TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic' • Hacker News Board

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#201

Post by hackerfromthefu » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

btgeekboy wrote: post #133

inetknght wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” But, why not?

Remember when someone famously said 640kb of memory ought to be enough for anybody? Imagine if video games' audio/video just stopped improving past the SNES. Imagine if we decided that 56k dialup was good enough. Imagine if we stopped improving cell phone cameras past the iPhone 3G. These things seem pretty low quality now because we've incrementally built so many better things in the interim. The unleaded gasoline o…

While we would have lost some things, we would have avoided problems also.

Such as the massive engineered screen addictions pandemic that afflicts most of the world today, especially the younger generation that never knew any other way.

Or the mountains, rivers and oceans of e-waste. Or decline of physical and mental health from lack of natural physical activity.

There are benefits of course, but it's wise to keep a balanced view on the pros and the cons as well.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#202

Post by hackerfromthefu » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 3:30 AM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #137

dragontamer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. ----- What about a Marine WASP-class assault ship launching helicopters to do the same thing (except cheaper)? ---- What about a few Marine Special Ops units infiltrating the beaches under the cover of darkness to…

> No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation. > Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves. We aren’t striking Russian…

>> facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule.

Isn't that scenario already happening, just with barely plausibly deniability?

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#203

Post by dirtyid » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 4:05 AM UTC

LAC-Tech wrote: post #173

dirtyid wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PRC also unofficially communicated missiles drama weeks ahead to TW, so there wasn't any "crisis" either, but US sent 2 carriers as show of force because it could, knowing PRC had no capabilities to counter. Force balance is different now, and for all the US hyping about increased PLAF flights into TW ADIZ or clipping median line last year, basically another crisis brewing, USN still only sent DDGs for strait transit…

None of these issues constitute a crisis nearly as much as '96 - an alternate interpretation is that the PRC is still terrified of a CSG appearing in the strait so they deliberately do not cross US red lines, even when much closer US/Taiwan relations cross theirs.

Alternate interpretation doesn't jive with analysis last few years that PRC has overwhelming A2D2 advantage in region. The parsimonious explanation is US doesn't want to put CVNs at risk or expose carriers to growing PRC ELINT capabilities, including around SCS islands where FONOPs are also conducted with DDGs or smaller vessels. Lanzhou came within 50 meters of Decatur in SCS a few years back, PLAN hasn't been not scared of US in backyard anymore.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#204

Post by dirtyid » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 4:33 AM UTC

tomatowurst wrote: post #185

dirtyid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> real aircraft carrier USN hasn't had the balls to sail carriers through the strait in 20+ years even under Mike Pompeo at the nadir of US/PRC relations since Nixon. Clinton sent 2 during last TW strait crisis for shits and giggles. Strait transits are down to DDGs and coast guard vessels now. PRC doesn't even need Navy to venture outside the first island chain to destroy East Asia semi, or conduct massive crippling…

If there's a war in East Asia, I would bet against China. It should be clear that having the world's largest standing army don't really matter, we can see what a paper tiger Russia turned out to be and PLA has far worse corruption. Especially since the PLA only has had success fighting its own, it's lost every single war and hasn't fought a major war since losing to Vietnam in a quick war. The US + allies aren't exac…

And largest navy, airforce, and missile capabilities in region with A2D2 bubble to support. I'd like to see any security analysis from last few years that suggests US can divert enough assets in theatre to rival PRC, especially as gap projected to widen with time. Literature in last few years is exactly US+allies worrying because they can't concentrate enough forces in region. It's fascinating how PRC is paper tiger advocates have to draw on outdated facts or three gorges memes to deny reality. Like TW having capability to destroy Three Gorges that require bunker busters larger than any conventional missile can carry. They don't.

Also PRC won vietnam strategically, the kind of victory that matters. Wars are beyond K:D ratios. Plus fought US/UN, USSR when both were nuclear powers and PRC agrarian shitshow and still managed to secure strategic objectives, all of which less significant than TW, while PRC was more ill-equipped. There is 100% chance PRC would fight prolonged war over Taiwan, because it has never not fought over redlines. And like Ukraine, very little chance of substantive outside support simply because everyone else is as or more vulnerable.

Sanction proof = unlike RU, or most PRC trade partners, PRC is comparable to US in terms of trade dependency (not much). And unlike regional US partners, sufficient in domestic resource production to weather war economy for a long time. As well as have enough supply chain dependency over strategic resources like rare earth and leverage over threatening east Asia semi to deter prolonged war at least a few decades. If there's a broader war in East Asia, I would bet against everyone. Including US. Difference is, as with Vietnam, PRC has track record for accepting existential fights.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#205

Post by anamax » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

thorRay8383 wrote: post #158

55873445216111 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practical terms, the government is just too slow to actually help. They always shoot behind the target. The semiconductor market is cyclical. By the time the CHIPS Act, etc, actually get passed and implemented, the market will already be in oversupply and voters/politicians will complain about government handouts for these companies.

In practical terms the government is intentionally hamstrung to appear incompetent: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/... With a vote Congress destroys budgets and the narrative is the PO sucks. Government incompetence is private interest driven propaganda

Govt incompetence is a reality.

