Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
1

The Talk Show Timeline

from anderegg.ca [alt+shift+b] in technology

I really enjoy John Gruber’s podcast The Talk Show. However, I’ve noticed that it’s been a while since it was in my feed. I decided to chart previous episode dates to check some of my assumptions about release frequency. Cutting to the chase, here’s a link to The Talk Show Timeline. You can click/tap on days to get a pinned tooltip, which lets you link out to a particular day’s episode. I’ve tried to make this work well on mobile devices, but you’ll likely find it works best on desktop. A note about this: Gruber has mentioned in the past that there has been a personal situation that he’s been working through. He’s also mentioned something to this effect on the podcast at points, but hasn’t gone into detail. I don’t need to know more than has been said, and I just hope things are alright. I’ve read Gruber’s site since 2002 1 and listened to his podcasts since 2007. In that time, I’ve learned that he operates on his own timeline… and has a penchant for procrastination. No shade here! He’s set himself up with a work situation that I envy. I also don’t want to seem grumpy about the lack of podcast episodes; I’m just trying to understand how this current break compares to those in the past. Because it was easiest, and because it would answer my immediate questions, I only looked at the current iteration of The Talk Show. Happily, there’s a single page which lists all the episodes. It had a tiny bit of data weirdness, 2 but I was able to turn this into a JSON file with the details I cared about. With that, I used the calendar heatmap chart in Apache ECharts to display the episodes over time. Some things I noticed: While it’s been a while (29 days) since the last episode (on August 10), this isn’t unheard of. The average is about 12 days between episodes, but there have been 6 other times when the episode gap has been at least this long. The longest gap was 62 days between December 24, 2024 and February 24, 2025. There’s exactly one day with two episodes: July 19, 2014. It...
8th Sep 2026

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from anderegg.ca

Machines building machines

Yesterday, a group of MIT researchers released an article titled “Sparks of Weight-Space Programming: LLMs can natively read & write neural network weights”. The piece describes a set of experiments which convincingly show OpenAI’s latest Astra model is able to understand and successfully alter raw weight data. Wowzers! It’s a rough analogy, but an LLM’s weights are sort of like its brain. A set of weights is a large pile of numbers generated during training, and an LLM’s output is derived by running input through the weights using some matrix multiplication and a bit of randomization. While the steps to generate weights are well understood, the weights themselves are extremely opaque. There’s ongoing work to try and explain how weights work, but researchers currently have a limited understanding of what these numbers do. Based on this, I was quite surprised to learn that LLMs are able to act on raw weight data — even if it’s still just in limited cases. It’s unclear if OpenAI’s model was trained on weight data. Even if it was, I still find these results surprising. The article shows the model accurately predicting what a never-before-seen set of weights was built to do, fixing another model by updating its weights, and creating new sets of weights that performed simple tasks. I would not have guessed any of that would be possible a couple of days ago. This whole thing is slightly unnerving. The whole “weights as a black box” thing has always felt a bit sketchy to me, even when I was working with much simpler machine learning models. Now these experiments hint at a future where LLMs could be self-improving in ways that aren’t human-verifiable. Machines building machines, and we can only hope that they’re not doing anything weird. I don’t know if this strategy is scalable, but I’d guess that it’s something more people will be exploring very soon. More and more often these days, I wish we were living in less interesting times.

