Earlier quoted context omitted.
These senators believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Their worldview doesn't get any more rational from there.
I am not american but I would assume this is just mocking.
It's not.
Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
131–140 of 202 posts
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#132Earlier 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…
>"unfortunately he was clever enough to never implicate himself in a criminally chargeable manner."
This just confirms that they were not enemies. Enemies want to exterminate each other. And trading with the official enemy is a crime last time I checked. I do not think Germany or Russia wanted that. They're neither friends nor enemies, both just looking how to exploit each other.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#133While 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.
> What is the Administration’s plan to prevent the PRC from achieving dominance in the RISC-V technology and leveraging that dominance at the expense of U.S. national and economic security?
Sounds to me like a call for more investment in RISC-V, not less.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#134Earlier 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.
>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...
Business advice that is tantamount to "Oh, you should just make a better product" is basically bad business advice. Of course they should, everyone should. But the problem is that if they tried, it (1) costs money and (2) leverages no existing advantages.
These low-margin companies live and die on compatibility and integration. The reason you pick a STM32-whatever as your choice for your new product is generally at least partially because your existing staff know the tooling and your existing production people know the board integration requirements.
Swap that for some new RISC-V gadget and, well, you might win! Or you might find your customers walking across the street to buy someone else's gadget, because yours has no advantages.
Ergo, if you're STMicro, RISC-V is a threat in a way that "Oh, you should just use it yourself" doesn't address.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#135I imagine both IP and export restrictions on x86 and other processor technology have been instrumental in motivating adoption of RISC-V in China.
And I imagine Nvidia export restrictions will accelerate the continued development of alternative technologies for AI/ML.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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...
Business advice that is tantamount to "Oh, you should just make a better product" is basically bad business advice. Of course they should, everyone should. But the problem is that if they tried, it (1) costs money and (2) leverages no existing advantages. These low-margin companies live and die on compatibility and integration. The reason you pick a STM32-whatever as your choice for your new product is generally at l…
Gotta love how I pointed out 2 of the 3 companies already gone RISC-V, and you ignored this in your reply, to focus on STMicro, the remaining one.
It's amusing, because I had deliberately elected to avoid mention of how STMicro is a RISC-V member[0].
>Or you might find your customers walking across the street to buy someone else's gadget, because yours has no advantages.
They will for sure should they not switch to the standard ISA. In their shoes, I wouldn't want to be left behind.
RISC-V is rapidly growing the strongest ecosystem.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Business advice that is tantamount to "Oh, you should just make a better product" is basically bad business advice. Of course they should, everyone should. But the problem is that if they tried, it (1) costs money and (2) leverages no existing advantages. These low-margin companies live and die on compatibility and integration. The reason you pick a STM32-whatever as your choice for your new product is generally at l…
Gotta love how I pointed out 2 of the 3 companies already gone RISC-V, and you ignored this in your reply, to focus on STMicro, the remaining one. It's amusing, because I had deliberately elected to avoid mention of how STMicro is a RISC-V member[0]. >Or you might find your customers walking across the street to buy someone else's gadget, because yours has no advantages. They will for sure should they not switch to t…
> They will for sure should they not switch to the standard ISA.
OK, no, that's just not true. Google "adoption curve". Saying that technology X is likely to win out eventually is not the same thing as saying there's no revenue to be had selling "legacy" technology Y. Even today people still fix bugs in the occasional COBOL gadget.
And if you're one of the companies (STMicro is one) selling at least partially "legacy" technology (they'd say "mature"), then anything that accelerates motion along that curve is a threat.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gotta love how I pointed out 2 of the 3 companies already gone RISC-V, and you ignored this in your reply, to focus on STMicro, the remaining one. It's amusing, because I had deliberately elected to avoid mention of how STMicro is a RISC-V member[0]. >Or you might find your customers walking across the street to buy someone else's gadget, because yours has no advantages. They will for sure should they not switch to t…
> They will for sure should they not switch to the standard ISA. OK, no, that's just not true. Google "adoption curve". Saying that technology X is likely to win out eventually is not the same thing as saying there's no revenue to be had selling "legacy" technology Y. Even today people still fix bugs in the occasional COBOL gadget. And if you're one of the companies (STMicro is one) selling at least partially "legacy…
>then anything that accelerates motion along that curve is a threat.
What are they going to about it?
RISC-V is inevitable.
It's actually simple: Embrace it or be left behind.
Note that, as highlighted in the parent, STMicro is a member of RISC-V. They're fortunately not that dumb.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
These senators believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Their worldview doesn't get any more rational from there.
I am not american but I would assume this is just mocking.
You would want that to be the case yeah. The search terms would be 'marco rubio' and 'young earther', I believe.
Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V
#140While 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.
I thought Intel was looking to do some RISC-V development?