Live data from Hacker News

Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

bunniestudios.com

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wo…

If what separates the status quo from Chinese victory is having RISC-V chips, we already lost. (And spoiler: modern technology won't give them victory over the West. Not even close.)

I think there are far ways in which we are destroying ourselves by not focusing in many of the important aspects AND not sticking to our values.

If we promote free market (more or less, nothing is pure), freedom of speech and many others as those should be respected as much as it is possible.

We are departing from that and I think it is harmful for us. We should not be blaming enemies for these things.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#122
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he said as he sent the japanese-americans to internment camps except you aren't at war, you're trying to start one

> 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…

Hiw much evidence there is of these things?

I would say all countries do this. Americans were caught spying even Angela Merkel, supposed to be a friend.

FWIW I think all countries with enough power do things like these.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#123

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.

Let's sanction China from using Microsoft or Apple products, forcing them to turn to open source operating systems like Linux, and then let's make Linux illegal, ensuring that only government-approved, sufficiently-backdoored corporate operating systems are allowed! Any responsible, patriotic citizen should be onboard with that!

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#124
post #114

Bunny’s stance would have been reasonable if someone like Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao was in power, but Xi is different. Not only has Xi blocked the West from accessing China’s domestic market, but Xi has essentially helped end globalism and started decoupling with his foolish wolf warrior diplomatic policy and the belligerent nine dash line. Let’s also not forget about Xi’s invasion plans for Taiwan ie we’re likely hea…

How are western companies blocked from accessing China’s domestic market? Because they are obligated to follow local laws? That’s like saying GDPR blocks American companies from operating in Europe.

This isn’t a new subject. For instance, both Google and Facebook are not allowed in China despite their past attempts to comply with mercurial and vague CCP laws.

https://www.businessinsider.com/major-us-tech-companies-bloc...

I’m sure there are more US companies and industries that are not allowed to compete in China’s domestic market.

The GDPR is protectionist legislation for EU companies, but it doesn’t prevent US companies from doing business in the EU. It’s a terrible comparison to the CCP’s outright ban on many US companies.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#125
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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 l…

Land war? Who said anything about a land war? This would be a two-pronged war: a war of orbital+information supremacy (probably, but we don't even know the full evolution of internal military doctrine in 2023); and an insurrectionist war. Specifically, the goal from the Western perspective wouldn't be to "fight China" as one coherent entity, but rather specifically to erase the CCP from existence. A decapitation, of…

>2. having very precise information about where every key member of the CCP is at all times, both optically and packet-traffic-wise. And having some petite, precision, semi-ballistic, hypersonic missiles, to send to those places. Not from submarines, mind you. Nor from planes. From "somewhere else." Somewhere that probably sounds like stupid science fiction if someone without medals on their chest says it's already feasible and has been implemented for years now.

And there's the flaw in your plan, if your orbital slaughterbot fantasy hits the wrong dead man's switch, half the world's population will be wiped out due to the fall out. There's a reason every single nuclear armed state still stands in some form. Nukes work, and intercepting hypersonic vehicles at scale is still tremendously difficult.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#126
post #37

The numbers aren't large, but it's worth noting that 7 out of 18 signatories of the original letter received donatations from Intel's PAC in 2022 [0]: Mike Gallagher: $6000 Marco Rubio: $2500 Haley Stevens: $2000 Carlos Gimenez: $5000 Darin LaHood: $7000 Andy Barr: $2000 Ashley Hinson: $10000 Total: $34500 [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...

I sure hope they aren't that cheap.

Oh, that gave me a good laugh.

When you think of US politicians: think of the guy who owns the biggest used car dealership in Podunkville, Midwest.

That's your average US politician. Generally: the scummiest, griftiest jerk who happened to get lucky. Generally by inheritance as building the business takes too much energy to screw around with national politics. Not somebody smart. Not somebody moral. Think SBF but no education and knowledge whatsoever.

Is that person that cheap? Yah, sure, you betcha.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#127
post #114

Bunny’s stance would have been reasonable if someone like Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao was in power, but Xi is different. Not only has Xi blocked the West from accessing China’s domestic market, but Xi has essentially helped end globalism and started decoupling with his foolish wolf warrior diplomatic policy and the belligerent nine dash line. Let’s also not forget about Xi’s invasion plans for Taiwan ie we’re likely hea…

How are western companies blocked from accessing China’s domestic market? Because they are obligated to follow local laws? That’s like saying GDPR blocks American companies from operating in Europe.