6 days ago • 1 votes
Two more 27.0 design grumbles

After living with Apple’s 27.0 OSs since launch, I have some more annoyances to get off my chest. This time, it’s all about how tabs and menus have gotten worse. I’ve already ranted about the Liquid Glass material in general, but these two design changes in particular have really been grinding my gears. I’ll reiterate that Apple’s latest OSs look substantially nicer to me than the previous set… but that only makes these setbacks more glaring. Also, many of these issues aren’t nearly as bad in light mode — but I use dark mode exclusively on all platforms. Apple offers this appearance setting, so I think it’s fair to criticize them when it’s not holding up. First up, let’s talk tab bars. I think these looked awful in the original Liquid Glass redesign, and in 27.0 they look even worse. Below is an example of three tab bars from Safari in macOS. All of them are in dark mode. The top example is from macOS 26 with the “clear” Liquid Glass setting, the middle is macOS 27 with the default (mid-slider) version of Liquid Glass, and the bottom is macOS 27 with Liquid Glass at its most tinted. In each, the middle tab is selected (though I think the word “tab” is being quite generous to these globs). In macOS 26, there was practically no difference between the clear and tinted versions of tabs. Similarly, the clearest and default/middle tabs in macOS 27 are effectively the same. Because of this, I’m leaving out the redundant examples. Even though I still think it’s ugly, I vastly prefer the macOS 26 version of these three options. It offers the most contrast, and it makes more sense in dark mode: the background is darker and the foreground of the active tab is lighter. The middle example is what tabs look like in the default (mid-slider) version of Liquid Glass in macOS 27. There’s now only a very faint outline around the active tab, and practically no difference in background colours. To me, this is unreasonably subtle. The effect is even worse when there are a lot of tabs open. Lastly, there’s macOS 27 with the fully tinted Liquid Glass setting. It’s better, but it still looks less correct to me than the tab design from macOS 26. It’s difficult to put into words how much I loathe the look of this new tab bar design. I don’t mind the more “bubbly” look of Liquid Glass throughout the 27 OSs for the most part. It gives UI elements more dimension than in the 26 OSs. But it doesn’t work for tabs. Because the bubbly look is inside a trough, the active tab’s glass effect ends up looking like a blur on the top and bottom. This reduces contrast further and makes the active tab harder for me to pick out. Even in dark mode with full tint, I find the active tab less visually clear than in 26’s clear mode. Now, I’m sure there are at least a few people reading who don’t see what the fuss is about. If that’s you, I assure you that the difference is more stark when you’re not comparing things side by side. It’s not impossible for me to pick out the active tab, but I think it’s trickier than it needs to be! But, if you still don’t believe me, here’s a little experiment. Which of these do you think is most legible? The text/background colours in the above image are based on the foreground/background colours used in the tab bar instances above. First is clear in macOS 26, then the default from macOS 27, then fully tinted in macOS 27. I think they’re all pretty awful, but I prefer the macOS 26 clear version. Again, this is because I’m using dark mode. In dark mode, light text appears on a darker background. Similarly, active UI elements have a lighter background than their surrounding elements. I’m sure there are counter-examples, but this is how just about everything else works in Apple’s own apps! It should be noted that Safari uses the system default tab bar design. I also see this design in Apple’s Terminal app, in Pixelmator Pro, and elsewhere. I don’t use Xcode daily anymore, but you’ll also find them there — though in true Xcode fashion, they’re ever so slightly nonstandard and also don’t respect your tint setting. Below is a screenshot of Xcode using my current settings of dark mode with fully tinted Liquid Glass. Up next: menus. Below is an image showing four versions of the same menu in macOS. Top left is macOS 26 clear, top right is macOS 26 tinted, bottom left is macOS 27 default (mid-slider), and bottom right is macOS 27 fully tinted. It’s a similar story here. In macOS 26’s dark mode, I had no problem with system menus even when Liquid Glass was set to clear. In macOS 27, even in the fully tinted mode, the menus have much lower contrast. They also now lose all of Liquid Glass’s refractive effects when at their most tinted. I think this is less of an issue than the tab design changes, but it’s still a downgrade. Again, I’m certain many people don’t care about this. Some might wonder why I’m not turning on accessibility settings to help with these things, if they bother me so much. I’ve flirted with this (especially the “Increase Contrast” setting), but those settings have many knock-on effects. 1 But honestly, I don’t think accessibility settings should be required to have a reasonable amount of contrast in a design system. Maybe Apple disagrees, but I really hope more dark mode tweaks are coming. The “Increase Contrast” setting is under System Settings -> Accessibility -> Display -> Increase Contrast. Interestingly, you can use this setting along with the clearest version of Liquid Glass to almost get back to how things looked in macOS 26’s version of tinted. However, it adds contrast-y lines around many UI elements that I find extremely distracting. It also alters colours on some elements to, strangely, make them less contrast-y. It feels unevenly applied and poorly implemented in several apps. ↩

