[anonymous_user9]

This is slop, but perhaps the old-fashioned kind.

> An 8085 processor that could handle 1×106 rads of radiation with only a 25% reduction in performance, and 3×106 rads with a 40% drop.

Hmm, from where did they copy-paste this mangled scientific notation?

Ah here we are, pg. 37 (46 in PDF file): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA063902.pdf

[dahinds]

If this was copy-pasted, isn't it much more likely that it was copy-pasted from a document describing the performance of the SA3000 chip, than from a document that was written before the SA3000 was developed?

The only overlap from the document with the text you quote is the "106", which is a pretty common mis-formatting issue.

[egorfine]

Excellent find. And yes, obviously this is slop. 106 rad is exactly nothing for nuclear usage.

[ralferoo]

Bad typesetting just indicates poor editing, not slop IMHO.

I guessed after about a second of thought that this actually meant 10^6. If I had to guess how this happened, somebody just wrote their prose in Word with the 6 in superscript and cut and paste it into HTML which lost the formatting.

I think it's a shame if you consider the whole article (which I personally found very interesting) as slop because of 2 incorrectly formatted numbers that could easily result from a cut-and-paste error. It's clear the article hadn't been well proof read as there are a number of spelling mistakes too, but that doesn't make the content itself slop.

[dpark]

Yeah, but 318 should probably suffice.