Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Honesty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 426 posts

Re: Intel Honesty

#211

Post by spockz »

eric-hu wrote: post #205
kagakuninja wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas actually has higher taxes than California, despite the lack of income tax. They make up for it in property tax AFAIK. California actually has low property taxes for many property owners, thanks to the controversial proposition 13. Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing.

> Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing. I hear this a lot about California and other places. But I also know lots of people look to buy a 2nd, 3rd, etc property for rental income. For those homeowners, buying more property is rational because it's an investment they already understand. They can reap economy of scale benefits, even at a low multiple like 2-3 properties…

This is a large reason why many of our larger municipalities now forbid to buy a home in their zone if it isn’t (going to be) your primary residence. It seems to be working quite well.

Re: Intel Honesty

#212

Post by robotnikman »

maratc wrote: post #135
api wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desktops are irrelevant? Other than a few things does any actual work happen on mobile devices? I think it would be correct to say that present-day desktops are mature and stable and aren't rapidly changing because they fill a mature niche. Mobile does seem to have decimated the casual computing and much of the non-work-related computing niche, at least for non-technical people. I wonder if there's an argument to be…

> Other than a few things does any actual work happen on mobile devices? Outside of browsers, not much work happens on desktops either...

The huge amount of people still in office cubicles typing on spreadsheets all day would disagree

Re: Intel Honesty

#213

Post by decafninja »

apercu wrote: post #173
efitz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone looking to start a new manufacturing business would be insane to consider California for any number of reasons- cost-of-living, (urban) quality of life, regulatory environment, state taxes, etc. Right now manufacturers should be considering other states. Florida, Tennessee and Texas all are income-tax-free and have business friendly regulatory climates. Several states like Alabama and West Virginia offer extre…

Does anyone truly want to live in Florida, Texas, Alabama, WV? (I left Tennessee off the list because it seems a lot to people _do_ want to live in Nashville anyway). I grew up in Texas. I've lived in 5 states and a Canadian province. My sisters house in Fort Worth is assessed a little lower than my house in WI. But her property tax is more than my property tax plus WI state income tax so.....

Florida and Texas don’t belong on the same list as WV and Alabama.

I can see why even a deep blue liberal might hold their nose and move to FL or TX. I can’t see why you’d do so for AL or WV.

Re: Intel Honesty

#214

Post by ghshephard »

ak217 wrote: post #188
pchristensen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary problem for getting 3+ bedroom apartments built in America is school funding. School districts are mostly locally funded (sometimes with a portion funded by the state government) and almost entirely from property taxes. At a very high level, schools are funded by the acre and their expenses scale with the 2nd-5th bedrooms in their district. A 4 bedroom apartment or condo and a 4 bedroom house will usually…

I don't think your analysis is valid in California. Public high schools in California receive most of their funding on a per-pupil, attendance-weighted basis from the state on a redistributive basis (all property taxes from across the state are pooled and redistributed).

Parcel Taxes allow wealthy areas like Palo Alto to have much higher qualities of education. School District quality is probably one of the number one factors for families looking for a home.

Re: Intel Honesty

#215

Post by [deleted] »

closeparen wrote: post #50

>Their pay in the Bay Area is double tsmc in taiwan for equivalent roles in raw dollar terms but the ppp differences means your better off working for tsmc in Taiwan than intel in the Bay Area. That’s not a joke. Intel are literally incapable of attracting talent from Taiwan right now. There's some whiplash in hearing constantly how the US is a corporate-dominated oligarchy, and then also seeing trillion-dollar indus…

[deleted]

Re: Intel Honesty

#216

Post by eric-hu »

bluecalm wrote: post #150
nightski wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you are wrong but personally I'd view the stock as an attractive perk right now since it is so low. Whereas if I were joining a company such as Nvidia I'd honestly be kind of worried. Historical performance isn't really a great indicator here.

Intel stock is as high as it was 15 years ago when they had total market domination. Now they are at the brink of collapse. The market is way bigger today but still, I would take a dominant player over a failing one every day. Another way to look at it: Intel market cap is 83B, AMD's market cap is 228B. Do you think Intel is expected to make 1/3 of the money AMD is going to make in coming decades? I see no reason to…

> Another way to look at it: Intel market cap is 83B, AMD's market cap is 228B. Do you think Intel is expected to make 1/3 of the money AMD is going to make in coming decades? I see no reason to be as optimistic.