2nd Oct 2026 • 1 votes
Bubbles.town

I mostly use my web stats service because I get a lizard-brain kick from watching numbers go up, but it also provides some fun insights. For example, it’s how I found out about bubbles.town. At first I thought this might be a Mastodon instance. I get a lot of referral traffic from Mastodon, but each instance has its own URL. You can guess at mas.to, but dice.camp doesn’t provide many clues. Bubbles, as it’s known, is a very nice service. It aggregates a curated list of indie blogs. People can sign up and vote for posts they enjoy, but they can’t submit new articles. Authentication and comments are both handled using Fediverse technologies. In my case, I was able to log in via my Mastodon instance. The idea is to highlight cool indie writers around the web. I love this sort of thing so very much. Anyway, this is all to say that you should check out Bubbles. Seeing a blog-based reaction to one of my posts on the service filled my heart with immense joy.

9th Aug 2026 • 1 votes
An infuriating goodbye to Photoshop

I’ve been using Photoshop since the mid-90s. First at school, with Photoshop 3, then through work. I bought my first boxed copy of CS2 in 2005, then upgraded to CS5 in 2010. I subscribed to Photoshop Creative Cloud on day one. Today, I uninstalled it. I hope I never have to use Adobe software ever again. Photoshop used to be a joy to use. Whenever I got access to an upgraded version, I’d always have fun exploring the new features. I got really good at using it. When Adobe launched the Creative Cloud version of Photoshop in 2013, I signed up immediately. The subscription meant I would always have an up-to-date Photoshop, and I loved the idea that new features would be rolled out more frequently. But over time things started getting worse. Slowly at first, but then much more quickly. Originally, the Creative Cloud app was native and relatively useful. I wasn’t ever excited to open it, but I certainly didn’t mind having it installed. At some point, it became a terrible web-based app. Over time it felt slower and more broken. One thing I loved as part of the Creative Cloud subscription was the Creative Cloud Synced Files service. Basically, it was Adobe’s version of DropBox. I used it all the time to share screenshots and samples of in-progress work. Then, in 2023, Adobe announced they’d be discontinuing the service. There was so much pushback that they delayed the service’s retirement for a year. It makes sense, it was a nice feature of the subscription plan and businesses had come to rely on it. This was the first time I started questioning my Creative Cloud subscription. Out of curiosity, I looked around at the available options. I played with Pixelmator Pro, Acorn, and Affinity Photo. They were all fine, but I couldn’t let Photoshop go. I just knew it too well. But I also started realizing how little I was using it. I used to do a lot of traditional web development. In days of yore, this involved getting Photoshop mockups from designers. Those images needed slicing into pieces that you’d use to build a site or an app. But I hadn’t gotten a Photoshop document from a client in years. The PSD had been replaced with Sketch files, then with links to Figma documents. I still used Photoshop to touch up images, but that really didn’t use much of its power. The only thing holding me to the product was familiarity. Then I started to notice some real quality issues. For some reason that I still don’t understand, my copy of Photoshop stopped updating. I didn’t notice for a while, but eventually I stumbled upon the release notes and saw that I was something like nine months behind. I was able to fix this by forcing the Creative Cloud app to reload its settings using Command + Option + R, at which point I could update. Then, a few months later, Photoshop updates started getting stuck. I’d start an update, but it would spin for hours but never complete. I was able to fix this by uninstalling Photoshop using the Creative Cloud app, then re-installing it… but I had to do this more than once. Soon after that, every new Photoshop update would reset my preferences to the defaults. I’d need to take 5 or so minutes to re-apply my settings every time. A little while later, Adobe started silently updating my /etc/hosts file for license verification purposes. As posited in that link above, the Creative Cloud app now felt like malware to me. But that wasn’t all, Photoshop itself had started feeling terrible. There was now an annoying welcome screen that would re-appear for me whenever I didn’t have an image open. There was an option to disable it, but the option was reset every time I relaunched Photoshop for a couple of releases. Then Adobe decided to replace almost all of Photoshop’s native UI controls with web-based ones. This was the final straw. I’m sure some of these issues were special cases for me. Something that got stuck somewhere, maybe. I’m a developer, so maybe my tooling was interfering with