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

Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 734 posts

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#151

Post by kridsdale2 »

rswail wrote: post #137
jcranmer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a more simple explanation - if China wants a boat to travel from anywhere to Guangzhou, Tianjin or Shanghai then at the moment the boat has to pass close by an island that is a US ally. If China controlled Taiwan, that would no longer be true and they'd have easy access to the Pacific. No, it would still be true. Just beyond Taiwan on the north side are the furthest islands in the Japanese island chain, an…

Singapore is aligned with the West, trains with/by Australia who are aligned with the US and NZ.

This is true, but they fell VERY quickly when the Japanese showed up. Maybe they'll do it again.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#152

Post by treis »

chaorace wrote: post #111
Isinlor wrote: post #22

China already declared that it will use force in Taiwan if "possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted". From Chinese Anti-Secession Law: Article 8: In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or t…

This kind of bluster is a mainstay of Chinese geopolitics. The law was intentionally written in an open-ended way so that the party always gets the final say on what "completely exhausted" should mean. It serves as a propaganda tool internally and a point of leverage externally -- the party never needs to actually act on the threat for it to serve a valuable purpose. With that being said, it's not that simple. Bluste…

Nitpick, but AFAIK China hasn't violated Taiwan's airspace. Taiwan says they'd treat it as an act of war if they did.

Taiwan has an Air Defense Identification Zone where they track aircraft and aircraft entering it are supposed to identify themselves. This extends over the Chinese mainland and it's this zone that everyone talks about China "violating". But it's Chinese airspace and ultimately they have the right to fly there without notifying Taiwan.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#154

Post by bullen »

striking wrote: post #62
bullen wrote: post #32

Everything can be predicted if you understand energy. Companies can't survive in a peak world without manufacturing crap. Sell more because your tools break. So now they are looking at how to do that under the premise of eternal growth: They will try to lock us down in the hardware = deprecate older hardware and force you to move to never software with TLS 1.3. That has never succeded because you can always hack ever…

Fine, I'll bite. I downvoted you because TLS 1.3 isn't a conspiracy to make your old stuff break, and such an allegation is undeserving of a reply. You should be able to run an HTTP/S proxy supporting TLS 1.3 on any machine, issuing your own cert to machines that insist on unsupported HTTPS connection types, and route most of your traffic through it without issue. Raspberry Pis are out of stock because 1) companies t…

TLS 1.3 is not more secure then TLS 1.2

Now Mojang and Rockstar (on azure) have disabled TLS 1.2 on their servers on purpose to lockout Windows 7.

Windows 10 offers NOTHING of value compared to Windows 7.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#155

Post by spamizbad »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #123
breckenedge wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating political and military leaders as rational entities is dangerous.

Xi is one of the most rational actors on the world stage. Machiavellian rational, but rational. I recommend the Economist's podcast series on him.

Is he? I feel like everyone said this about Putin and now the narrative has changed and he's an unstable madman whose going to launch a nuke if he loses too badly in his war.

Like many politicians, Xi is ruthlessly self-interested. His actions that allow him to consolidate power aren't necessarily in the best interests of China.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#156

Post by bullen »

svnt wrote: post #103
bullen wrote: post #32

Everything can be predicted if you understand energy. Companies can't survive in a peak world without manufacturing crap. Sell more because your tools break. So now they are looking at how to do that under the premise of eternal growth: They will try to lock us down in the hardware = deprecate older hardware and force you to move to never software with TLS 1.3. That has never succeded because you can always hack ever…

Your argument doesn’t hold together. Many traditional hardware companies are transitioning/have transitioned to some form of hybrid model or subscription service explicitly. We are actually looking at degrowth, not eternal growth. Processors may be near peaking but the Raspberry Pi is not a competitor with those processors. The reason stock is down is because of supply chain issues still overhanging from the pandemic…

That is what I mean with eternal growth... how can you missunderstand that?

Raspberry 4 has 2Gflops/W where M1 has 2.5!!!

