211–220 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you all really here in 2022, being like "we can't risk a Chinese national from even seeing our American semiconductor research, they will steal it and use it against us?" There are a number of issues at play here and I can speak to several of them, having either helped the federal government directly or having knowledge of industrial espionage in my industry at the time (semiconductors). Some technology is expo…
I am a professor in the field of cryptography and there are export restrictions here as well. Under no circumstances would I allow the US government to block publication of my papers or talks based on the theory that my speech is “a technology export.” It’s not even clear that this would be allowed under the First Amendment. The government could obviously try to advance that theory, but I strongly suspect they would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It seems like the details matter here. Were the affiliations suspect but not reportable? Or were the affiliations unremarkable and not reportable but prosecutors screwed up?
According to the article the State discovered, way late, that the kind of ties he had with China were not of the kind they assumed guilt of and heavily publicized when they went to destroy his professional life, but instead of the kind people have when they are born elsewhere. When they did find out about this, they instead tried to make him admit to some other non criminal kind of ties to justify their ruining of hi…
Not to excuse the behavior, but more highlighting what contributes to it.
Once a prosecutor thinks he has a case against you, you’re pretty fucked to be honest because it rare for them to ever admit fault or back down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you are of course aware, but perhaps some people reading this are not, the government did consistently advance the theory that publication of speech about cryptography was "a technology export" subject to export control --- specifically, cryptographic source code --- until Bernstein v. United States , which required a several-years-long court battle. You were a country that values free speech. Now you are a countr…
*jokes are hard
To at least attempt to think about this critically, and to try to ignore the amount of frankly shocking things people are saying here, can I ask, maybe from people in the field, is this level of industrial/scientific espionage even a critical factor in our current world? We live in a global world where scientists in various institutions are constantly trading papers, findings. Why are we so worried that the U.S. migh…
It does happen, even at university level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst part is he spirit has been crushed; he can no longer work for fear of irrational and frankly random political views and actions detrimental to his health, his research, and his family. If he is to continue and regain an amount of his former life, I wager it can only occur after leaving the USA permanently.
Quoted post unavailable.
We're talking about the former head of MIT's mech eng department here, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and an academician of Academia Sinica. The "necessary pedigree and web of connections to really kick ass" at research don't come from your parents; they come from your advisor and your research. His advisor was Chang-lin Tien, the Chancellor at Berkeley.
Your insulting comment is shameful and does not belong on this site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the primary export of the United States? > Are you all really here in 2022, being like "we can't risk a Chinese national from even seeing our American semiconductor research, they will steal it and use it against us?" Are actual scientists concerned? Or just the state, and apparently most of the fellow commenters? It’s intellectual property. The majority of the worlds cutting edge research are designed, develo…
The majority, really? TSMC's fabs are in Taiwan, using ASML machines from the Netherlands. Much of their chips run ARM, from Cambridge. As I look at my tabs, I see Google Maps (invented by an Australian in Sydney), and Spotify (from Sweden). The world is far, far, bigger than the USA; and as an Australian, I'd say it's extremely pretentious or naive to think the US has a 'majority' of cutting edge tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the primary export of the United States? > Are you all really here in 2022, being like "we can't risk a Chinese national from even seeing our American semiconductor research, they will steal it and use it against us?" Are actual scientists concerned? Or just the state, and apparently most of the fellow commenters? It’s intellectual property. The majority of the worlds cutting edge research are designed, develo…
The majority, really? TSMC's fabs are in Taiwan, using ASML machines from the Netherlands. Much of their chips run ARM, from Cambridge. As I look at my tabs, I see Google Maps (invented by an Australian in Sydney), and Spotify (from Sweden). The world is far, far, bigger than the USA; and as an Australian, I'd say it's extremely pretentious or naive to think the US has a 'majority' of cutting edge tech.
For sure, ASML did the “final mile” in perfecting EUV and making it work in a production environment vs the prototypes in the labs 20 years ago, but I don’t think the funding that the US government and consortium members dumped on decades of research should be swept under the rug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class struggle is the engine of history. Whether that fact is healthy for myself personally or not has no bearing on its truth. The company I work for keeps more of the value I create than they pay me. Whether I like it or not, I'm working class and in direct opposition to capitalists.
1) I doubt you're actually working class, even if you're working for money 2) Capitalism is a decentralized system of allocating resources. By working and investing (even if just owning a retirement plan), you are taking part in it all. You may now collect your monocle and top hat. 3) Getting paid some fraction between 0 and 1 of the value you create is a fact of nature for all actors in the system. The company has t…
It depends on one's definition of _working well_. The neoliberal economic school would wholeheartedly agree. But the disproportionate distribution of gains since the early 1980's says otherwise. Of course, that's a values-laden discussion that's probably not a great fit for HN. If the system works immeasurably well for the 0.1% and dreadfully for the bottom 20% such that on average the GDP trend is positive, is the system working well? The system has been resilient, but I'm afraid I'd don't know what the corrective forces are any longer, given the dysfunctional state of the political enterprise in much of the world.