Obviously it may or may not be like that, depending on the specific laws, parties involved, and possible consequences

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#128
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land war? Who said anything about a land war? This would be a two-pronged war: a war of orbital+information supremacy (probably, but we don't even know the full evolution of internal military doctrine in 2023); and an insurrectionist war. Specifically, the goal from the Western perspective wouldn't be to "fight China" as one coherent entity, but rather specifically to erase the CCP from existence. A decapitation, of…

> 2. having very precise information about where every key member of the CCP is at all times, both optically and packet-traffic-wise. And having some petite, precision, semi-ballistic, hypersonic missiles, to send to those places. Not from submarines, mind you. Nor from planes. From "somewhere else." Somewhere that probably sounds like stupid science fiction if someone without medals on their chest says it's already…

> and intercepting hypersonic vehicles at scale is still tremendously difficult

...as far as you know. Working purely from declassified information, which is all any of us have; but also in clear awareness of the clear forty-year gap between the frontier of declassified military secrets, and what would be the current classified state of the art.

> dead man's switch

I think you missed the part about, uh, the whole other half of how current doctrine works.

Do you know why having cyber supremacy is ranked above having space supremacy?

Because, if you have a sufficiently-good APT, you can have it press buttons! Buttons in places you'll never be able to get a spy inside at the right time! Buttons that subtly break all production missiles at the factory in ways undetectable until launch! Buttons that were meant to give civilian command oversight the emergency-override capability to cancel a pending launch of an insurrectionist military!

(Or, if you don't think that's plausible: "buttons" on a commander's personal cell phone, that calls a staff member of his and deepfakes their voice to tell the staffer to physically hit an air-gapped e-stop button. Add to the theatre by having the APT cut off Milnet-equivalent services at the time, so that a personal cellphone would be the obvious workaround.)

And of course, with previous APTs, you can also steal or more likely, create and plant all the blackmail material you want — to turn previously clean-and-trustworthy "keyholders", into your catspaws, willing to not turn the key when told. (Spies could do this too, but APTs can do it at scale.)

> There's a reason every single nuclear armed state still stands in some form.

Because none of them have yet stepped out of line enough for a major power who has anything "better than nukes" to see the point in showing their hand to their own much stronger opponents who have also moved on to playing this "better than nukes" poker game. (Nobody has had to show their hand at any point in the game so far. It's just been bluffing and folding. Nobody wants to be the first.)

For example, while North Korea has nukes, it has no answer to even basic 1990s-level orbital EMINT; and no functional Navy, let alone long-dive nuclear submarines to serve as untrackable launch platforms. All of NK's nuke launch sites are known — and so could be targeted for bombardment (with plain-old non-nuclear payloads!) in advance of launch, the moment they seem to be getting ready to shoot anyone.

The only reason it hasn't happened already, is that the action of taking the nuke sites out involves cards nobody wants to lay on the table until they have to. It's a move that weakens you, strategically. Although it's something that would almost certainly happen — many times over — the moment a hot war between larger players begins, once all those cards become destined to come out regardless.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#129
post #62

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.

>RISC-V is much more of a threat to ARM microcontroller vendors (STMicro, NXP, Atmel et. al.)

How is RISC-V threatening them exactly? They can (and should) switch to RISC-V.

Note NXP is already doing so[0], and that Atmel is part of Microchip[1].

0. https://www.nxp.com/company/about-nxp/leading-semiconductor-...

1. https://www.microchip.com/en-us/products/fpgas-and-plds/fpga...

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#130
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.

Eh. RISC-V isn't really competing with AMD64, which is high performance processors that can natively run x86 binaries, neither of which RISC-V would do any time soon. And if there were they would most likely be made by AMD, who would then make money selling them. The loser from RISC-V is clearly ARM because it's not nearly as hard to produce a low-power processor with mid-level performance, which is the core of ARM's…

>which is high performance processors that can natively run x86 binaries

>neither of which RISC-V would do any time soon.

The latter, maybe.

The former, as soon as 2024 (e.g. Tenstorrent Ascalon)

Post reply on HN