something? Only: every time I ran into an issue, I’d see dozens of people complaining about the same thing on the Adobe support forums. It really felt like Photoshop and the Creative Cloud app had grown into blobs of pain that Adobe no longer knew how to properly maintain. As this was happening, Apple had released their Creator Studio service. For the same price as my Creative Cloud Photography plan, I could get an updated version of Pixelmator Pro, plus a bunch of other great apps. I’ve since signed up and haven’t looked back. But Adobe wasn’t done with me yet. It turned out that my subscription, which had been going since 2013, was on an “Annual Paid Monthly” plan. Even though I was getting billed monthly, I couldn’t actually cancel any time I wanted. I had sort of remembered this being a thing when I signed up, but had long since forgotten about it. Anyway, the one-month window to cancel without a termination fee recently arrived, and I got around to cancelling today. Cancelling required me to log into my Adobe account on the web. No problem, I thought. I had set up Adobe Authenticator, and had used it dozens of times to log in before. This time, however, the authenticator app needed me to log in. To log into the authenticator app, the app asked me to use the app to authenticate the app. Sorry? This was, of course, impossible. Eventually I figured out that I could use an alternative method to log into the app, so I could then use the app to authenticate my web session. This felt bone-headed, but whatever. I then received the following email. There’s nothing hidden here, this is the full contents of the message. At this point, though, I was actually able to start the cancellation process. The first screen of the cancellation flow looked like this: Here’s what it looked like after selecting things: I guess no one at Adobe uses dark mode? Anyway, the next 3 steps included Adobe begging me not to cancel, and even offering me three free months. This process had not convinced me I’d be happier staying. But even after completing the cancellation, I wasn’t done. I now wanted to uninstall everything. The Photoshop part of this was easy enough using the uninstaller app in the /Applications/Adobe Photoshop/ folder. The Creative Cloud app was more stubborn. There was also a link to an uninstaller for it in the /Applications/Adobe Creative Cloud/ folder… but running it failed with the error: Couldn’t uninstall Creative Cloud for desktop. You still have Creative Cloud applications installed on your computer that require it. Weird. The only other “app” I had installed was Camera Raw, which was just a plugin. There was also no way to uninstall it inside of the Creative Cloud app. I was able to find the plugin in /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CC/File Formats/. Deleting it and relaunching the Creative Cloud app showed that it was now no longer installed. I tried running the Creative Cloud uninstaller again, but I got the same error. This time I tried the “Repair” option, offered as part of the uninstaller, but that also failed. So I then tried the Creative Cloud Cleaner Tool… but this failed, too. At this point I was really annoyed, so I decided to manually remove things. I do not recommend doing this yourself, but here’s a general list of the stuff I got rid of: Under /Applications/: all the Adobe folders Under /Applications/Utilities/: all the Adobe folders The /Library/Application Support/Adobe and ~/Library/Application Support/Adobe directories, as well as any com.adobe.* files Under /Library/Preferences/ and ~/Library/Preferences/ all the Adobe* and com.adobe.* files Under /Library/Caches/ and ~/Library/Caches/ any Adobe* directories Under /Library/LaunchAgents/, /Library/LaunchDaemons/, and ~/Library/LaunchAgents/ directories: all the com.adobe.* files Under /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools: all com.adobe.* files Under /Users/Shared: all Adobe* directories Let me reiterate: you should not follow my lead here. I likely missed some things, and it’s very easy to mess things up by deleting system files. I offer no support if you decide to follow these steps. Again, it’s quite possible that there’s something weird going on with my machine or my installation… but I swear I never did anything but use the Creative Cloud app to manage things. I expect Adobe to be able to clean up their mess if they’re going to install files all over the friggin’ place. Anyway, all this said, I’m still slightly sad to be rid of Photoshop. Pixelmator Pro suits my current needs, but there are definitely things I will miss from Photoshop. Pixelmator Pro’s UI is a bit of a Liquid Glass nightmare, but it’s a massive improvement in terms of software quality. I’m extremely happy that it doesn’t strew zillions of files across my computer. I’m also pretty certain it will be much easier to unsubscribe from if I decide to do so in the future. So long, Photoshop. I’ll remember the old days fondly, but you are well past your prime.

