131–139 of 139 posts
How can this be happening with an AI revolution needing an almost infinite supply of high end graphics cards?
TSMC just warned the world of a 10% decline in chip revenues. Given that chips today are critical component of every phone, TV, laptop, desktop PC, server, vehicle, dishwasher, and pretty much everything else , TSMC's warning suggests we're going to experience a significant global economic contraction soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.
1. YoY 10% expected decline from the largest increase in recent history. i.e 2022 was an anomaly.
2. No it is not BULL WHIP effect. Has relatively little to do with it. The problem was with commodity chips, one should read into UMC and SMIC.
3. Nvidia, for the rest of the year is still capacity limited.
4. Samsung Foundry took some market to fill their capacity gap in other sectors. Although I doubt that is even 3% of the expected TSMC revenue decline.
5. In all likely hood it just means their Customer are reluctant to pre-book much capacity and would want the flexibility to increase order when needed. ( Usual Strategy )
6. It is likely China's volume is much worst than everyone expected.
This boom/bust is really obvious with regards to computer prices. I'm seeing 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSDs with 7000+ MBps under $100 these days. Almost everything in the computer-world is on a significant sale.
I noticed that too. What does it mean? That demand is sinking or that costs are going down?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we get a serious left-wing terrorist uprising out of all the shit happening at the moment, it is when. What do you mean by left-wing terrorist uprising? Isn't left-wing ideology kind of relative to each country e.g. Icelandic left-wing/right-wing is not like Chinese Japanese left-wing/right-wing. What would be the goal of these terrorist?
> What do you mean by left-wing terrorist uprising? A lot of the issues I stated - e.g. the rise of the authoritarian/far right, climate change, wealth disparity - are usually associated with the (far) left, or at least the left is the one pushing for reforms. Generally, people don't become terrorists... if they don't have the feeling they have no other choice left. Israel is the closest to that tipping point, with s…
> That is why I'm relatively certain at least some people will choose violence - the question is how many will follow them
Judging by history, long periods of wealth disparity, inequality, hunger, authoritarianism, etc, are inevitably met with brutal uprisings: e.g the French/Russian/Chinese Revolution.
As for how many will follow such a revolution: any kind of right(or right policies disguised as left as we have/had in Russia/China) politics, continued over a long period of time, will eventually have the effect of creating a small privileged ruler class out of touch with the rest of society. Thus, it's no wonder that usually EVERYBODY joins such upheavals to dethrone the rich/powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm holding out for $100-200 8TB versions before I fill out the empty slot in my laptop and max out the RAM. Having all my in-use video, samples, and Kontakt libraries on-board would make life a lot easier.
Recently found a 4TB Samsung for ~200 USD
To what degree does this also reflect the restrictions on China receiving higher-end chips?
Chinese companies use to make up 30% of TSMC's revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Apple could build an iPhone for 1 cent, why wouldn't they still charge $1000 for it? Cause in healthy capitalism, a competitor could step in and sell it for $999 and Apple would lose market share quickly.
> Cause in healthy capitalism, a competitor could step in and sell it for $999 and Apple would lose market share quickly. No they can't. You're neglecting the various moats that an entity like Apple enjoys with the iPhone. First you have to be able to actually build a similar or superior product. You can't do it. Elite of elite tech engineering companies like Samsung can just barely keep up generation after generatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectively, plenty of companies can build a smartphone for far, FAR less than the sale price of an iPhone. E.g. a $50-$130 Samsung Galaxy A03. It's Apples install base, app ecosystem, and social moat (iMessage) allows continued high gross margins on their hardware and locks competition away from their profit center. The sale price has very little to do with the marginal cost of production and a ton to do with a nat…
That Samsung uses the 12nm node, so you could say it falls somewhere between iPhone 7 (16nm) and iPhone (10nm). Those are worth about $100 used. A lot of the cost of manufacturing cost of cellphone parts comes from upfront capital expense, which is paid off by new models. This allows a strategy of selling cheaper, lower-end models using that old equipment. Apple also pursues this strategy, but they don’t push it near…
The are not totally a monopoly. They may be that in some peoples influence. But mine for example my parents literally would not be able to tell the difference between a generic sub 50 dollar phone and a 1500 one. They do not use any of the extra features and it would be meaningless to them. For some people it is about the status of that logo on the back. For others it is the tech stack and integration. For others it is just something to text and phone with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could have delivered tanks from our storages the very second the first Russian crossed the border, we could have delivered fighter jets, we could have done a lot without directly involving us into the war. Instead we got Biden being afraid of Republicans (most importantly the Russian asset that was the 45th President), our German Olaf Scholz being afraid of his own party and its close ties to Russia and the far-ri…
USA provided munitions before WW1 and Germans took out the Lusitania after warning Americans not to set sail on that boat. https://archive.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html Providing munitions to non-NATO country is meddling and could be considered an act of war. Where is USA Congress to vote on this war?
There is absolutely no relevant precedence for the supplying of weapons to a country at war to be considered an 'act of war'. It just isn't a thing.
The US Congress has repeatedly voted to approve those arms sales and transfers.