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
Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
101–110 of 202 posts
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#102While 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?
It does. However, if this point were more central to the letter, it would have a greater impact on the reader. For instance, explicitly demonstrating the numerous ways in which American progress could be impeded, explaining how China and Chinese business owners could get ahead in RISC-V technology, and maybe drawing an analogy with the restrictions imposed on federal funding for stem cell research that affected the US in the global landscape [1], among other examples.
Frequently, politicians prioritize their personal agendas and interests, so it's essential to thoroughly address those aspects.
PS: I'm not a US national, so I'm only analyzing the topic rather than engaging in it.
[1] https://hsci.harvard.edu/impact-federal-policy-global-compet...
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 su…
Are tax deductions really subsidizes?
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like what they want is to stop Americans from collaborating on RISC-V with any PRC company: Oct 6 (Reuters) - In a new front in the U.S.-China tech war, President Joe Biden's administration is facing pressure from some lawmakers to restrict American companies from working on a freely available chip technology widely used in China - a move that could upend how the global technology industry collaborates across b…
Are these senators invested in ARM?
These senators believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Their worldview doesn't get any more rational from there.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Note that the shipping RISC-V SoC currently most suited to datacentres, the SG2042, is more powerful than the first Graviton deployed to AWS in November 2018 (five years ago) -- the C910 cores in the SG2042 are similar to the Arm A72 cores in the Graviton, but the SG2042 has 64 of them vs 16 in the Graviton.
Multiple companies have M1-class RISC-V in the pipeline.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#106So correct me if I'm wrong, but you'll still be allowed to push public commits to a public RISC-V related repo, but you'll need a special government license to resolve issues opened by anyone related to China?
> you'll need a special government license to resolve issues opened by anyone related to China?
Yes but that's very similar to how the EUV "ban" works too. As long as you can get a license it's fine but getting the license is expected to be very hard and probably represents a big enough of a risk that you can't base your business around that. So effectively it is a ban.
The license thing does give the executive branch a good deal of leverage when negotiating with China. I think this is likely what the US is really after anyways. It's a pretty hard nosed renegotiation of the existing relationship by both sides.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#107China should stop stealing our IP and create their own technology wait no not like that
Those darn'd Chinese training a bunch of engineers, participating in a global industry, producing a product at rock-bottom prices and then not forgetting everything they had to learn to help the rest of the world make chips! Dang Them!
Remember when we were all about global free trade and supply side economics and consumer surpluses? I guess it's no fun when someone else does it to us. Sarcasm aside, I think we are now realizing that talking about supply side without considering the demand side (i.e. workers who can afford even these abundant goods) is going to be very detrimental in the long run.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#108While 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.
Sadly, the letter would be more effective if it included a large "donation" check, for an amount greater than those Intel is writing.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> except you aren't at war, you're trying to start one I would rather like it for there to be no war. The problem is, that decision is not mine, it is not ours to make - China and Russia did that for us, decades ago, when they decided to wage cyber warfare on us: the Chinese mainly in industrial espionage, and Russia in terms of propaganda and "ordinary" cyber crime. Unfortunately we didn't react on this, to the cont…
falsely claiming that non-war activities such as propaganda are actually war, as you are doing, is an extremely common way to try to start wars, and has been for millennia you must think hn readers are astoundingly dumb i mean, we are, but not that dumb if you would like there to be no war, here are a couple of things you could try - don't try to dictate where rulers of foreign countries get to be or to stop them fro…
> don't try to dictate where leaders of foreign countries get to be
I have zero tolerance for repressive dictatorships. Post 1945 (and partially even before that), the world agreed to at least some sort of basic human rights in peace and in war, but enforcement of that has been sorely lacking - which is what drives authoritarians in their spiral of escalation.
And we're seeing right now less than 1000km away from me sitting comfy and warm in Munich just where that leads to.
> don't exaggerate grievances like your industrial espionage nonsense
My grievances? What about the US government, who finally did wake up [1]?
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/21/inside-chinas-spy-war-on-ame...
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#110If China's military use is the concern here, then it is worth remembering that most weapons systems don't contain the most modern chips. CPUs 10 to 20 years old are common.