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

331–340 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#331

Post by deltaonefour »

tharne wrote: post #327
deltaonefour wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't expect Intel the Corporation to have values, but I do expect the people within Intel who choose where they manufacture or purchase manufactured goods to have qualms about using slave labor for it, supporting a genocide in doing so. Human behavior is remarkably different depending on whether or not I'm the sole person on stage responsible for an action or whether I'm a single anonymous vote.

> Human behavior is remarkably different depending on whether or not I'm the sole person on stage responsible for an action or whether I'm a single anonymous vote. This is exactly it. In a large organization, everyone can mentally offload any responsibility to someone else. The rank and file can say "It's not my decision, the execs told me to do this". The executives can say, "It's the board pushing me to do xyz and…

>are moral but are contributing to an organization that is acting immorally in the aggregate.

I would argue that the individuals are immoral and the corporations foster conditions that reveal this fundamental immorality that is usually hidden. We only act moral if there's a consequence detrimental to ourselves.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#332

Post by amerikkkan »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #111
simion314 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>slave labour in concentration camps Not an english speaker, so is Is "slave" correctly used here or is more like a "metaphor"?, In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill. Someone you keep in prison is called different and people kept in prison for political reasons have also different label, religions/race imprisonment might also have a different label.

[flagged]

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#334

Post by amerikkkan »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #213
VictorPath wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#335

Post by salawat »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #185
trasz wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So essentially something that's considered perfectly normal in American prisons. Bit of a double standards, don't you think?

Quoted post unavailable.

...That is factually incorrect. In fact, conviction for a crime is the only Constitutionally valid circumstance under which one can be enslaved in the United States.

So there is, in fact, involuntary forced labor in the United States. It does also cause issues, as prison conscripted labor can undercut any semblance of normal rates for menial/unskilled labor.

That being said, the previous posters advising this does not negate the enormity of Chinese misconduct, or one's calling it out with similar domestic issues is not an effective or valid form of rhetorical dismissal. The drunk, as it were, is still right to call you out to hand over your keys after a few too many drinks.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#336

Post by eunos »

mlindner wrote: post #84
eunos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this happens when the Chinese economy is still smaller than the US along with their lack of mastery in certain state-of-the-art semiconductor and aerospace tech. When the Chinese economy and tech hopefully match the US, the pressure gonna be enormous. Can't wait to see that day, my newsfeed will be so exciting.

Your newsfeed will tell you want to hear and nothing else while the world destroys itself around you and you blissfully ignorant of it.

> while the world destroys itself

I don't realize how vain the America is (I assume). Losing advantage in aero and semiconductor tech means destruction of the world? really?.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#337

Post by network2592 »

rjzzleep wrote: post #311
network2592 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have data on the quantity of chips rather than overall revenue? You claim this figure is meaningless. In the absence of reliable data, we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips. But, it is certainly not meaningless.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#338

Post by yakz »

trasz wrote: post #324
jchook wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at this from a larger perspective. US killed a million random civilians in an attempt to to squash terrorism - and largely failed. China appears to have achieved this in an incomparably more humanitarian way. If this works out, this means: 1. USA failed (again) 2. They committed world's largest genocide since WW2 3. For no good reason This is an absolutely terrible outcome from PR point of view, so it's natural…

This has absolutely nothing to do with Intel or Xinjiang.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#339

Post by network2592 »

simion314 wrote: post #92
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…

>slave labour in concentration camps Not an english speaker, so is Is "slave" correctly used here or is more like a "metaphor"?, In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill. Someone you keep in prison is called different and people kept in prison for political reasons have also different label, religions/race imprisonment might also have a different label.

This comment seems in earnest. So I will assume, as a non native English speaker, you have probably heard the expression "that I feel like a slave at work".

This is not what is meant by slave in this context. It is not a feeling. Modern slavery is a fact [0]. Xinjiang concentration camps count as modern slavery. Of course, China is not the only country concerned. But it does not mean that we should not point it out in China.

There are some comments that this should be described as something else - perhaps forced labor. Uyghurs in Xinjiang are deprived not only of their labor rights but also every other right from reproductive to cultural and everything in between.

Slaves essentially have no rights. Uyghurs essentially have no rights. So no, forced labor is not the right term.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#340

Post by ei8htyfi5e »

salawat wrote: post #335
ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

...That is factually incorrect. In fact, conviction for a crime is the only Constitutionally valid circumstance under which one can be enslaved in the United States. So there is, in fact, involuntary forced labor in the United States. It does also cause issues, as prison conscripted labor can undercut any semblance of normal rates for menial/unskilled labor. That being said, the previous posters advising this does no…

And I learned something today https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/work_programs.j...
Post reply on HN