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

221–230 of 426 posts

Re: Intel Honesty

#221

Post by astrange »

murderfs wrote: post #196
apercu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 are among the fastest growing states in the country, whereas California is losing population.

The population increasing in a state is mostly about age structure of the country, not people deciding to move there. California's low growth and Florida's high growth are because Americans are getting older, retiring, and not having children.

Re: Intel Honesty

#222

Post by p1esk »

scarface_74 wrote: post #202
murderfs wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Florida and Texas are among the fastest growing states in the country, whereas California is losing population.

And how many of the traditional demographics of tech workers do you think want to move to Florida? It is currently my home state and I work remotely. But I’m older. I would never want to live here if my wife were younger or I thought there was any chance we wanted to become pregnant.

After many years in CA I love it in Florida. Palm Beach or Boca Raton are very nice, schools are excellent, weather is perfect 7 months out of 12. And houses are significantly cheaper than in equivalent areas in CA. Less woke culture too.

Re: Intel Honesty

#223

Post by eric-hu »

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.

That sounds like a policy I can get behind. Can you share a name of such a policy or a link to one?

Re: Intel Honesty

#224

Post by astrange »

pchristensen wrote: post #145
amluto wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the issues are way downstream of those NIMBYs: Non-housing costs are quite low in Taiwan. Food and childcare, in particular, are so much cheaper than California that it’s hard to believe. But the NIMBYs aren’t totally in the clear. Rental housing with 3+ bedrooms (for families) is severely lacking in much of the US. Maybe fire codes are to blame. Taiwan is full of very nice new high-rise development that cont…

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…

> The primary problem for getting 3+ bedroom apartments built in America is school funding.

It actually is mostly at the state level, namely fire codes and condo defect laws. America has building codes designed not for safety but to make single family homes cheaper and apartments more expensive. One of the things they do is require double stairways for tall enough buildings, with the result that all apartments must be built like hotels. That plus the requirement for a window on bedrooms makes it hard to fit them in.

Re: Intel Honesty

#225

Post by beAbU »

amluto wrote: post #85
ska wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what i can see as an admitted outsider, payment rails are more complicated than they look, and most of the crypto partisans arguments to "replace" functionality are a mix of 'ignoring that part', or 'we don't want that part anyway' + a few API calls. Problem is, the world consuming these things mostly seems to want those parts, and can't ignore those other parts. Which seems to explain relatively low uptake.

Those rails involve an amazing amount of complexity that boils down to the entire system being nonsensical. Payments are pulled instead of pushed; the underlying credit card numbers lack even a semblance of security; there is all kinds of mis-design due to the way that restaurant tips work; it all started when credit card imprints/readers were all assumed to be offline; etc.

What do you mean "it all started..." ?

One of my earliest memories is my mum paying for groceries using her credit card in the 90/00s, where the machine used was completely mechanical/manual. It copied the card number (that was embossed on the plastic) by literally taking a carbon paper rubbing of the card. The system was designed to be offline, because back then there was no "online".

Re: Intel Honesty

#226

Post by mrighele »

pphysch wrote: post #175
015a wrote: post #75

I'm not sure if I buy the thesis entirely (that thesis most aptly being: "Gelsinger does have one fatal flaw: he still believes in Intel, and I no longer do.") The biggest reason is geopolitics: If escalated confrontation happens with China, Intel becomes one of the most valuable companies on the planet, period. TSMC will finish western fabs eventually, but the delta-t on when they become competitive (tech, capacity…

> The biggest reason is geopolitics: If escalated confrontation happens with China If escalated confrontation happens with China, and that is massive IF that is dependent on insanely belligerent action from the West like giving nukes to Taiwan, then new semiconductor manufacturing will be the least of our worries. A Chinese blockade on Chinese and East Asian exports to US would result in total economic collapse in US…

> that is dependent on insanely belligerent action from the West like giving nukes to Taiwan

The USA administration has stated several times that they would defend Taiwan if China invaded (see for example [1]). Would you consider that an "insanely belligerent action from the West"?

You can argue that China is not going to invade any time soon, but I wouldn't consider the probability negligible.

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/what-to-make-of-bidens-lates...

Re: Intel Honesty

#227

Post by astrange »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #181
cogman10 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it has a lot to do with selfishness. More housing means more people means you have a lower property value for you home in the area. Further, it means your vote becomes less powerful as the poors that live in the high rise have the same voting power as you do in your single family home.

Is it selfish to have national parks when there are people that are homeless and the government could give them literally free land? Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was, and voted to put in place rules to keep it that way. It sucks now, I and all my friends the grew up there were forced to move somewhere affordable, but it's not pure selfishness. They di…

> Long ago the people that lived in the area realized that they liked where they lived and how it was

Ignoring that there were probably Indians there - that wasn't "long ago", residential zoning was mostly introduced in the 30s-60s. America hasn't had zoning for most of its life!

Most other countries have never had it and still don't.

(Except every other Anglo country has an even /worse/ planning system than American residential zoning.)

Re: Intel Honesty

#228

Post by astrange »

graymatters wrote: post #176
schmidtleonard wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of capitalism is to establish, reinforce, and perpetuate a class hierarchy where the people on the bottom must constantly pay to exist while the people on top constantly get paid to exist. This shit isn't a side effect, it's the entire point of the exercise.

Spoken like a true Marxist. The purpose of Marxism is to literally kill hundreds of millions of people who oppose the Marxist way. Like they did during the 20th century in the countries where Marxism prevailed (even briefly).

It is not spoken like a true Marxist; they didn't even believe this. Here's Engels saying being a renter is not exploitation:

https://x.com/TheOmniZaddy/status/1559949666543878151

Georgism is better though, and the homeownership market isn't about "capitalism".

Re: Intel Honesty

#229

Post by amluto »

beAbU wrote: post #225
amluto wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those rails involve an amazing amount of complexity that boils down to the entire system being nonsensical. Payments are pulled instead of pushed; the underlying credit card numbers lack even a semblance of security; there is all kinds of mis-design due to the way that restaurant tips work; it all started when credit card imprints/readers were all assumed to be offline; etc.

What do you mean "it all started..." ? One of my earliest memories is my mum paying for groceries using her credit card in the 90/00s, where the machine used was completely mechanical/manual. It copied the card number (that was embossed on the plastic) by literally taking a carbon paper rubbing of the card. The system was designed to be offline, because back then there was no "online".

That would be one of the credit card imprinters I referenced, which is offline…

I also recall the occasional business writing down credit card details, in person, with a pen, on a form they had for the purpose.

Re: Intel Honesty

#230

Post by astrange »

sgu999 wrote: post #132
ghaff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, very few people who want and can afford 3-bedroom homes want to be renting apartments. I assume that even in New York City, the number of 3-bedroom condos is pretty minimal as a percentage because most people who want that kind of space just move to West Chester or Connecticut.

Part of the problem is what is available. If you're a Japanese or a Taiwanese, that detached single family home with a massive garden around it is simply not an option, so you don't feel worst off than anyone else by living in a small house or in a high rise. Other advantage is that keeping cities very dense and preventing urban sprawl means everyone has access to nature quickly, through public transports.

Oh, those kind of houses are definitely available in Japan. Houses in Japan are worth negative money; if you want to sell one the buyer will want you to knock it down first.

The reason they're so cheap is that nobody wants to live in those areas because cities are better and have better jobs.

Post reply on HN