12th Jul 2026 • 2 votes

More in technology

iPhone Duo early review

By a mile, the iPhone Duo has garnered more questions about what I think about it than any other phone I’ve ever had. It’s clearly a phone that has people intrigued, so I thought I’d jot down some loose, unorganized thoughts about what I think about it after about ten days. If I could sum all my thoughts up into one word, it’d simply be “fun”. I think for the vast majority of people, myself included, the iPhone 18 Pro is a more practical phone that through scientific analysis you’d likely even find a better phone. Even if they were priced the same, its package is more traditionally comfortable and ergonomic, with a better quality main camera, a helpful telephoto camera, a screen that’s more practical to use more of the time, a better biometric system (Face ID versus Touch ID) and a more established software experience. But damn if the iPhone Duo isn’t fun. Phones have been downright boring for so long. Incredible technology, lovely apps, but the hardware has been a bit slow moving since the iPhone X. Maybe that’s why I jumped onto the iPhone Air so readily. Even that slight departure from “black slab of glass” to “a dramatically thinner black slab of glass” was exciting versus what we’ve grown accustomed to. So I pick up the Duo, and it’s kinda just exciting to hold a phone for the first time in ages. Maybe that’s a honeymoon period and after a few months I’ll be over it. Maybe everyone who tries a folding phone for the first time experiences this. And to be clear, it’s not just all raw novelty. The fun aspect is fueled by having an absolutely incredible inner screen that fundamentally transforms what a phone is and can be. In addition, support the Apple Pencil has turned out to be phenomenally handy for me to be able to jot down quick thoughts and notes. For downsides, Touch ID is objectively worse than Face ID, but honestly, I don’t mind it as much as I expected I would. The smaller camera sensor than the Pro series phones is still decidedly great (rumors were it was a 17e size which was not correct, it’s the size of the normal 17’s). Software support gets better by the day, though iOS on the Duo is still decidedly a bit buggy at times. Other random thoughts Touch ID is objectively worse than Face ID, but honestly, I don’t mind it as much as I expected I would, previewing notifications is where I miss it the most After getting used to having a single speaker in the iPhone Air for a year, having stereo (not to mention great sounding) speakers is amazing The FaceTime camera on the inside is indeed not great for selfies/photography but honestly perfectly acceptable for FaceTime, and I’d definitely prefer this solution over a cutout on the inside so I’m happy! It definitely has a heavy feel to it, but it’s nothing honestly that bothersome A lot of the reviews said something to the effect of “the crease is practically invisible” and while I don’t really mind it or anything I definitely would disagree with that statement, you can see it a fair bit even with light content The hinge is a bit harder to open than I expected, I’ve found the secret is don’t pry from the middle of the side, instead put a thumb near the top and bottom (also helps prevent pressing Camera Control instead which I was doing all the time). I imagine this is necessary to have it be able to stop at arbitrary angles once open (which I do like) and hopefully it loosens up a bit with more use, but playing with Android foldables at Best Buy I did find their hinge easier to open I am really split on the inner, nano texture screen. It definitely helps reflections, has a neat look to it, and is super nice to draw on with the pencil, but it’s significantly less vibrant than the outer display which to my eyes looks a fair bit nicer. I think they made the right decision ultimately but it’s definitely not a zero-compromise solution. I was considering nano texture on my next MacBook but after this I think I’ll stick with glossy. My glass half full take with the Duo for now though is that we get two really cool screens to play with The outer screen is awesome for taking photos, unlike taller iPhones, your viewfinder fills the screen completely so it’s the largest feeling viewfinder I’ve used on a phone I miss the action button, nice little launcher for ChatGPT/Claude depending on which month it is Battery life is downright phenomenal versus my iPhone Air and 15 Pro (two devices admittedly not known for having great battery life) So, I don’t think the Duo is for most people who either don’t care much about phones, or care a lot about having the perfect phone, but for a decent amount of people in the middle I think the Duo represents a fundamentally different experience, that’s a ton of fun, and I’m excited to be excited about a phone again. (But, Apple, please figure out a way to add a telephoto lens.)

