed on wooing the other 60%, including non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits. He carried out versions of these caste reconfigurations across states, and according to Jha, covered “over 5 lakh kilometres” between 2014 and 2017, consolidating market share in every state in this country. He nurtured “a pool of a thousand new OBC and Dalit leaders”, going well beyond the posturing of other parties.

That so many Dalits and OBCs voted for the BJP in 2019 is astonishing. Shah went past Mandal politics, managing to subsume previously antagonistic castes and sub-castes into a broad Hindutva identity. And as the BJP increased its depth, it expanded its breadth as well. What it has done in West Bengal, wiping out the Left and weakening Mamata Banerjee, is jaw-dropping. With hindsight, it may one day seem inevitable, but only a madman could have conceived it, and only a genius could have executed it.

Good man to be Home Minister then, eh? Not quite. A country is not like a large company or even a political party. It is much too complex to be managed from the top down, and a control freak is bound to flounder. The approach needed is very different.

Some tasks of governance, it is true, are tailor-made for efficient managers. Building infrastructure, taking care of roads and power, building toilets (even without an underlying drainage system) and PR campaigns can all be executed by good managers. But the deeper tasks of making an economy flourish require a different approach. They need a light touch, not a heavy hand.

The 20th century is full of cautionary tales that show that economies cannot be centrally planned from the top down. Examples of that ‘fatal conceit’, to use my hero Friedrich Hayek’s term, include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and even the lady Modi most reminds me of, Indira Gandhi.

The task of the state, when it comes to the economy, is to administer a strong rule of law, and to make sure it is applied equally. No special favours to cronies or special interest groups. Just unleash the natural creativity of the people, and don’t try to micro-manage.

Sadly, the BJP’s impulse, like that of most governments of the past, is a statist one. India should have a small state that does a few things well. Instead, we have a large state that does many things badly, and acts as a parasite on its people.

As it happens, the few things that we should do well are all right up Shah’s managerial alley. For example, the rule of law is effectively absent in India today, especially for the poor. As Home Minister, Shah could fix this if he applied the same zeal to governing India as he did to growing the BJP. But will he?

And here we come to the question of incentives. What drives Amit Shah: maximising power, or serving the nation? What is good for the country will often coincide with what is good for the party – but not always. When they diverge, which path will Shah choose? So much rests on that.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Here are two screen capture of Before and After Autorouting my board. Padstacks have all been revised and corrected. The Capture Schematic is correct. All Footprints have been verified after Padstack revision. a new NETLIST generation have been done after some corrections made in Capture. I have imported the new Logic. I revised my Layout Cross Section as such: TOP, GND, VCC, BOTTOM. Both VCC and GND shapes have been assigned to their respective logical GND and VCC Nets (verified). Yet, I still have the Autorouter to systematically use extra vias to make GND and VCC connections to the VCC and GND planes. Where a simple utilisation of the part padstack inner layer would have been indicated. What Im I missing ?

Greeting to all:

I am new in this tool, only 2 weeks. Trying to create a new Via with smaller size drill hole from exiting 13 mils size to 10 mils size. I got the message as imaged below. Any advise what to do?  Thanks in advance.

Hi There,

The variant bom I set gone dissapear. Is there any way to recover this back from the old design file? 

This is the second time it happen to me. Not really sure what could cause this. 

Thanks,

Pornchai

Hello,

I find a strange issue when using design variable -> right-click -> copy from cellview in assembler. Cadence version is IC618-64b. 500.9

In fact, I set the value of variable (e.g., AAA = 100), then after I right-click -> copy from cellview, AAA's is updated to other value. In my opinion "copy from cellview" should only update the missing variable to the list, but not change any variable value. 

Is there any mechanism could change variable value when using "copy from cellview"?

Thanks

Hi,

I am trying to characterize a D flip-flop for low voltage operation (0.6V) using Cadence Liberate (V16). This is a positive edge triggered D flip flop based on true-single-phase clocking scheme. After the characterization, the measurements reported for hold constraint arcs seem to deviate significantly from its (spectre) spice simulation.

The constraint and the power settings to the liberate are as follows : 

# -------------------------------------------- Timing Constraints --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Input waveform ###
set_var predriver_waveform 2;# 2=use pre-driver waveform
### Capacitance ###
set_var min_capacitance_for_outputs 1;# write min_capacitance attribute for output pins
### Timing ###
set_var force_condition 4
### Constraint ###
set_var constraint_info 2
#set_var constraint_search_time_abstol 1e-12 ;# 1ps resolution for bisection search
set_var nochange_mode 1 ;# enable nochange_* constraint characterization
### min_pulse_width ###
set_var conditional_mpw 0
set_var constraint_combinational 2

#---------------------------------------------- CCS Settings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
set_var ccsn_include_passgate_attr 1
set_var ccsn_model_related_node_attr 1
set_var write_library_is_unbuffered 1

set_var ccsp_min_pts 15 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_rel_tol 0.01 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_table_reduction 0 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_tail_tol 0.02 ;# CCSP accuracy
set_var ccsp_related_pin_mode 2 ;# use 3 for multiple input switching scnarios and Voltus only libraries

