Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

bunniestudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 202 posts

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#71

Post by kragen »

mschuster91 wrote: post #61
FpUser wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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) a…

moscow is literally in europe

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#72

Post by KRAKRISMOTT »

derefr wrote: post #30
olalonde wrote: post #19

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.

China would never directly initiate a war against the US; China’s long-term goals have nothing to do with militarily weakening the US, and are rather more focused on a global hegemony achieved by economically cornering emerging markets. 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 whe…

> (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.)

They are a nuclear armed state (since the 60s) with launch vehicles and submarines, nobody is going to go to war with them over their own domestic crimes. A land war in Asia against a nuclear armed emerging superpower with a good percentage of the world’s population is practically suicidal.

International customary law only matter if you have the firepower to back it up.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#73

Post by krispyfi »

mschuster91 wrote: post #58

> This has long been a trade-off of American innovation philosophy: we can freely exercise our First Amendment rights to share ideas, creating a vibrant intellectual exchange, even at the risk of others benefiting from reading our textbooks, journals and patents. Sometimes, we have to re-evaluate our positions. We cannot risk supplying our enemies with stuff they can turn around and use as weapons against ourselves a…

Have you ever read "The Player of Games" by Iain M. Banks? We won't win by allowing the enemy to make us more like them.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#74

Post by kragen »

colinsane wrote: post #27
TinkersW wrote: post #11

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.

> 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. 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"?

they are referring to the industry consortium that defines risc-v, which is in switzerland because its legislators don't pull dumb stunts like this

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#75

Post by mschuster91 »

krispyfi wrote: post #73
mschuster91 wrote: post #58

> This has long been a trade-off of American innovation philosophy: we can freely exercise our First Amendment rights to share ideas, creating a vibrant intellectual exchange, even at the risk of others benefiting from reading our textbooks, journals and patents. Sometimes, we have to re-evaluate our positions. We cannot risk supplying our enemies with stuff they can turn around and use as weapons against ourselves a…

Have you ever read "The Player of Games" by Iain M. Banks? We won't win by allowing the enemy to make us more like them.

> We won't win by allowing the enemy to make us more like them.

I agree on that when it comes to a ton of the "anti terror" measures introduced after 9/11 because these are plain bullshit that don't do any objective good, other than annoy passengers.

But regarding high tech capability? Not at all. We have to do everything we can to impede China's progress there, at all costs - because the cost of a Chinese victory would be outright catastrophic.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#76

Post by kragen »

mschuster91 wrote: post #58

> This has long been a trade-off of American innovation philosophy: we can freely exercise our First Amendment rights to share ideas, creating a vibrant intellectual exchange, even at the risk of others benefiting from reading our textbooks, journals and patents. Sometimes, we have to re-evaluate our positions. We cannot risk supplying our enemies with stuff they can turn around and use as weapons against ourselves a…

he said as he sent the japanese-americans to internment camps

except you aren't at war, you're trying to start one

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#77

Post by throwaway626 »

olalonde wrote: post #69
TinkersW wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has a clear interest in preventing reunification with the mainland, regardless of the island’s legal status.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#78

Post by m12k »

tcgv wrote: post #55

While I strongly agree with the blog post and letter, I believe the letter would be more effective if it spent more time explaining how the proposed restrictions will most likely backfire, i.e., put the US in a less advantageous position to defend its dominance in CPU technology with regard to China. No politician or regulator would like to be labelled as someone who favored a foreign competitor country.

"Any barrier for US persons’ participation will only slow American progress in developing and adopting this technology. It will have an effect opposite of that intended by lawmakers."

Sounds like the letter/blog post already does make this point?

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#79

Post by DangitBobby »

beebmam wrote: post #53
DangitBobby wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US lawmakers are just a mouthpiece for whoever is paying them.

I think this discounts the genuine political opinions that many elected officials in the US government have, especially about the new cold war with China. It's worth noting that China spends more money lobbying the US government than any other country on earth: https://www.opensecrets.org/fara/countries

My trust in US lawmakers practically no longer exists. Now whenever they make a questionable decision, the first thing I try to understand is who stands to make money off of it. If lawmakers have genuine policy opinions that's wonderful, but they have a big PR problem from decades of corruption to address.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#80

Post by OhMeadhbh »

butlerm wrote: post #52
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As I understand it, the U.S. does not subsidize petroleum marketers, or at least not very much. Oil companies are generally taxed on net income after expenses and depreciation, same as all other businesses. Plus depletion, which like depreciation reflects the value of an asset going down over time, making the company in question worth less than it would be otherwise, i.e. the book value is going down.

You probably want to review this:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget...

The Janet-and-John bit is covered by Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-targets...

"Calculating the cost of U.S. subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is complex because the incentives stretch across the U.S. tax code, but estimates range from $10 to $50 billion per year."

"U.S. oil and gas subsidies include provisions ranging from incentives for domestic production, write-offs and deductions tied to foreign production and income, and approved accounting methods that can reduce the stated taxable value of assets."

"One specific U.S. tax break on domestic production, for example, called intangible drilling costs, allows producers to deduct a majority of their costs from drilling new wells. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan panel of Congress, has estimated that eliminating it could generate $13 billion for the public coffers over 10 years."

"Another, the percentage depletion tax break, which allows independent producers to recover development costs of declining oil gas and coal reserves, could generate about $12.9 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to the panel."

Yes. We subsidize the Petro industry.

Post reply on HN