Nit: market cap is not earnings. That's stock price * shares outstanding.

This year's earnings looks like this:

Intel, 3 months ended: Jun 29, 2024

> Net income (loss) (1,654)

https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1704/...

AMD, 3 months ended: June 29, 2024

> Net income (loss) $ 265

https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1209/am...

So Intel lost 1654M and AMD earned 265M. This only makes your point stronger.

Re: Intel Honesty

#217

Post by astrange »

eric-hu wrote: post #205
kagakuninja wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas actually has higher taxes than California, despite the lack of income tax. They make up for it in property tax AFAIK. California actually has low property taxes for many property owners, thanks to the controversial proposition 13. Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing.

> Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing. I hear this a lot about California and other places. But I also know lots of people look to buy a 2nd, 3rd, etc property for rental income. For those homeowners, buying more property is rational because it's an investment they already understand. They can reap economy of scale benefits, even at a low multiple like 2-3 properties…

Houses are not built with any particular intent. Developers and property owners are not the same people, and don't even have the same interests. Single family homes for rental are actually quite rare and most businesses that try to enter the market fail and leave again.

Re: Intel Honesty

#218

Post by astrange »

spockz wrote: post #211
eric-hu wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Desirable urban areas of California are expensive because we don't have enough housing. I hear this a lot about California and other places. But I also know lots of people look to buy a 2nd, 3rd, etc property for rental income. For those homeowners, buying more property is rational because it's an investment they already understand. They can reap economy of scale benefits, even at a low multiple like 2-3 properties…

This is a large reason why many of our larger municipalities now forbid to buy a home in their zone if it isn’t (going to be) your primary residence. It seems to be working quite well.

The only thing that matters is how many homes there are; stuff like this and vacancy taxes has barely any effect. The main reason to do it is if you want to appear to solve the problem without actually trying to solve it.

The main reason anyone would own two SFHs is that you need to do this in order to move. If you sell your first home before moving you're homeless. And after that it can take a long time to find a buyer.

They're a bad rental investment though because it's way too risky to own one; one bad renter or one roof replacement means you've lost money.

Re: Intel Honesty

#219

Post by reducesuffering »

ryandrake wrote: post #169
rowanG077 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not remotely saying the same thing. Just because someone could do it doesn't mean it will happen. These things require MUCH more then just the possibility of it happening. For example I could go out right now and murder someone. Doesn't mean I will do it. I'm certainly capable of it. In fact most people are in this exact situation yet there are only a tiny amount of murders happening each day compared to the p…

I don't know. I happen to believe that many, many people are capable of running and growing a successful business, and that the limiting factor (and the reason they haven't already) is access to capital, not some special personality trait or pedigree or family background or really any particular expertise. Definitely millions, probably tens of millions, and maybe even hundreds of millions of people are capable of sta…

Have you had any ideas that would move the world forward a bit, but never acted on it? Did any of them still not end up existing after a few years? That's the difference between an individual acting. Those things could've moved the world forward, only by you, but you didn't, so they didn't.

Thiel is right about the indeterminate optimism and determinate optimism outlined in Zero to One. Many people just expect things will naturally get better, no need to actually do it yourself, that it will happen anyway. So it's funny that the things that need doing only get done by people that believe they need to do it. (practically all of the tech and company builders believe the Zero to One thesis)

Without Musk, what space industry would there have been? Blue Origin was a me-too a decade later. Virgin was a me-too failure. Boeing can't get their astronauts back right now. If you remove Musk, everything that's bad right now is delayed another decade.

Re: Intel Honesty

#220

Post by mjevans »

fluoridation wrote: post #119
encom wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>year of the Linux desktop A tangent, and I realise this phrase is a meme, but it has always bothered me. Nobody has ever defined what year of the Linux desktop actually means, so it's a phrase without any real meaning.

Roughly speaking, that running Linux as a desktop OS would be easy enough that even non-technical users would be able to do it with difficulties comparable to, say, Windows XP.

The goal posts always seem to move.

Windows is an ugly pain in the butt to create install media for (when you're not on the native OS), and it's just as bad to Install on random hardware. Maybe more so since it's less likely to ship network drivers for random wifi gear and lan connections. Even Debian has non-free blobs for drivers with the (at least 'Live' versions) these days, finally.

Repair shops are the next big thing I hear. The goal posts always move if it isn't exactly what someone already knows.

Post reply on HN