Is there a massively powerful supercomputer being developed in Japan?
Question: I heard a new supercomputer is being developed, right?
Answer: Yes, it will be the successor to the "Fugaku" supercomputer run by Riken, Japan's national research and development agency, in Kobe. Fugaku has a computing power of about 440 quadrillion calculations per second, but its successor is expected to surpass this by 5 to 10 times when it enters service around 2030.
Q: What's so special about Fugaku?
A: Fugaku was jointly developed by Riken and Fujitsu Ltd. as a national project and began full-scale operation in March 2021. Its main feature is that it can perform calculations at ultrahigh speed compared to ordinary computers, allowing for analysis using large amounts of data. It has higher computing power than its predecessor, "K," which ceased operation in August 2019, and offers a wide range of industrial uses. Fugaku previously topped the worldwide supercomputer performance rankings.
Q: How has it been useful?
A: It achieved the world's first real-time prediction of sudden heavy rain, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it simulated how droplets spread through coughing and conversation, suggesting ways to reduce infection risk. Research results in a wide range of fields using Fugaku have had an impact on society.
Q: What can we expected from Fugaku's successor?
A: It will be equipped with graphics processing units (GPUs), which are considered optimal for artificial intelligence (AI) learning, allowing it to be used for rapidly advancing research utilizing AI. It is expected to be utilized in cutting-edge research that integrates AI more than ever before. It will be possible to use it in a wider range of fields than the current version of Fugaku, including studying whether extreme weather intensifying due to climate change can be controlled, researching autonomous driving technology, and developing new medicines.
The global race to develop supercomputers is accelerating, but a Riken representative stated, "We aim to create a next-generation supercomputer that can be widely used by society, without being fixated on rankings."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
2 days ago
- Japan Today
Vaccines hold tantalizing promise in the fight against dementia
By Anand Kumar and Jalees Rehman Over the past two centuries, vaccines have been critical for preventing infectious diseases. The World Health Organization estimates that vaccination prevents between 3 million and 5 million deaths annually from diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, influenza, measles and, more recently, COVID-19. While there has long been broad scientific consensus that vaccines prevent or mitigate the spread of infections, there is new research suggesting that the therapeutic impact might go beyond the benefit of preventing infectious diseases. An April study published in the prominent journal Nature found tantalizing evidence that the herpes zoster – or shingles – vaccine could lower the risk of dementia in the general population by as much as 20%. We are a team of physician scientists with expertise in the clinical and basic science of neurodegenerative disorders and dementia. We believe that this study potentially opens the door to other breakthroughs in understanding and treating dementia and other degenerative disorders of the brain. A role for vaccines in reducing dementia risk? One of the major challenges researchers face when trying to study the effects of vaccines is finding an unvaccinated 'control group' for comparison – a group that is similar to the vaccine group in all respects, save for the fact that they haven't received the active vaccine. That's because it's unethical to assign some patients to the control group and deprive them of vaccine protection against a disease such as shingles. The Nature study took advantage of a policy change in Wales that went into effect in 2013, stating that people born on or after September 2, 1933, were eligible for the herpes zoster vaccination for at least a year, while those born before that cutoff date were not. The vaccine was administered to prevent shingles, a painful condition caused by the same virus that causes chickenpox, which can lie dormant in the body and be reactivated later in life. The researchers used the policy change as a natural laboratory of sorts to study the effect of shingles vaccination on long-term health outcomes. In a statistically sophisticated analysis of health records, the team found that the vaccine reduced the probability of getting dementia by one-fifth over a seven-year period. This means that people who received the shingles vaccine were less likely to develop clinical dementia over the seven-year follow-up period, and women benefited more than men. The study design allowed researchers to compare two groups without actively depriving any one group of access to vaccination. The two groups were also of comparable age and had similar medical comorbidities – meaning similar rates of other medical conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure. Results from this and other related studies raise the possibility that vaccines may have a broader role in experimental therapeutics outside the realm of infectious diseases. These studies also raise provocative questions about how vaccines work and how our immune system can potentially prevent dementia. How vaccines might be protective One scientific explanation for the reduction of dementia by the herpes zoster vaccine could be the direct protection against the shingles virus, which may play a role in exacerbating dementia. However, there is also the possibility that the vaccine may have conferred protection by activating the immune system and providing 'trained immunity,' in which the immune system is strengthened by repeated exposure to vaccines or viruses. The study did not differentiate between different types of dementia, such as dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or dementia due to stroke. Additionally, researchers cannot draw any definitive conclusions about possible mechanisms for how the vaccines could be protective from an analysis of health records alone. The next step would be a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study – the 'gold standard' for clinical trials in medicine – to directly examine how the herpes zoster vaccine compares with a placebo in their ability to reduce the risk of dementia over time. Such studies are necessary before any vaccines, as well as other potential therapies, can be recommended for routine clinical use in the prevention of dementia. The challenges of untangling dementia Dementia is a major noncommunicable disease that is a leading cause of death around the world. A January 2025 study provided updated figures on lifetime dementia risk across different subsets of the U.S. population. The researchers estimate that the lifetime risk of dementia after age 55 is 42% – more than double earlier estimates. The dementia risk was 4% by age 75, and 20% by age 85, with the majority of risk occurring after 85. The researchers projected that the number of new cases of dementia in the U.S. would double over the next four decades from approximately 514,000 cases in 2020 to 1 million in 2060. Once considered a disease largely confined to the developed world, the deleterious effects of dementia are now apparent throughout the globe, as life expectancy increases in many formerly developing