Characterizing Defects: Fill & Download for Free

Any reasonable answer to this question would require a lot more detail in the question, but let’s take a stab at least at the considerations involved.Assumptions:Use of an existing qualified, stable technology node with a characterized defectively level.Your design is robust.This is going to be a high-volume productMOS, complex logic dieProduction yield is going to be a product of conformance to data sheet spec as well as reliability/burn-in yield.Rather than die, I think you need to have minimum quantities of wafers. A first lot should be a matrix lot that hits combinations of the critical process corners and CD at the edges of the guaranteed process control limits. You could use a 25-wafer lot to get 2–3 wafers per corner and center.I also think you need a number of wafers (at process center target) with wafers banked and pushed through critical processes in different work weeks.As long as you have a reasonable number of die/wafer, and no misprocessing, you should be able to get to a working approximation of cumulative yield after burn-in and test.I think you could get there with a lot of 25 wafers, carefully managed. A major semiconductor company may more likely run at least 2~3 lots for a product qualification and the resulting material would confirm expected initial yields.Rather than an exact answer to your question, I’ve tried to give you just a process for considering your needs. Hope it was useful.

Sure. This guy isn’t qualified to be president and has a terrible temperament, and seems corrupt at his core. The majority of voters in enough states collectively made a bad choice, with pretty reasonable information, and were influenced by ignorance and hatred. This was one of the worst decisions made by our electorate since the United States was founded. I think it’s reasonable to characterize a system where this decision occurs to have “defects.”However, as Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst system of government, except for every other system. Democratic majorities make big mistakes sometimes, but there’s no system that’s better.

Most big corporations and industries are, I fear, way, way less competent than people think they are.Libertarians lionize big companies. Many Republicans blindly repeat the mantra that private enterprise is always always always more efficient than government, always. Conspiracy nutters weave elaborate fantasies about how big companies engage in extremely complex plots to control the world.Nah, bruh. They’re not that competent.Big companies tend to be characterized by bloat, waste, incompetence, inertia, inability to think outside the box, indifference, fear of change, ineptitude, and inefficiency.Like Hertz Rent-a-Car, which is currently suing Accenture, one of the world’s largest digital services company, because Accenture blew through $32,000,000 trying to redesign Hertz’s Web site and after three years of work, produced a Web site that did not work and had no mobile app.Accenture sued over website redesign so bad it Hertz: Car hire biz demands $32m+ for 'defective' cyber-revampThat’s what I think when I think “big corporations.” A hidebound, fumbling oaf, a gigantic ogre characterized by layers of middle management so incompetent one department can’t tell what the other is doing. They’re dominated by people who have failed upward until they arrive at their level of incompetence, and so you end up with a $32,000,000 Web site project being managed by managers who have to call tech support if their Web browser crashes.There are exceptions, of course. But they’re rare.