#----------------------------------------------- Power ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Leakage ###
set_var max_leakage_vector [expr 2**10]
set_var leakage_float_internal_supply 0 ;# get worst case leakage for power switch cells when off
set_var reset_negative_leakage_power 1 ;# convert negative leakage current to 0

### Power ###
set_var voltage_map 1 ;# create pg_pin groups, related_power_pin / related_ground_pin
set_var pin_based_power 0 ;# 0=based on VDD only; 1=power based on VDD and VSS (default);
set_var power_combinational_include_output 0 ;# do not include output pins in when conditions for combinational cells

set_var force_default_group 1
set_default_group -criteria {power avg} ;# use average for default power group

#set_var power_subtract_leakage 4 ;# use 4 for cells with exhaustive leakage states.
set_var subtract_hidden_power 2 ;# 1=subtract hidden power for all cells
set_var subtract_hidden_power_use_default 3 ;# 3=subtract hidden power from matched when condition then default group
set_var power_multi_output_binning_mode 1 ;# binning for multi-output cell considered for both timing and power arcs
set_var power_minimize_switching 1
set_var max_hidden_vector [expr 2**10]
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I specifically used set_var constraint_combinational 2 in the settings, in case the Bisection pass/fail mode fails to capture the constraints. In my spice simulation, the hold_rise (D=1, CLK=R, Q=R) arc at-least requires ~250 ps for minimum CLK/D slew combination (for the  by default smallest capacitive load as per Liberate)  while Liberate reports only ~30 ps. The define_cell template to this flip flop is pretty generic, which does not have any user specified arcs. So which settings most likely affecting the constraint measurements in Liberate and how can I debug this issue ?

Thanks

Anuradha

Hi,

This question is related to the constraint measurement criteria used by the Liberate inside view. I am trying to characterize a specific D flip-flop for low voltage operation (0.6V) using Cadence Liberate (V16). 

When the "define_arcs" are not explicitly specified in the settings for the circuit (but the input/outputs are indeed correct in define_cell), the inside view seems to probe an internal node (i.e. master latch output)  for constraint measurements instead of the Q output of the flip flop. So to force the tool to probe Q output I added following coder in constraint arcs :

# constraint arcs from CK => D
define_arc
-type hold
-vector {RRx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type hold
-vector {RFx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type setup
-vector {RRx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

define_arc
-type setup
-vector {RFx}
-related_pin CP
-pin D
-probe Q
DFFXXX

with -probe Q liberate identifies Q as the output, but uses Glitch-Peak criteria instead of delay degradation method. So what could be the exact reason for this unintended behavior ? In my external (spectre) spice simulation, the Flip-Flop works well and it does not show any issues in the output delay degradation when the input sweeps.

Thanks

Anuradha

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from West Siang on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Nadia on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

India Lockdown: ફસાયેલા લોકોને ટ્રેનથી જવાની કેન્દ્ર સરકારે આપી મંજુરી

કોરોના વૉરિયર્સનો ઉત્સાહ વધારવા માટે ભારતીય વાયુસેના તરફથી કહેવામાં આવ્યુ છે કે મહામારી સામે લડવા માટે આખો દેશ એક સાથે ઊભો છે

India Lockdown: Delhi માં દારૂ બાદ વેટમાં વધારો થતાં પેટ્રોલ-ડીઝલ પણ મોંઘું

Special Report: શું Chinaમાં પાછી ફરી Coronavirusની 'સેકન્ડ વેવ'?

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Hosiarpur on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

રિલાયન્સ જનરલ ઇન્શ્યોરન્સ કંપનીએ લૉન્ચ કરેલી પોલિસીની જાણો ખાસિયતો

Jio ભારતમાં જે મોટું પરિવર્તન લાવ્યું છે, તેનાથી અમે પણ ઉત્સાહિત થયા છીએઃ Facebook

મુકેશ અંબાણીએ કહ્યું કે, જિયો અને ફેસબુકના કરારથી ડિજિટલ ઈન્ડિયાનું મિશન પૂરું થશે

Jioના 38.8 કરોડ ગ્રાહકોની સાથે ફેસબુક વધુમાં વધુ દર્શકો સુધી પહોંચી શકશે.

Reliance Jio અને Facebook વચ્ચેની ડીલ અંગે દુનિયાભરની રેટિંગ એજન્સીઓએ સારી પ્રતિક્રિયા આપી છે.

મુકેશ અંબાણીએ રિલાયન્સની 42મી વાર્ષિક સામાન્ય બેઠકમાં કહ્યું હતું કે કંપનીની પાસે રોડમપ છે જેના દ્વારા 31 માર્ચ 2021 સુધી દેવામુક્ત કંપની બની શકે છે

Facebookએ Reliance Jioમાં હિસ્સો ખરીદ્યો, ટેકનોલોજી ક્ષેત્રે સૌથી મોટું FDI

જાન્યુઆરીથી માર્ચ 2020 દરમિયાન કંપનીની નેટ પ્રોફિટ (Jio Net Profit)લગભગ ત્રણ ગણી વધીને 2,331 કરોડ રુપિયા પહોંચી ગઇ, રિલાયન્સ જિયો 38.75 કરોડ સબ્સક્રાઇબર્સની સાથે દુનિયાની સૌથી મોટી ટેલિકોમ કંપની છે