11 hours ago • 1 votes
Reverse engineering a vintage diode-transistor logic chip

Going through a collection of old parts, CuriousMarc encountered some ICs that he couldn't identify. He opened up one of these ICs, and I studied it under the microscope. After some reverse engineering, I determined that it was a logic chip that implemented four NAND gates using old-fashioned diode-transistor logic (DTL).1 The chip turned out to be the ST680A, a member of the Signetics 600 series of chips from 1965. In this article, I discuss the circuitry in this chip and how diode-transistor logic works. The die of the ST680A under the microscope. Integrated circuits can be packaged in many ways. One of the most popular is the plastic DIP (Dual In-line Package), a black rectangle of epoxy with two rows of metal pins. This type of package was invented by Signetics: "Introduced in late 1965, the 600 series was the first integrated circuit family to be offered in a solid, plastic, dual in-line package (DIP)." Earlier integrated circuits were packaged in round metal cans or in small flat-packs. In 1965, engineers at Fairchild invented the DIP, which had two rows of pins on 0.1" spacing. Unlike the surface-mounted flat-pack, the DIP had pins that were inserted into holes, making manual or automated assembly quick and easy. Because the pins of a DIP were on a regular grid, rather than the circular pattern of a metal can, circuit board design and manufacturing were also easier (details). The first DIP chips had ceramic packages. The plastic DIP, introduced by Signetics, was much cheaper and became very popular. An advertisement for the Signetics 600 series. From Electronics, March 21, 1966. The plastic DIP is less popular with me, however, because it is harder to open. With a ceramic package, I can simply tap it with a chisel and pop it open, but that doesn't work with epoxy packages. An epoxy package can be dissolved with nitric or sulfuric acid, but I try to avoid dangerous acids. Instead, CuriousMarc used Antoine's hot air decapping method. Unfortunately, the hot air technique doesn't always work. In this case, tiny bits of epoxy were stuck to the die, obscuring the circuitry. I used a few drops of boiling sulfuric acid to clean the die. (I'm okay with sulfuric acid in tiny quantities.) The die on its metal frame. The photo above shows the silicon die on its metal frame, the lead frame. The golden blobs are where the bond wires were attached to the die. You can see the doped silicon regions that form diodes and bipolar NPN transistors, as well as 16 resistors in the center, forming serpentine paths. Most chips have a passivation layer—a thin layer of silicon dioxide—over the chip. Inconveniently, this old chip didn't have a passivation layer, so the acid also stripped off the metal layer. (A few remnants are visible in the upper left.) Without the metal layer, I had to guess at how the components were connected to form logic gates. The die has very faint color differences where the silicon was protected by the metal, so that helped. Eventually, I came up with the diagram below, showing how the metal layer was probably configured. This wiring reveals that the chip implements four DTL NAND gates, which I'll describe in more detail below. One puzzle was that the chip has two unused diodes, indicated with question marks below. The metal layer for a quad NAND chip. I desaturated the image to make the labels clearer. Transistors, diodes, and resistors In this section, I'll explain how the patterns in the image correspond to components of the circuit. The silicon die is doped with various impurities to form regions with different electrical characteristics. These regions appear red or green under the microscope due to thin-film effects. As a result, the chip's transistors, diodes, and resistors are visible. The chip is made from bipolar NPN transistors, which have a completely different construction from the MOS transistors in modern ICs. In an NPN transistor, the current from the collector to the emitter is controlled by the current through the base. The collector is a large region of N-type silicon, silicon that is doped with atoms such as phosphorus or arsenic. Since these elements have one more valence electron than silicon, they give the silicon more negative charge carriers, so it is called N for negative. The N-type silicon happens to appear reddish. On top of the collector, the base is a thin region of P-type silicon, which appears green. This silicon has been doped with atoms such as boron or gallium, which have one fewer valence electron than silicon. The missing electrons form "holes", which act as positive charge carriers. Finally, the emitter is N-type silicon, on top of the base layer. These layers work together through semiconductor magic, amplifying the base current. Two NPN transistors on the chip. The second transistor is a larger output transistor. The chip's output transistors are slightly larger so they can sink more current. In the transistor on the right above, note that the collector contact wraps around three sides of the transistor. The emitter is also larger, with an L-shaped contact. According to the datasheet, each output transistor can