Pandemic is not the problem. Energy and money is the problem.

Edit: Premise = Promise yes.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#157

Post by bullen »

BirAdam wrote: post #140
bullen wrote: post #32

Everything can be predicted if you understand energy. Companies can't survive in a peak world without manufacturing crap. Sell more because your tools break. So now they are looking at how to do that under the premise of eternal growth: They will try to lock us down in the hardware = deprecate older hardware and force you to move to never software with TLS 1.3. That has never succeded because you can always hack ever…

> Everything can be predicted if you understand energy Energy, while vital, is not the only component in any part of an economy. > Companies can't survive in a peak world without manufacturing crap. Sell more because your tools break. This cuts both ways. If tools break too often or too easily, someone else will manufacture a tool that lasts. That tool will then sell millions or even billions of units. This can susta…

You mean like lightbulb companies for the last 100 years?

How can two people missunderstand eternal growth... I said premise... that is what they promise... obviously it dosen't exist!!! Do I need to add /s or something?!

Jim Keller has been wrong so far... he can't solve the memory bottleneck.

You can choose a non-locked down product now maybe, in 12 months not a chance in hell!

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#158

Post by chrischen »

greggsy wrote: post #142
chaorace wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of bluster is a mainstay of Chinese geopolitics. The law was intentionally written in an open-ended way so that the party always gets the final say on what "completely exhausted" should mean. It serves as a propaganda tool internally and a point of leverage externally -- the party never needs to actually act on the threat for it to serve a valuable purpose. With that being said, it's not that simple. Bluste…

Exactly - they’re not constrained by the same four-ish year terms held in most democratic countries, and are able to play out twenty- and even fifty-year scenarios without too much domestic uncertainty. That strategy manifests in that slow chipping away: they don’t need to do things all at once.

It also manifests in potentially bad management that keeps itself going such as the current administration’s braindead covid policies.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#159

Post by svnt »

bullen wrote: post #156
svnt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument doesn’t hold together. Many traditional hardware companies are transitioning/have transitioned to some form of hybrid model or subscription service explicitly. We are actually looking at degrowth, not eternal growth. Processors may be near peaking but the Raspberry Pi is not a competitor with those processors. The reason stock is down is because of supply chain issues still overhanging from the pandemic…

That is what I mean with eternal growth... how can you missunderstand that? Raspberry 4 has 2Gflops/W where M1 has 2.5!!! Pandemic is not the problem. Energy and money is the problem. Edit: Premise = Promise yes.

I guess that is just more evidence that your message is unclear. Did you mean promise instead of premise?

Energy/money is also the solution, so if you see it as the problem then you are probably missing the specific details.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#160

Post by swores »

moffkalast wrote: post #35
swores wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's quite apparent that there's little demand for the Pico, since it's always in stock. Without additional context (which perhaps you have and used subconsciously) that's not evidence that there's less demand - just evidence that the ratio of demand to stock is lowest. It could be that it has 2x the demand but they prioritised it and produced 3x as much stock, or it could be that a specific component makes one pro…

Well it's either an overestimation in production or an underestimation in demand. Or likely both to some extent in this case. I bought a few of them a while back and have only recently managed to integrate one of them into a really basic project. They tried to make some kind of middle ground between an ESP and an Arduino, while providing an incredibly buggy MicroPython build and no Arudino IDE integration. Some of th…

> Well it's either an overestimation in production or an underestimation in demand.

Or they correctly estimated, planned not to go out of stock and were able to succeed. Jumping from "it never shows as out of stock" to "therefore they must have badly estimated one or both of supply or demand" is even stranger a leap of thinking than the initial misconception of thinking that not going out of stock proves low demand.

In both this comment and the previous one, you're guessing at a possible explanation while writing as if you know it to be the correct explanation.

(Sorry for coming across all critical, hopefully learning what can and can't be construed from a product being in stock is worth my negativity!)

Post reply on HN