You can argue that govt need not be incompetent, but it's foolish to act as if the US govt is competent until it actually is competent.

That's true regardless of how good things could be if the US govt was competent.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#206

Post by dragontamer » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 4:54 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #174

dragontamer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA has plenty of older fabrication labs, and most of our critical technology is probably on 22nm or 40nm nodes (or older). US Military equipment is pretty famously on old nodes / older technology for reliability and supply chain purposes for example. And its probably entirely domestic (Micron, Intel, GloFo). The need for higher-end nodes is almost a "luxury" factor. There's a benefit if the latest iPhones were broug…

> USA has plenty of older fabrication labs Do we? The current, continuing semiconductor shortage argues otherwise. I mean, the fact that a "switching regulator" can go out of stock borders on the absurd unless those fabs are busy producing stuff with higher margins.

https://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/Taiwan-Maintains-E...

"North America" is producing 2,623,000 wafers per month in 2020. In 2014, North America was producing 2,245,000 wafers/month.

And remember: wafers are raw silicon. Since geometry continues to shrink (22nm, 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm), even here in the USA, each wafer is making more and more transistors.

In any case, the issue is one of demand. COVID19 stressed the fab-labs like never before, requiring semiconductors to make laptops, cellphones, cameras and many other components. The car-manufacturing shutdown followed up by the rapid production increase was also a problem.

By all measures, the worldwide supply of chips has increased. Its just that demand has outpaced supply.

---------

It really does seem like the "cryptocoin" industry is eating up a lot of our production capacity. But also the rise in deep-learing platforms (GPUs/TPUs), SSD storage, and other transitions to semiconductors.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#207

Post by acchow » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 6:52 AM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #57

55873445216111 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

I feel like there was a lesson about just-in-time inventory for critical supply chains recently. Perhaps a product as complex, sophisticated and absolutely necessary for a modern society should have government guarantees.

A futures market would give some income stream to anyone who held significant inventories. Wonder how soon we have something like a futures market for semiconductors

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#208

Post by LAC-Tech » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 7:54 AM UTC

dirtyid wrote: post #203

LAC-Tech wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these issues constitute a crisis nearly as much as '96 - an alternate interpretation is that the PRC is still terrified of a CSG appearing in the strait so they deliberately do not cross US red lines, even when much closer US/Taiwan relations cross theirs.

Alternate interpretation doesn't jive with analysis last few years that PRC has overwhelming A2D2 advantage in region. The parsimonious explanation is US doesn't want to put CVNs at risk or expose carriers to growing PRC ELINT capabilities, including around SCS islands where FONOPs are also conducted with DDGs or smaller vessels. Lanzhou came within 50 meters of Decatur in SCS a few years back, PLAN hasn't been not s…

Proof is in the pudding. PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96, Taiwan US relations are much closer than 30 years ago and have crossed many of the PRCs red lines, and the US military capabilities have not been standing still either. Looks like cooler heads have prevailed, which is good news for all three parties.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#209

Post by KSteffensen » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 8:28 AM UTC

peanuty1 wrote: post #113

beamatronic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a certain level of tech IS good enough. A better world for people means education and healthcare, not a 1mm slimmer disposable phone.

Newer chips are also more energy efficient (at least, at the same level of performance).

Does that improved energy efficiency outweigh the energy costs of replacing perfectly capable existing chips?

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#210

Post by dirtyid » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 8:42 AM UTC

LAC-Tech wrote: post #208

dirtyid wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate interpretation doesn't jive with analysis last few years that PRC has overwhelming A2D2 advantage in region. The parsimonious explanation is US doesn't want to put CVNs at risk or expose carriers to growing PRC ELINT capabilities, including around SCS islands where FONOPs are also conducted with DDGs or smaller vessels. Lanzhou came within 50 meters of Decatur in SCS a few years back, PLAN hasn't been not s…

Proof is in the pudding. PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96, Taiwan US relations are much closer than 30 years ago and have crossed many of the PRCs red lines, and the US military capabilities have not been standing still either. Looks like cooler heads have prevailed, which is good news for all three parties.

>Proof is in the pudding.

Which neglects the point that USN aren't using CVNs to conduct FONOP in PRC SCS features that US does not recognize. There's no explanation other than being risk averse considering other developments.

>PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96

The crisis in 96 was US initiated when House passed bill to allow TW president Lee to visit Cornell after first denying him. Current rekindling of US/TW relations have not gone that far, i.e. US haven't renamed Taipei representative office, consistently reasserted One China Policy, maintained strategic ambiguity, the upgrading of diplomatic contact with TW still adheres to PRC redline (not meeting TW Foreign Minister in DC reserved for representative of sovereign states).

Though US is inching closer. Time will tell if cooler heads will prevail, with PRC domestic propaganda now talking about preparing for war if/when US plays TW card. Granted it's retired HuXiJin, but it's not good sign when he escalates spiels from "warning US" mode of last few years to "prepare the country for war", specifically describing "real sense of crisis" over current developments.