Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V • Hacker News Board

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#61

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

FpUser wrote: post #44

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung and TSMC may be in foreign countries, but the key thing is both South Korea and Taiwan are very closely aligned with the United States for defense. 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 doe…

>"enemy powers" Do you trade with the enemy? That's a traitor's domain. Or they're rather competitors you are not happy with and scared that they beat you at the game? Get off you butt and do something productive then.

> Do you trade with the enemy? That's a traitor's domain. Or they're rather competitors you are not happy with and scared that they beat you at the game?

Both can be true at the same time, e.g. Europe buying gas and oil from Russia. Realpolitik is often very messy to navigate, not made easier by the fact that we have collectively decided to tie our fates to Russia (for cheap energy) and China (for cheap production) and that decision is coming back home with a vengeance.

If you are looking for traitors, start with those who thought "change by trade" in the 90s/early 00s was a good idea - and check their paychecks. At least here in Germany, we know that disgraced former Chancellor Schröder is a Russian asset (literally, he got a high-paid job for Rosneft, most likely as a thank-you for pushing through Nord Stream), unfortunately he was clever enough to never implicate himself in a criminally chargeable manner.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#62

Post by ajross » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #48

RetroTechie wrote: post #16

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…

> Are US lawmakers that dumb? I posted the numbers as a top level comment here [0], but the short version is that a lot of the signatories of this letter received (small) donations from Intel in the last election cycle. My best guess is that Intel is actively lobbying against RISC-V using China as the boogeyman, and that these lawmakers were persuaded (sincerely or otherwise) to treat RISC-V as a threat. [0] https://…

RISC-V is much more of a threat to ARM microcontroller vendors (STMicro, NXP, Atmel et. al.) than it is to Intel. There is almost zero overlap in products/markets between RISC-V and x86. Even as you go up the stack, vendors like ARM International would care first (as it impacts mobile SOC licenses). Frankly even Apple probably cares more than Intel does.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#63

Post by lolinder » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #56

lolinder wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are US lawmakers that dumb? I posted the numbers as a top level comment here [0], but the short version is that a lot of the signatories of this letter received (small) donations from Intel in the last election cycle. My best guess is that Intel is actively lobbying against RISC-V using China as the boogeyman, and that these lawmakers were persuaded (sincerely or otherwise) to treat RISC-V as a threat. [0] https://…

I think the donations part of it isn’t even that important. If you think about how legislation does (and can) work, lawmakers, even if they were the most gifted people on the planet, obviously are not experts on everything. As a result they have to rely on others. But who should those others be? When it comes to something like chip manufacturing, you’re down to essentially 1 major U.S. company in this area that can p…

Yes, while political donations in general are a concern to me, I think in this case the donations themselves are fairly innocuous. What the donations tell me is not that Intel bribed these representatives, it's that Intel identified these representatives as ones that would be particularly pliable to their legal persuasion efforts.

It's true that Intel has a lot of natural strengths for its lobbying efforts, but some representatives are going to be easier to persuade than others.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#64

Post by lolinder » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #62

lolinder wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are US lawmakers that dumb? I posted the numbers as a top level comment here [0], but the short version is that a lot of the signatories of this letter received (small) donations from Intel in the last election cycle. My best guess is that Intel is actively lobbying against RISC-V using China as the boogeyman, and that these lawmakers were persuaded (sincerely or otherwise) to treat RISC-V as a threat. [0] https://…

RISC-V is much more of a threat to ARM microcontroller vendors (STMicro, NXP, Atmel et. al.) than it is to Intel. There is almost zero overlap in products/markets between RISC-V and x86. Even as you go up the stack, vendors like ARM International would care first (as it impacts mobile SOC licenses). Frankly even Apple probably cares more than Intel does.

Apple just switched to ARM away from Intel, and I'm sure Intel is very concerned others will follow their lead. If ARM is at risk from RISC-V, then Intel is as well, transitively.

That there is zero overlap now does not mean it will stay that way, as Apple demonstrated so well.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#65

Post by gumby » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

Bunnie wrote this well by putting the important part right up front: "The request is facially misguided; any restrictions would only serve to reduce American participation in an important emerging technology".

This is a problem the USA experienced (and was widely discussed) during the cold war. It's so discouraging to see this self-destructive approach being revived.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#66

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #65

Bunnie wrote this well by putting the important part right up front: "The request is facially misguided; any restrictions would only serve to reduce American participation in an important emerging technology". This is a problem the USA experienced (and was widely discussed) during the cold war. It's so discouraging to see this self-destructive approach being revived.

[deleted]

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#67

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

RetroTechie wrote: post #16

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…

[deleted]

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#68

Post by ajross » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #64

ajross wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RISC-V is much more of a threat to ARM microcontroller vendors (STMicro, NXP, Atmel et. al.) than it is to Intel. There is almost zero overlap in products/markets between RISC-V and x86. Even as you go up the stack, vendors like ARM International would care first (as it impacts mobile SOC licenses). Frankly even Apple probably cares more than Intel does.

Apple just switched to ARM away from Intel, and I'm sure Intel is very concerned others will follow their lead. If ARM is at risk from RISC-V, then Intel is as well, transitively. That there is zero overlap now does not mean it will stay that way, as Apple demonstrated so well.

Yeah, but there's no product. There's no RISC-V CPU targetted at laptop or datacenter users that Intel would be worried about, but there absolutely are from ARM vendors.

So... how would hurting RISC-V, which helps ARM, be good for Intel? It's not. Pick a different boogeyman basically, Intel isn't the one here.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#69

Post by olalonde » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 7:05 PM UTC

TinkersW wrote: post #46

QuarterReptile wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the result of that preparation is that both sides are less entangled with one another and thus (theoretically) more ready to be at war with one another. Anyway, the chain of who-started-it doesn't have a first link. There is no value-free way to assess it all..

Repeatedly implying you will attack Taiwan is a pretty clear first link.

Taiwan isn't a US state as far as I know. The US doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#70

Post by lolinder » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 7:07 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #68

lolinder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple just switched to ARM away from Intel, and I'm sure Intel is very concerned others will follow their lead. If ARM is at risk from RISC-V, then Intel is as well, transitively. That there is zero overlap now does not mean it will stay that way, as Apple demonstrated so well.

Yeah, but there's no product. There's no RISC-V CPU targetted at laptop or datacenter users that Intel would be worried about, but there absolutely are from ARM vendors. So... how would hurting RISC-V, which helps ARM, be good for Intel? It's not. Pick a different boogeyman basically, Intel isn't the one here.

There was no competitive ARM CPU targeting laptop or datacenter users either, until Apple up and made one.

For Intel to ignore RISC-V right now would be to completely neglect the lessons of Apple Silicon. They appear to have waited until there was an actual product taking their market share before taking ARM seriously. I expect them to learn from that and not wait for a product this time.