sink 2.5 mA of current. The chip uses many diodes since it is diode-transistor logic. The structure of a diode is similar to a transistor, but without the emitter. In a diode, current flows from the cathode (P-type silicon) to the anode (N-type). A diode and a resistor on the chip. The chip uses 16 resistors, located in the middle of the die. A resistor is constructed from a long, thin region of doped silicon. Since silicon has moderately high resistance, a long strip of silicon acts as a resistor. Most of the resistors have a serpentine layout to fit a long resistor into a smaller area. These resistors consist of P-type silicon (green) in a "tub" of N-type silicon (red). The tub is connected to the positive voltage supply; since current doesn't flow from N-type silicon to P-type silicon, this isolates the resistors from each other. Operation of a DTL gate Logic gates can be created in many ways. The earliest integrated circuits (such as the ones in the Apollo Guidance Computer) used Resistor-Transistor Logic (RTL), where logic gates were constructed from resistors and transistors. In March 1962, Signetics announced the first family of commercial Diode-Transistor Logic (DTL) integrated circuits (details). By using diodes on the inputs instead of resistors, DTL provided better performance than RTL. However, DTL soon became overshadowed by TTL (Transistor-Transistor Logic), which was faster and used less power. (If you built digital circuits a few decades ago, you're probably familiar with the popular 7400 series of TTL chips.) The diagram below shows how the DTL NAND gate works. If both inputs are high, the current from the first resistor flows through the base of the first transistor, turning it on. The transistor amplifies this current, passing a much larger current from the transistor's collector to the transistor's emitter. This current goes through the base of the second transistor, which turns on the second transistor. The second transistor passes an even larger current from the output pin to ground, pulling the output pin low. The DTL NAND gate with both inputs high. The schematic is from the datasheet. This circuit is considerably more complicated than the DTL gate on Wikipedia. But if one of the input pins is pulled low, the current from the resistor goes through the diode instead of the transistor. The first transistor turns off, and without a base current, the second transistor turns off. The third resistor pulls the output high. Thus, the output is low only if both inputs are high: a NAND gate. The DTL NAND gate with an input low. I'll point out a few features of this circuit. The diodes on the inputs ensure that one input doesn't affect the other input. The diode in the middle raises the voltage on the first transistor's emitter, so it requires more voltage to turn on, reducing the sensitivity to noise. The output uses a resistor to pull the output high; more advanced circuits use another transistor. When the output is low, the third resistor is still "trying" to pull the output high, which is wasting power. Moreover, the resistor limits the output current, so the high output is fairly weak. In some DTL families, you can get gates with different values for the output resistor, so you can select the tradeoff between wasting power and having an output that is too weak. If you've used TTL integrated circuits from the 1970s, you know that chips usually have power and ground on diagonal pins: ground on pin 7 and power on pin 14. (Putting power and ground diagonally opposite both helps die layout and circuit board layout.) Much to my surprise, I found that the Signetics chips predate this standard and have ground on pin 1 and power on pin 8: still diagonal, but the wrong diagonal! The diagram below shows how the four NAND gates are wired in the chip. Pinout of the 680A quad NAND gate. From the databook. Three chips from one die When I examined the die under the microscope, I figured out the circuit, but I was puzzled by two extra diodes, as if two NAND gates had a third input that wasn't used. The explanation is that Signetics used the same silicon layout for at least three different chips, applying a different metal layer for different functionality. This saved money since it's much cheaper to produce a single optical mask for the metal layer than a complete set of new masks. Signetics sold semi-custom ICs to customers, using an approach called variFEBS (Variable Functional Electronics Blocks). This approach used a custom metal layer on top of fixed silicon, providing custom circuits without the cost of a full mask set. These circuits didn't sell well, but Signetics used the same approach for standard ICs. Pinout of the 670A triple NAND gate and the 616A quad NAND gate. All three chips have some similarities, such as using pins 2 and 14 as outputs. From the databook. One IC with the same silicon as the quad NAND gate is the 670A chip, which has three NAND gates, each with three inputs (above left). The diagram below shows how the silicon can be wired to provide this functionality. The hypothesized metal layer for the 670A triple-NAND gate. The layout for the triple chip above is a bit tricky because the top gate has inputs on both sides