countries. While there are different forms of dementia with varying clinical manifestations and underlying neurobiology, Alzheimer's disease is the most common. Prospective studies that specifically test how giving a vaccine changes the risk for future dementia may benefit from studying patient populations with specific types of dementia because each version of dementia might require distinct treatments. Unfortunately, for the past two to three decades, the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease – which posits that accumulation of a protein called amyloid in the brain contributes to the disorder – dominated the scientific conversation. As a result, most of the efforts in the experimental therapeutics of Alzheimer's disease have focused on drugs that lower the levels of amyloid in the brain. However, results to date have been modest and disappointing. The two recently approved amyloid-lowering therapies have only a minimal impact on slowing the decline, are expensive and have potentially serious side effects. And no drug currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for clinical use reverses the cognitive decline. Studies based on health records suggest that past exposure to viruses increase the risk of dementia, while routine vaccines, including those against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, pneumonia, shingles and others, reduce the risk. Innovation and an open mind There is sometimes a tendency among scientists to cling to older, familiar models of disease and a reluctance to move in more unconventional directions. Yet the process of doing science has a way of teaching researchers like us humility, opening our minds to new information, learning from our mistakes and going where that data takes us in our quest for effective, lifesaving therapies. Vaccines may be one of those paths less traveled. It is an exciting possibility that may open the door to other breakthroughs in understanding and treating degenerative disorders of the brain. Anand Kumar is Professor and Department Head of Psychiatry, University of Illinois Chicago. Jalees Rehman is Department Chair and Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Illinois Chicago. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Yomiuri Shimbun
7 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Plans 100% Tariff on Computer Chips, Unless Companies Build in US
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will impose a 100% tariff on computer chips, raising the specter of higher prices for electronics, autos, household appliances and other essential products dependent on the processors powering the digital age. 'We'll be putting a tariff of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors,' Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting with Apple CEO Tim Cook. 'But if you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge.' The announcement came more than three months after Trump temporarily exempted most electronics from his administration's most onerous tariffs. The Republican president said companies that make computer chips in the U.S. would be spared the import tax. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of computer chips increased the price of autos and contributed to higher inflation. Investors seemed to interpret the potential tariff exemptions as a positive for Apple and other major tech companies that have been making huge financial commitments to manufacture more chips and other components in the U.S.. Big Tech already has made collective commitments to invest about $1.5 trillion in the U.S. since Trump moved back into the White House in January. That figure includes a $600 billion promise from Apple after the iPhone maker boosted its commitment by tacking another $100 billion on to a previous commitment made in February. Now the question is whether the deal brokered between Cook and Trump will be enough to insulate the millions of iPhones made in China and India from the tariffs that the administration has already imposed and reduce the pressure on the company to raise prices on the new models expected to be unveiled next month. Wall Street certainly seems to think so. After Apple's stock price gained 5% in Wednesday regular trading sessions, the shares rose by another 3% in extended trading after Trump announced some tech companies won't be hit with the latest tariffs while Cook stood alongside him. The shares of AI chipmaker Nvidia, which also has recently made big commitments to the U.S., rose slightly in extended trading to add to the $1 trillion gain in market value the Silicon Valley company has made since the start of Trump's second administration. The stock price of computer chip pioneer Intel, which has fallen on hard times, also climbed in extended trading. Inquiries sent to chip makers Nvidia and Intel were not immediately answered. The chip industry's main trade group, the Semiconductor Industry Association, declined to comment on Trump's latest tariffs. Demand for computer chips has been climbing worldwide, with sales increasing 19.6% in the year-ended in June, according to the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics organization. Trump's tariff threats mark a significant break from existing plans to revive computer chip production in the U.S. that were drawn up during the administration of President Joe Biden. Since taking over from Biden, Trump has been deploying tariffs to incentivize more domestic production. Essentially, the president is betting that the threat of dramatically higher chip costs would force most companies to open factories domestically, despite the risk that tariffs could squeeze corporate profits and push up prices for mobile phones, TVs and refrigerators. By contrast, the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act that Biden signed into law in 2022 provided more than $50 billion to support new computer chip plants, fund research and train workers for the industry. The mix of funding support, tax credits and other financial incentives were meant to draw in private investment, a strategy that Trump has vocally opposed.
Japan Today
7 days ago
- Japan Today
How conspiracy theories about COVID's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
By Edward C Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Kristian Andersen and obert Garry In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID. The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis. SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support 'a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach'. This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan, and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals – a 'zoonosis' – caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China. Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the 'preferred' hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centers. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals – including raccoon dogs and civets – on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. Edward C Holmes is NHMRC Leadership Fellow and Professor of Virology, University of Sydney. Andrew Rambaut is Professor of Molecular Evolution, University of Edinburgh. Kristian Andersen is Professor and Director of Infectious Disease Genomics, The Scripps Research Institute; and Robert Garry is Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane University. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
