181–190 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 secretl…
> 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.
Yes, and as long as mainland Chinese entities don’t get official support and consultation that is perfectly fine. You can’t stop unofficial support because open source, which is fine.
I can also guarantee that all of the countries that you listed will take the US stance, especially Japan and Australia. anyone would with any familiarity of geopolitics would know that
The PLA navy and the navies of the US and its allies such as Japan, the UK, and Australia are getting ready for combat in the South China Sea as we speak. You cannot ignore that unless you want a weak argument
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I’ve already mentioned multiple times, other companies tried to comply with CCP laws but they were blocked out anyways.
What’s a specific example?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 secretl…
Open source collaboration does not mean that mainland Chinese corporate and government entities get to hire Western consultants for money. That’s the only thing this legislation can affect if you understand how open source works so I don’t see the problem. > 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…
This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to freely exchange open source stuff, but that the PRC be excluded from this open source exchange.
Here, let me quote it for you: "In response, the United States should build a robust ecosystem for open-source collaboration among the U.S. and our allies while ensuring the PRC is unable to benefit from that work."
As for whether this is achievable? It's not. In a world with global internet, "don't share the stuff you post online with china" can only be implemented as "don't share the stuff you made online." There is no other way. What they're describing is contradictory. You can't have an ecosystem of open source collaboration while ALSO preventing a specific entity from benefiting from it.
It doesn't especially matter whether other countries are on board with this, since the above even prevents US persons from being able to openly share with each other. They can enact the same policies if they want, or if the US wants them to, but it only replicates the same fundamental problem. Nothing can be shared online, on this great global internet, without also sharing it with the PRC.
This isn't even the first time that the US government has attempted something like this. They tried back in the 90's to block export of cryptographic implementations, including open source ones like GPG, to other countries by posting them on the internet. It was rendered a moot point when someone published the source code of GPG under the first amendment in a book as an act of protest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source collaboration does not mean that mainland Chinese corporate and government entities get to hire Western consultants for money. That’s the only thing this legislation can affect if you understand how open source works so I don’t see the problem. > 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…
There's nothing in this about hiring consultants for money. Read it again. This is about export of technology, which you are doing whenever you post open source implementations of RISC-V technology online. The lawmakers are explicitly concerned that chinese technology companies benefit whenever a US person shares designs or code online. They are specifically, explicitly seeking that all allied countries be able to fr…
However, I still feel that this aggressive stance is still good overall as a starting framework for barring people and companies from providing direct, paid, specialized support for China e.g. expertise in building anything related to chip foundries, et al.
Globalism as we know it will be dead soon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called lobbying, and the courts consider it "free speech". Speech that says "I just spent a million dollars to inconvenience my competitors."
> It's called lobbying, and the courts consider it "free speech" No, it's called bribery. If you give a politician money it's bribery. The closest we have to this is the revolving door. Lobbying involves paying someone to give your letter to an elected. When you call your representative, you are lobbying. When the EFF engages the Congress, they are lobbying. There is campaign contributions, which go to a campaign, no…
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.
Actually it does, because of extraterritoriality of US laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
'zero tolerance' for domestic policies of foreign countries is the opposite extreme from 'preferring there to be no war' actually i mean we tried colonialism already, it makes things worse, not better the us government has not declared war on china, fortunately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, the letter would be more effective if it included a large "donation" check, for an amount greater than those Intel is writing.
Isn't this practice called corruption in other countries? How is this legal?