Live data from Hacker News

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

nasdaq.com

311–320 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#311
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is for it's suppliers and partners. Examples of this would be Intel supplying chips to Lenovo, who are based in Beijing and who may have some components sources from that region, or Intel's fabs sourcing Silicon or other manufacturing materials (or their suppliers) from that region. Supply chains are broad and it's not hard to have goods that pass through or originate in those regions even if all your parts are pr…

Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source chips from somewhere else. But as far as suppliers, and chips in particular, CCP has very little leverage. Most chips are manufactured in Taiwan [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...

That graph says nothing. It's just talking about revenue. TSMC obviously has the biggest slice of the cake, but they produce the highest volume of premium chips. Most of what the world consumes are not in fact premium chips.

Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#312

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.

No. Every injustice, no matter where it happened, is deserving of critique and being dragged to the spotlight.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#313
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

[flagged]

Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how bad another comment is or you feel it is. It only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Insinuating astroturfing or shillage without evidence is strictly against the rules. Overwhelmingly (and that's an understatement), this is a marker of a bad HN comment. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Also, tired internet tropes (and canned arguments) like 'whataboutism' are intrinsically unsubstantive. Please don't do that either. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#314

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…

People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not, the fact is that hundreds of millions of people (vast majority) are happy to live under ccp, just as {insert number} are happy to live under {insert country}. We can try to convince ourselves this isn't the case, but I don't exactly see progressive programmers giving up their massive Big Tech salaries as protest. No, they're happy to support whatev…

A few years ago, I would recommend anyone (in the US) who had the opportunity to visit China do so. It's an eye-opening experience seeing the comfortable middle-class lifestyle in China for yourself (and of course the general cultural differences), meanwhile being aware of the abuses perpetrated behind the scenes. Provides a different perspective on the narrative about China you read about in the west. Not saying that narrative is wrong, necessarily, but neither is it the entire story, and the entire story sheds light on the story of the west in return.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not, the fact is that hundreds of millions of people (vast majority) are happy to live under ccp, just as {insert number} are happy to live under {insert country}. We can try to convince ourselves this isn't the case, but I don't exactly see progressive programmers giving up their massive Big Tech salaries as protest. No, they're happy to support whatev…

> People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not Yet there are no movies being made where the US triumphs over China.

The reason US isn't doing that is because currently everyone in the west is essentially using China to build stuff that's too toxic or dangerous to build here. It would cost a fortune to produce plastics and other cheap things in the west with regulations and labor laws. We also know the harms of industrialization having gone through it in the past, so offshore it. The west sends it off to the lowest bidder (China), and leave them to deal with the repercussions.

Similar to how the British Empire introduced opium to the Chinese in the 1800s to extract silver and trade, the US/West is taking moral Ls to just use the Chinese once again. In turn, the Chinese do their version of this in S. China Sea and Africa.

If played right, there's a possibility of making the opposing side implode, so its no surprise all sides engage in the game. Supply chain issues, wars, pandemics - these suck but they're nothing new to human history.

Ignore the noise you hear on twitter, and elsewhere. Very similar to work settings, where the public channels are all fabulous and cheery to keep the workers going but the cold, tough decisions are made in private channels or offline.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are tribalistic and end of the day whether you like it or not Yet there are no movies being made where the US triumphs over China.

That's because one of the key beliefs of the ruling tribe in the US is that tribalism is bad, ironically.

Also that money is good, and China is the world's largest market. It's extremely ironic that China has managed to leverage capitalist interests against the US.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a really hard time understanding how we're supposed to stop this kind of thing, not just on the internet in general and not this comment in particular but on this site in particular. HN has rules against accusations of bad faith, and they work 99% of the time, and I try hard not accuse an individual comment of being in bad faith even if I strongly suspect it. But it seems so obvious by looking at any thread ab…

I mean anytime someone whataboutisms literal ongoing genocide, it's bad faith, period. Whether it's someone working directly on behalf of the CCP or an individual self-motivated nationalist or even a foreigner that's fallen for CCP global propaganda is irrelevant. It's bad faith, and in my opinion, outright malicious.

