Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#101

Post by sdk16420 »

rastapasta42 wrote: post #89
999900000999 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Big difference is that Uyghurs are not rapists and murderers, and they didn't commit crimes. What's wrong with prison labor in US? Those criminals committed acts deemed bad for society. We could either pay for them to stay in a fancy hotel, or make them pay back debt to society. This is not comparable to imprisoning people based on ethnicity.

What is a crime depends on local legislation. Being homosexual is a crime in many countries, hence there is still nothing wrong with 'criminals' performing forced labour?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#102

Post by vmception »

network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

Looks like you skipped their revised statement.

I would also ignore or mildly chuckle at any government that thinks they can force me to have an opinion. Ignore for small market, mildly chuckle at big market.

If they want me to color an island on a map the same color as another landmass, or make a statement about my extended supply chain, I will do so and not pretend like it's any different just because some of my friends happen to respect one country slightly more all because they repeated a creepy chant every day as children in grade school.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#104

Post by ei8htyfi5e »

jchook wrote: post #94
network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

It’s economic warfare against a destabilized region that only recently quelled constant terrorism. The US casts a blanket assumption that ALL products from the region are produced by slave labor unless proven otherwise. That’s backwards. And meanwhile US government and corporations have no problem buying products produced by US prison slave labor, or overseas child labor.

It’s absolutely not backwards. When you have a million people in a concentration camp in a given region, and China is known for shipping these slaves around their country to work in factories, to make sanctions and targeted policies more difficult to apply, can you maybe see why a rule of thumb has been created black listing an entire region? This is their choice. Cause. Effect.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#105

Post by baybal2 »

bravo22 wrote: post #87
baybal2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Good question, who are Intel shareholders?

Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.

That's even worse, as this means somebody takes your money, and pay somebody to stooge for China without you knowing.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#106

Post by syki »

mlindner wrote: post #81
syki wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China the government tells companies what to do in the furtherance of state aims. In America and elsewhere companies tell government what to do in furtherance of corporate aims. For instance the overthrow of governments on behalf of banana companies and oil companies. What we see now is China exerting influence and power and we aren’t accustomed to having another country do this toward our companies/interests.

This is a rather skewed and incorrect view of history. In America and elsewhere companies do not dictate policy. They can help edge it in a direction they want, but the large swings of policy are out of their control. More so you're generalizing America to the entire west and excluding other Asian countries like Japan.

Clearly what I wrote was a broad over simplification but I think the essence is roughly correct. As it stands now companies in China are definitely subservient to the state. The communist party there is definitely in the driver seat. In America corporate interests dominate policy making. U.S. foreign policy has definitely been bent to serve corporate interests and domestic policy in many areas are enacted to serve corporate interests. There are many instances of corporations mostly dictating policy in the U.S. I don’t claim all policy is at the behest of corporations.

Roughly speaking one can view the difference between China and the U.S. as follows. In China corporations serve CCCP interests and in the U.S. government serves corporate (highest bidder) interests.

I should not have said “other countries” in my original post. There are, currently, no other countries than China and the U.S. in terms of scale and influence.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#108

Post by 999900000999 »

propertymagnate wrote: post #91
999900000999 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Maybe let's start with the easy stuff then, given that it's genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/19/california-f...

> The investigations sparked by her case, which is featured in the documentary Belly of the Beast, showed hundreds of inmates had been sterilized in prisons without proper consent as late as 2010, even though the practice was by then illegal.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#109

Post by AYBABTME »

gspr wrote: post #40
jonnycomputer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.

> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.

My guess is it's easy to "spread" guilt around, so that everyone feels like it's out of their hands and they're not entirely responsible for the facts.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#110

Post by network2592 »

mlindner wrote: post #70
network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

> To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are primarily designed in the USA and manufactured in Taiwan. Intel has fabs all over the world, including many in the US and some in China[1]. Whenever people talk about chip manufacturing they seem to only think about high-end cutting edge processes, when in fact the majority of quantity of chips produced are at non-cutting edge f…

Is there any critical non interchangeable raw material that goes into Intel chips for which CCP has exclusive global control?

Xinjiang has some silica mines [0] which may go into silicon production. Presumably, that is a critical material for Intel. Can it be sourced elsewhere? Is that the leverage the CCP has over Intel?

[0] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3139062/u...

Post reply on HN