of the power (Vcc) pin. This creates a layout problem because the power and ground metal runs vertically to the resistors, blocking metal wiring from one side to the other. The solution is a "crossunder", a region of silicon that allows a signal to pass under the metal layer, connecting the inputs on the left to the rest of the circuitry on the right. This crossunder is visible near the top of the chip. Another chip with the same layout is the 616A dual NAND gate, with five inputs on each gate. Since this chip has 10 inputs in total (compared to 8 on the quad gate), this chip uses the two "extra" diodes that I spotted. If that isn't enough inputs, each NAND gate has an expansion input; by connecting external diodes to the expansion input, the gate can be made as large as desired. The hypothesized metal layer for the 616A dual-NAND chip. Some history The history of Signetics is closely tied to Fairchild. The story of Fairchild's founding is well known: in 1957, eight engineers—the Traitorous Eight—left Shockley Semiconductor and created Fairchild Semiconductor. Hundreds of companies (the "Fairchildren") were started by engineers who left Fairchild. Signetics was one of those companies, formed in 1961 and said to be the first company to exclusively design and manufacture integrated circuits.2 Signetics announced its first product in 1962, a NAND gate that cost $125 (over $1000 in current dollars).3 Not surprisingly, sales were weak. Signetics soon ran short of money, so in 1962, Corning Glass invested $1.7 million for 51% ownership of Signetics. Corning Glass may seem like a strange investor, but Corning was more of a high-tech company than you'd expect, making components such as resistors and glass capacitors, and later creating fiber optics. Moreover, in the early 1960s, integrated circuits were the hot area (much like AI now), and everyone wanted to get involved. In 1963, the Department of Defense pushed for contractors to use integrated circuits in new products. Riding this wave, Signetics became the leading producer of integrated circuits.4 However, Fairchild soon introduced a series of DTL chips that competed with Signetics. The Fairchild 930 series was faster than the Signetics chips and less than half the price, so Fairchild took much of the market from Signetics and dominated the IC market. Signetics also produced analog integrated circuits. Signetics is probably best known for creating the 555 timer chip in 1970, said to be the world's most popular IC, with billions sold.5 Signetics was acquired by Philips in 1975, and then Philips Semiconductors was spun off as NXP (Next exPerience) in 2006. NXP is currently the #10 semiconductor manufacturer worldwide, so the heritage of Signetics lives on. For more, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@[email protected]), or RSS. Thanks to CuriousMarc for providing the IC and thanks to TubeTime for finding the databook. AI statement: Despite the presence of the em dash, no AI was used in the writing of this article (details). Notes and references After I had reverse-engineered the chip, TubeTime found datasheets for it, making my reverse engineering unnecessary. (See the Signetics Condensed Catalog 1969, Utilogic II Databook 1971, and Utilogic 2 Databook 1972.) We must have been unlucky with our original web searches since we didn't find anything. But this way you get to see what's inside the chip :-) The Signetics ST680A IC in its package. The large circular depression marks pin 1. From the date code, this chip is from 1971.  ↩ For more Signetics history, see Signetics Founding History, written by Lionel Kattner, a co-founder of Signetics. He states that the company name was inspired by the words "signals" and "networks", as well as the high-tech suffix "-netics". ↩ See History of Semiconductor Engineering, page 156. ↩ The book Making Silicon Valley describes the history of Signetics. It has a negative view of the Corning investment, saying that Signetics executives "Van Poppelen and Kattner dissented on the grounds that Corning was not a good fit for an integrated circuit company. In their view, Corning was a staid Eastern firm, ignorant about semiconductors and antithetic to the ways and culture of the electronics industry on the West Coast. Their view later proved to be correct." ↩ The 555 timer was created by analog IC wizard Hans Camenzind. If you're interested in analog circuits, you should read his book Designing Analog Chips, which you can download for free. ↩

15 hours ago • 1 votes
How Do Building Codes Affect the Price of Housing?

A great deal of effort has gone into understanding the regulatory burden on housing construction, and the extent to which it contributes to high housing prices.

3 days ago • 1 votes
Barracuda Networks is your new best friend (Barracuda Email Security Gateway Pre-Auth Remote Root RCE CVE-2026-116606 / CVE-2026-111560)

Yes, that's right! Today we're at the aquarium. Welcome back to yet another watchTowr Labs blog post. You can begin preparing your comments now. What Is A Barracuda, And Why? Must We? Barracuda’s Email Security Gateway solution (ESG) is no stranger to love, for

4 days ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in