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

91–100 of 202 posts

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#91

Post by edgyquant »

nebula8804 wrote: post #20
0xDEF wrote: post #17

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.

I wonder how much of the anti-Elon posts I see here, on Twitter and Reddit are just NPCs who have been told to hate a person and regurgitate talking points designed in a lab. I’m pretty sure the answer is 80-90%. I’m also not an Elon fanboy nor have I ever owned Tesla. It just really woke me up seeing the entire internet flip against Elon so quickly and it having been so obviously inorganic.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#92

Post by error503 »

lolinder wrote: post #70
ajross wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ARM in the datacentre was somewhat of a hot topic for a while before Apple released their laptop CPUs; Amazon launched the first Gravitron to GA in 2018. Ampere launched publicly available ARM server CPUs in 2020, around the same time as Apple. Alibaba Cloud launched their instances based on their own CPU in 2021, as did Oracle (based on Ampere's CPUs).

Given the years of engineering effort involved in getting any of these projects to release, this definitely looks like an industry shift, not something driven by Apple.

Perhaps Intel's thinking here is that competition with ARM will drive innovation and cost-downs in that space, which will bleed 'up' and make their own competition's (mostly ARM) products even more competitive.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#93

Post by whelp_24 »

sschueller wrote: post #14
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.

Let's ban AI research too and be left behind. /s I see this as short sighted anti China fear mongering but China is now at a point where is can invotate itself with out the help of "western" tech.

I mean Altman is working on that one...

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#94

Post by photonbeam »

kragen wrote: post #71
mschuster91 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The majority of russia isnt tho

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#96

Post by MeImCounting »

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.

"'War is a long cliff.' You can avoid the cliff completely, you can walk along the top for as long as you have the nerve, you can even choose to leap off, and if you only fall a short way before you hit a ledge you can always scramble back up again. Unless you’re just plain invaded, there are always choices, and even then, there’s usually something you’ve missed — a choice you didn’t make — that could have avoided invasion in the first place. You people still have your choices. There’s nothing inevitable about it.”

-Banks - who ought to be quoted more often, here and elsewhere

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#97

Post by QuarterReptile »

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.

It's true, the US sold Taiwan down the river to drive a wedge between USSR and PRC, then spent decades telling ourselves that PRC would become a nice, (post-Christian) liberal democracy if they just became rich enough. That didn't happen.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#98

Post by ajross »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #88
ajross wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know why you are fixated on looking at the market today. If ARM can scale up from cortex m-series to Apple M3 Pro Ultra Max… then why couldn’t RISC-V?

But by that logic Intel should be lobbying the government to outlaw every CPU architecture, or every competing product, or... every product they might conceivably want to compete with. The same logic works for every product! Or every company! It's all specious.

In point of fact, and I'll just say it again: this is dumb. Intel isn't remotely the most likely candidate here (again, my read is that on balance they'd love to see ARM competitors get some pressure on the other side). Trying to claim otherwise is just engaging in platform flamery nonsense. The logic doesn't work.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#99

Post by yieldcrv »

andrewflnr wrote: post #23
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…

The practical question is, do US lawmakers believe their voters are that dumb? (Mostly yes)

The US has no direct referendums at the national level so it doesnt matter what voters think in the near term, or long term for that matter
Post reply on HN