21–30 of 202 posts
The fact that RISC-V jumped to Switzerland after being funded by the US during its development makes me inclined to say screw RISC-V. It also makes RISC-V foreign just as the author complains that ARM is foreign. I think placing restrictions on Americans working with PRC on RISC-V related stuff is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
Wasn’t RISC-V developed in the US? And the first company to produce chips with this ISA, SiFive is US based too. Why would it make sense to ban it in the US? They literally invented it.
SiFive launched a chinese subsidiary (StarFive) in 2017/2018. And they just announced they were giving designs for some of their high-end cores to Sophgo (a company out of Beijing.) My guess is US administrators want SiFive to apply for export licenses before they do this again. I pretty much agree w/ Bunnie on this one. I lived through the Crypto(graphy) Wars of 90s and still have my "Sink Clipper" poster around her…
This concern is less about the chips being made here, but controlling the ability for enemy powers to get a hold of them. Consider that "bombing the TSMC facilities" has been considered a possible plan if Taiwan is invaded, because a key goal is ensuring China doesn't control that capability.
It's amazing that the move of RISC-V Foundation to Switzerland (as RISC-V International) was actually called for. Even more amazing is US lawmakers continuing to try & shoot the US in the foot. RISC-V is now globally developed, that ship has sailed. Same for products based on it. The US can't prevent its 'proliferation'. Only reduce the degree to which US entities are part of, and profit from that. Are US lawmakers t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something to look out for in recent years are cultist grassroot investors who organize on Reddit and Twitter to influence politicians to do something that is favorable to their stock and harass journalists and YouTubers who report critically and harm their stock. r/TeslaInvestors and r/AMD_Stock are some of the worst. I can easily imagine some in the latter organizing to get RISC-V banned in the US.
Wonder how much of the pro-Elon nonsense I see here, on Twitter and Reddit is just stockholders who got rich off of Tesla. I like to think that there is some sophisticated automated ML system Elon has got running to find and respond to haters....but then I saw that Youtube video discussing the poor code at Tesla so I dont know what to think anymore.
That makes the company's supporters intolerant of criticism because they've been conditioned to expect criticism to be in bad faith. Which continues even after the short sellers have given up or been eviscerated by margin calls.
This is some dumb shit.
The fact that RISC-V jumped to Switzerland after being funded by the US during its development makes me inclined to say screw RISC-V. It also makes RISC-V foreign just as the author complains that ARM is foreign. I think placing restrictions on Americans working with PRC on RISC-V related stuff is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
are you perhaps referring to some specific company in the RISC-V space? or are you actually saying "damn, foreign actors embraced an idea we originated, guess i've gotta flip positions and decide the idea of an open ISA is bad now"?
It blows my mind that the US keeps treating China, its biggest trade partner, as an enemy. There is no way that China would ever initiate a war against the US. It feels like, if anything, this insistence on treating China as an enemy increases risk for the US.
It's amazing that the move of RISC-V Foundation to Switzerland (as RISC-V International) was actually called for. Even more amazing is US lawmakers continuing to try & shoot the US in the foot. RISC-V is now globally developed, that ship has sailed. Same for products based on it. The US can't prevent its 'proliferation'. Only reduce the degree to which US entities are part of, and profit from that. Are US lawmakers t…
The practical question is, do US lawmakers believe their voters are that dumb? (Mostly yes)
It blows my mind that the US keeps treating China, its biggest trade partner, as an enemy. There is no way that China would ever initiate a war against the US. It feels like, if anything, this insistence on treating China as an enemy increases risk for the US.
However, there are a number of actions China could take against countries other than the US, where the US would either feel obligated to initiate war against China in response; or where US voters might demand the US go to war against China in response.
(And Chinese military analysts are very aware of all of these, drawing big red lines around these parts of strategy-space. Though they're also always re-measuring where these lines land — American public sentiment can waver such that today's "unforgivable" action might be tomorrow's "barely tolerable" action.)
There are also a number of actions China could take against its own citizens, that could "require" the initiation of war against them according to various treaties signed by the US, or even according to "international customary law."
Re: the Genocide Convention:
> Importantly, the Convention establishes on State Parties the obligation to take measures to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, including by enacting relevant legislation and punishing perpetrators, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” (Article IV). That obligation, in addition to the prohibition not to commit genocide, have been considered as norms of international customary law and therefore, binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified the Genocide Convention.
(I.e. a country being clearly labelable as actively committing genocide, historically has been, and continues to be, justification for the initiation of a world war where all previously-neutral countries ally together to invade and stop them from doing this.)