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

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#161

Post by RachelF »

brianhorakh wrote: post #146
RachelF wrote: post #110

If 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.

Disagree. Yes- Us Weapons platforms are. This is how the us build pure cold war style "for military use only" tech. The money wasted reinventing the wheel by defense contractors is why Americans will never have affordable healthcare or sustainable social services. China simply doesn't do that afaik, it's civilian and military tech isn't always developed independently. Restated: China blurs the line between military a…

Good points.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#162

Post by kmeisthax »

hangonhn wrote: post #107
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just "very detrimental in the long run" - more like "actively fueling far-right fascists in the very short term". The working class does not care who promises them revenge, or even if that revenge is targeted at their oppressors, as long as revenge is eventually provided by someone.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#163

Post by ajross »

hakfoo wrote: post #160
ajross wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can 100% guarantee to you that's not the case. Existing shipping products in this world are based on proprietary toolchains, HALs like CMSIS that are ARM-only, Eclipse-based IDEs that teams refuse to move away from, build tools wrapped around custom linker scripts for one architecture that no one understands anymore, ... This isn't a FAANG office where everyone's an expert and people change tools weekly. Commercial…

That audience is sort of immaterial to the argument. If you have a firm that's committed to a frozen image of the platform on a specific date, they'll stick with existing products or modest riffs on it. The same premise is why we'll still see Z80 and 8051 derivatives until long past the heat death of the universe. This is more about why a firm like STMicro doesn't need to freak out too much about RISC-V. There's no r…

> That audience is sort of immaterial to the argument.

You lost me. "That audience" is probably 80% of ST's market. If you're not talking about business as it exists then I don't know what your argument is about. It's certainly not responsive to the point I was making, which is that ST (and similar companies) is exposed to RISC-V as a business risk in a way that Intel is not.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#165

Post by OhMeadhbh »

kmeisthax wrote: post #162
hangonhn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just "very detrimental in the long run" - more like "actively fueling far-right fascists in the very short term". The working class does not care who promises them revenge, or even if that revenge is targeted at their oppressors, as long as revenge is eventually provided by someone.

I don't disagree with you about breeding fascists now. Though I wonder, in a few years after we do more Trump and things fail to get better, and then we swing back the other way and elect the ghost of Bernie Sanders (cause I really don't know anyone on the left who could impress the disaffected middle-American electorate.) What then?

I guess that's why the far right wing is trying to take over before we have to have elections again.

I'm just curious if swinging back and forth between left and right wing isn't more destructive than just right wing.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#166

Post by OhMeadhbh »

hangonhn wrote: post #107
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never thought I would remember the Reagan era so longingly.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#167

Post by OhMeadhbh »

slaw wrote: post #103
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess if you never plan to pay your taxes, then maybe they aren't.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#168

Post by chaostheory »

jakobson14 wrote: post #155
chaostheory wrote: post #84

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…

Blocked or not blocked from china's market, hindering US companies from developing and becoming leaders in emerging new technologies will not help the US stay ahead. China wants to catch up, and they will with or without US help. The only question is whether the USA will work to remain competitive by mastering new domains, or whether it will sit back on it's laurels and the technology it's already mastered. The devel…

Why do we have to work on helping China with new tech in order to remain competitive? Why should we help China develop their own chip foundries when we’re about to get into a hot kinetic war with them in the South China Sea? Again, you can’t ignore that issue if you want a strong argument.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#169

Post by vasac »

derefr wrote: post #128
KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 oth…

I have seen this play a few times before. And then people in flip-flops win the war.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#170

Post by NoGravitas »

derefr wrote: post #128
KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 oth…

Okay, Dr. Strangelove.
Post reply on HN