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

211–220 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#211

Post by baybal2 »

michaelt wrote: post #149
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?

Intel is chopped up into tens of millions of tiny slices, and everyone with any form of retirement savings has a handful through some sort of fund. Generally these people barely know they're shareholders, they receive none of the paperwork needed to vote at the AGM, they have a slice several orders of magnitude too small to exert any influence, and they have no way of identifying or contacting other shareholders to t…

> Anyone who expects X to be done by shareholders is going to be disappointed.

It's the general problem of public ownership of means of production.

Public companies don't work. Stock market provides heck a lot of wrong incentives.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#212

Post by vorpalhex »

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.

We are cracking down on slave labor supply chains. We are merely starting with the worst offender: China.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#213

Post by ei8htyfi5e »

VictorPath wrote: post #207
ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #129

[flagged]

> From looking at the downvotes on this post, I believe they are on this thread downvoting posts that no moral people should have business downvoting. Just be aware. voicing an opinion that doesn’t get upvotes doesn’t mean it isn’t agreed with. If someone looks at this OP, you see most of the flagged and dead posts are from the few people who question the continual US anti-China (anti-Iran, anti-Cuba, anti-Venezuela,…

[flagged]

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#214

Post by bredren »

defaultprimate wrote: post #175
mmaunder wrote: post #166

What I find most dangerous about the United States bending to the will of China via their corporations is that it's affecting our story telling. The stories we tell define how we remember history, who our heroes are and what we think is worth fighting for. In 2012 the script of Red Dawn (a remake) was changed so that it was the North Koreans invading the US rather than the Chinese. This was done to avoid provoking th…

It's something I've stated repeatedly: The most dangerous part of China is not its military or nukes (they're actually hardly an offensive threat at all). It's how effective their global propaganda, cultural warfare, and data harvesting techniques are. You don't need nukes when you can destabilize and divide an entire country from within while having everything you need and more to psychologically manipulate the popu…

This is why I suspect the attack on the 2016 US election was the most cost-effective intelligence operation in history.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#215

Post by ahiknsr »

999900000999 wrote: post #197
harpersealtako wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interned prisoners in Xinjiang, China are detained with no due process without having ever committed a crime. They are systematically forced to abandon their religion, their culture, and their identity. They are tortured physically and mentally, with beatings, and electric shocks, and waterboarded. They are forcibly sterilized. They are brainwashed as a condition to even be fed, which they are often not. There is for…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder Kid was held without trial for 3 years. I'm not saying who's worse, I'm saying we need to do better before we critic others. https://eji.org/issues/children-in-prison/ We put kids in prison here.

> I'm not saying who's worse, I'm saying we need to do better before we critic others.

why can't we do both at the same time?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#216

Post by reaperducer »

bravo22 wrote: post #78
burkaman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.

No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction. A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of…

They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for.

Under which law? Plenty of corporate boards do things their shareholders don't like every day.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#217

Post by ravenstine »

mmaunder wrote: post #166

What I find most dangerous about the United States bending to the will of China via their corporations is that it's affecting our story telling. The stories we tell define how we remember history, who our heroes are and what we think is worth fighting for. In 2012 the script of Red Dawn (a remake) was changed so that it was the North Koreans invading the US rather than the Chinese. This was done to avoid provoking th…

Is it possible that this "highest grossing film" figure is inflated?

I actually found a copy of the film and watched it over a month ago. While there were no subtitles for English, based on the production quality, I don't think it's a form of entertainment that would pass for "great" in the west or many other countries. Not that it's poor quality, but there are aspects of it that were cheap-ish. I'm talking explosions and artillery impacts that clearly look like squibs going off on cue, which is something most mainstream entertainment has either moved beyond or done a better job of making look realistic. The acting in some parts appeared over the top, while on the other hand they clearly struggled to find good White actors who could speak English and wanted to appear in this film.

To be fair, I the film appears to be of decent effort and wasn't the sort of disaster I was expecting it to be.

If you're a Chinese citizen and your dear leaders want you to see this film, are you not going to see it? And if you're in another country like Russia, wouldn't The Battle at Lake Changjin be at least a neat curiosity in that there's finally a film where the Americans aren't just the good guys?

Even then, should we not also suspect some form of shenanigans? I don't have evidence for it, but the CCP isn't really known for being not corrupted. They certainly have an interest in making sure its population is on board with a conflict with the United States.

All that to say that I think we should keep these things in perspective. There was a time when a film being the highest grossing meant something. Does it still mean the same thing in the streaming era? Does it mean the same thing in China as it does in the US?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#218

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #209
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have Twitter here though.

How are you going to cancel someone if they already aren't listening to you? Gunna place thousands of calls to their employer? Mail them awful things in the mail? Un follow them? I know you were joking but come on. There's no way to cancel something external. In order to cancel them, they need to buy into your system and have shame, something the CCP does not have.

The same way any cancellation works: refuse to buy stuff made in China. Boycott Amazon until it stops selling Chinese stuff. Don't watch Chinese movies. And so on.

The subject of the cancellation doesn't have to use Twitter. The consumers should - which is perfectly the case here.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#219

Post by reaperducer »

FredPret wrote: post #73
burkaman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.

Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.

Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest.

It's not a one-way street.

Management can do things, and if the shareholders don't like it, they can sell their shares in protest.

Happens all the time.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#220

Post by jchook »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #165
jchook wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A million people in a concentration camp” says US state agencies who tried to prevent the UN from investigating and Adrian Zenz commissioned by the BBC. Let’s ask the UN what they think about China’s response to terrorism in Xinjiang after investigating. > Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang, including…

Quoted post unavailable.

Let’s ask the World Bank[1].

> In line with standard practice, immediately after receiving a series of serious allegations in August 2019 in connection with the Xinjiang Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project, the Bank launched a fact-finding review, and World Bank senior managers traveled to Xinjiang to gather information directly. After receiving the allegations, no disbursements were made on the project.

> The team conducted a thorough review of project documents, engaged in discussions with project staff, and visited schools directly financed by the project, as well as their partner schools that were the subject of allegations.

> The review did not substantiate the allegations.

1. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2019/11/11/world...

Post reply on HN