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

171–180 of 202 posts

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#171

Post by germandiago »

kragen wrote: post #145
germandiago wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

chinese industrial espionage, russian hawkish propaganda, russian crackers, and mass persecution of dissidents in both russia and china are all well-established and lamentable facts so are government-backed espionage, government-backed hawkish propaganda, and government-backed crackers in countries such as the usa and germany the usa also has a level of mass imprisonment that russia and china haven't seen in decades,…

That is not evidence. It is just talking. I mean number of attacks, organization of attacks, if other countries do not do what these do... everything together, unbiased.

I would like to be able to have an idea to compare things in a fair way.

I do not mean you are wrong. I am just a person that believes what he sees. Not what others day they see. For this, real research is the best tool we have.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#172

Post by throw382747 »

chaostheory wrote: post #150
xtian wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does Microsoft manage it? Bing and other Microsoft properties are accessible in China.

Most likely because China relies on Windows? I don’t know and it’s a moot point. All I know is that there has been a large swath of US and other Western companies that are barred from doing business in China. That’s a fact. As to why, it’s likely protectionism for local mainland companies who wouldn’t have been able to compete.

The "why" is because Microsoft and Apple follow Chinese laws.

Just like Tesla, Ford, and GM follow Chinese laws and can operate in China.

The other companies refused to follow Chinese laws, so they aren't allowed to do business in China.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#173

Post by chaostheory »

throw382747 wrote: post #172
chaostheory wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely because China relies on Windows? I don’t know and it’s a moot point. All I know is that there has been a large swath of US and other Western companies that are barred from doing business in China. That’s a fact. As to why, it’s likely protectionism for local mainland companies who wouldn’t have been able to compete.

The "why" is because Microsoft and Apple follow Chinese laws. Just like Tesla, Ford, and GM follow Chinese laws and can operate in China. The other companies refused to follow Chinese laws, so they aren't allowed to do business in China.

As I’ve already mentioned multiple times, other companies tried to comply with CCP laws but they were blocked out anyways.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#174

Post by jakobson14 »

chaostheory wrote: post #168
jakobson14 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. That much should be obvious to ANYONE with even a PASSING understanding of how open source works.

In their report, the US gov wants open source collaboration on RISC-V between the US and it's allies.....while also excluding china. Sorry, not fucking possible.

You can either have open colaboration where anyone can participate, and yeah, that means somebody might secretly be working for the PRC, or you have no open colaboration at all. There is NO middle ground, and any attempt to create one will simply kill the open colaboration.

Kill the open collaboration in the USA, and the USA falls behind. All the other countries in the world will continue to collaborate on RISC-V, in the EU, in china, japan, austrailia, canada, and wherever else, and none of that will translate into increased experience or capability for the US. The USA becomes a pure consumer of other people's tech, never contributing anything back for fear that it might find it's way to someone in china either directly or by way of someone else engaging in open colaboration.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#175

Post by BizarroLand »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #154
burnished wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would want that to be the case yeah. The search terms would be 'marco rubio' and 'young earther', I believe.

Not to mention, second in line to the Presidency: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mike-joh...

Third. The VP is second in line

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#176

Post by jakobson14 »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #116
mschuster91 wrote: post #75

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.)

Do you want the suppler of low cost, powerful RISC-V based microcontrollers to be china or the USA? Oh wait, most of the good MCUs already come out of china these days, like the ESP32 (now made with RISC-V).

If everyone is turning to chinese manufacturers for their fancy new microcontrollers, american firms stop making them or die. Now chna's the only supplier.

Next thing you know, china's conflict with taiwan goes hot and china threatens to cut off exports of chips and products using them to anyone that intervenes. Sudently the USA takes the place of russia, who are scavenging STM32s from washing machines because of their war with ukraine.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#177

Post by AnthonyMouse »

snvzz wrote: post #130
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

TBD, but there is nothing magic about RISC-V that would make this possible if it wasn't already possible with ARM. Apple has even done it with ARM, but to date no one else has. And if someone else did, it wouldn't really matter to AMD if it was RISC-V or ARM.

But it would matter to ARM.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#178

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #147
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically ARM lobbying to hamper their challenger. There is no legitimate reason for it. (That doesn't mean we don't still need to fight it.)

How do you know it's ARM though? Taking low-cost potshots at China is an easy choice for some conservative politicians, there's a large number of voters/small $ donors who are easily activated by the claim to 'standing up to communism'.

There are ten thousand ways to take potshots at China, but they're doing it in this way. Cui bono?

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#179

Post by CamperBob2 »

BizarroLand wrote: post #175
CamperBob2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, second in line to the Presidency: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mike-joh...

Third. The VP is second in line

The line to get in starts outside the Oval Office, just as the lines at Disney start outside the attraction.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#180

Post by kragen »

germandiago wrote: post #171
kragen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chinese industrial espionage, russian hawkish propaganda, russian crackers, and mass persecution of dissidents in both russia and china are all well-established and lamentable facts so are government-backed espionage, government-backed hawkish propaganda, and government-backed crackers in countries such as the usa and germany the usa also has a level of mass imprisonment that russia and china haven't seen in decades,…

That is not evidence. It is just talking. I mean number of attacks, organization of attacks, if other countries do not do what these do... everything together, unbiased. I would like to be able to have an idea to compare things in a fair way. I do not mean you are wrong. I am just a person that believes what he sees. Not what others day they see. For this, real research is the best tool we have.

you asked how much evidence there was; that was the question i was answering, not what the evidence was

i agree that actually listing the evidence would be better, and i hope that if you make that effort you will post the list here

Post reply on HN