I think "bad faith" suggests you are not being honest, like you know you're wrong or making a fallacious argument but you're saying it anyways. In that sense, an individual nationalist, a foreigner who's fallen for the propaganda, both cases would not necessarily be "bad faith". I agree that denying or minimizing an ongoing genocide is pure evil.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? I don't think it would come to that at any rate, at least not in an all out war sense

>Haven't there been some recent reports that the U.S. might actually not fare so well against China in direct conflict? By CCP propagandists and agency leaders trying to retain or increase their funding, sure lol. China has nowhere close to the supply chain, materiel, experience, or quality tech necessary to challenge the US in direct conflict. They have virtually no original military R&D. It's just poorly reverse en…

China has tons of domestic military R&D. For example, for decades the US dismissed hypersonic antiship missiles on the basis that the plasma would hinder terminal guidance.

A few years ago China demonstrated the first hit of a moving target by a ballistic missile, which works out to have been in hypersonic flight during terminal guidance.

A few years later, the Russians are now demonstrating routine strikes of moving targets using hypersonic cruise missiles, which demonstrates that they managed to fix the issue.

A few days ago, some data came out on how exactly they managed to do this - not only did the Chinese managed to get active radar working through hypersonic flight at lower altitudes, they also apparently managed to get optical/infrared sensors working by redirecting airflow and injecting chilled air in order to disrupt plasma formation.

Meanwhile, the US is still trying to figure out sustained hypersonic flight (and failing most tests), while the Chinese and Russians have long since moved on to making guidance more reliable.

If you read various publications from the US Navy, they claim that hypersonic missiles will be defeated by killchain disruption (ie, jamming and staying far enough away). This entire strategy is predicated on the assumption that optical guidance of a missile in hypersonic flight is impossible. Now that the Chinese seem to have demonstrated it, there is no feasible defence.

So while they're not better than the West at building jet engines, they clearly are ahead in multiple technologies, and they are clearly trying to use these novel technologies to seize an advantage without needing to catch up on everything that came before.

Another scenario where this has been done. If the US was indeed somehow able to get legions of 5th generation aircraft close enough to disrupt Chinese operations, conventional doctrine would be to make your own, better, fighter aircraft, and duke it out.

Now the Chinese don't want to do that. It would be expensive, and the US already has a lead. So instead of developing stealthier and better fighters with technology it would take years to achieve, they instead made a fighter that is moreso stealthy from the frontal aspect, but much more superior kinematically - the J-20 flies much higher and faster than the F-35. From this kinematic advantage, it is designed to impart an advantage to an already much better missile, which is then designed to strike EW/AWACS aircraft from afar (300+km) without being detected until it's much too late. And by all accounts this would work.

Once that is done, they are in a position where they have the most advanced air defences on the planet, and in mind-boggling numbers. From there on, the combined advantage from both air defences and competent air forces means that it will be very difficult for anyone else to operate. So by focusing on other technologies, where they have gained an advantage, they can exploit their unique situation (operating near their borders) to nullify US technological advantages in other fields.

Beyond that, the US does have an interest in trying to convey it's military strength. Their are US Generals on public record stating that they are trying to portray US military technology as scarily as possible to intimidate foreign actors and to boost sales.

All in all, this kind of reasoning is stupid, wrong, and is probably exactly what the Chinese would love to hear.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's huge a difference between a WW2 documentary accurately depicting the axis and allies, and the US films of the 1980's that were all anti middle-eastern / north african propaganda of wars that never happened. I believe the comment you are replying to is addressing the latter. "Any kid can conquer Libya just give him a fighter plane." - Dead Kennedys, "Rambozo the Clown"

I have a feeling that the Dead Kennedys would not be in favor of editing artwork to avoid offending anyone.

There's a difference between being racist and speaking truth to power.

Jello Biafra was powerfully anti-racism, which is what this thread is about. He punched up.

Post reply on HN