Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V • Hacker News Board

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#191

Post by trimethylpurine » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 12:50 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #63

addicted wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the donations part of it isn’t even that important. If you think about how legislation does (and can) work, lawmakers, even if they were the most gifted people on the planet, obviously are not experts on everything. As a result they have to rely on others. But who should those others be? When it comes to something like chip manufacturing, you’re down to essentially 1 major U.S. company in this area that can p…

Yes, while political donations in general are a concern to me, I think in this case the donations themselves are fairly innocuous. What the donations tell me is not that Intel bribed these representatives, it's that Intel identified these representatives as ones that would be particularly pliable to their legal persuasion efforts. It's true that Intel has a lot of natural strengths for its lobbying efforts, but some…

I think you'd be pressed to find a representative who didn't receive donations from Intel. Why would they gamble and guess on which ones will win next election or which ones will help them push their agenda?

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#192

Post by landswipe » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

jakobson14 wrote: post #174

chaostheory wrote: post #168

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…

They've done this before and will do it again, this is a warning to western companies to tread very carefully with RISCV and China.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#193

Post by landswipe » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 1:24 PM UTC

jakobson14 wrote: post #184

chaostheory wrote: post #182

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…

Didn't they removed crypto export controls because they had other means to achieve the same outcome?

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#194

Post by xtian » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 3:15 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #183

xtian wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a specific example?

I’ve already listed one news article with specific examples. One can find more over the past decade. I don’t have the burden of proof. That’s on you since this is common knowledge in the West

Burden of proof would fall upon the person making the claim. Appealing to the cultivated state of general ignorance in the West does not absolve you of this. In fact, the article you reference supports my position since it cites “restrictive laws and regulations” as the reason these companies do not operate in China.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#195

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #33

The numbers aren't large, but it's worth noting that 7 out of 18 signatories of the original letter received donatations from Intel's PAC in 2022 [0]: Mike Gallagher: $6000 Marco Rubio: $2500 Haley Stevens: $2000 Carlos Gimenez: $5000 Darin LaHood: $7000 Andy Barr: $2000 Ashley Hinson: $10000 Total: $34500 [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...

FWIW, Intel is a Premier Member of RISC-V International;

https://riscv.org/members/

Doesn't negate their profit motive in having the world slow down RISC-V implementation but seems worth noting.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#196

Post by xtian » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 7:44 PM UTC

jakobson14 wrote: post #156

xtian wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does Microsoft manage it? Bing and other Microsoft properties are accessible in China.

They cut a deal. Just like how apple partners with a chinese firm to store chinese users' data in china.

“Cut a deal” or maybe they followed local laws

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#197

Post by chaostheory » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

xtian wrote: post #194

chaostheory wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve already listed one news article with specific examples. One can find more over the past decade. I don’t have the burden of proof. That’s on you since this is common knowledge in the West

Burden of proof would fall upon the person making the claim. Appealing to the cultivated state of general ignorance in the West does not absolve you of this. In fact, the article you reference supports my position since it cites “restrictive laws and regulations” as the reason these companies do not operate in China.

1. I’ve already provided proof

2. It’s already a well known and accepted phenomenon

The burden of proof is still on you since you’re making a claim that goes against accepted facts, while NOT providing anything concrete to back it up.

We’re not getting anywhere. there is no point in continuing this conversation

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#198

Post by xtian » Wed, Nov 08, 2023, 11:13 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #197

xtian wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burden of proof would fall upon the person making the claim. Appealing to the cultivated state of general ignorance in the West does not absolve you of this. In fact, the article you reference supports my position since it cites “restrictive laws and regulations” as the reason these companies do not operate in China.

1. I’ve already provided proof 2. It’s already a well known and accepted phenomenon The burden of proof is still on you since you’re making a claim that goes against accepted facts, while NOT providing anything concrete to back it up. We’re not getting anywhere. there is no point in continuing this conversation

I didn’t make a claim, I asked how Western companies were blocked. But my evidence that Western companies are not blocked is that Apple and Microsoft operate in China. Uber operated there as well but lost to local competition. Phrenology was well known and documented also.

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#199

Post by nebula8804 » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #91

nebula8804 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder how much of the pro-Elon nonsense I see here, on Twitter and Reddit is just stockholders who got rich off of Tesla. I like to think that there is some sophisticated automated ML system Elon has got running to find and respond to haters....but then I saw that Youtube video discussing the poor code at Tesla so I dont know what to think anymore.

I wonder how much of the anti-Elon posts I see here, on Twitter and Reddit are just NPCs who have been told to hate a person and regurgitate talking points designed in a lab. I’m pretty sure the answer is 80-90%. I’m also not an Elon fanboy nor have I ever owned Tesla. It just really woke me up seeing the entire internet flip against Elon so quickly and it having been so obviously inorganic.

If you are looking for Anti-Elon content you'll find it. Others have seen the car teardowns and know that somehow his companies manage to produce excellent engineering(at least in some departments). Its possible to both hate him and like him at the same time(for different reasons).

Re: Regarding Proposed US Restrictions on RISC-V

#200

Post by nebula8804 » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #25

nebula8804 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder how much of the pro-Elon nonsense I see here, on Twitter and Reddit is just stockholders who got rich off of Tesla. I like to think that there is some sophisticated automated ML system Elon has got running to find and respond to haters....but then I saw that Youtube video discussing the poor code at Tesla so I dont know what to think anymore.

It's pretty obvious what causes this for both companies. You have companies that were previously in a precarious position, which attracts interest from short sellers who think the company will fail, but instead the company makes money. Then all the people holding a short position get desperate to drive the stock price down so they can close their position without losing their shirts, so they keep attacking the compan…

You make a good point. I was a lurker on the "RealTesla" and "Teslamotors" subreddits during the whole 2016-2020 saga. So many nutjobs on both sides of the aisle. And more importantly, both sides were very wrong on some things and very right on other things. That was the take away I got from that era.