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

201–210 of 734 posts

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#201

Post by authpor »

mastax wrote: post #136
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…

Chinese law should almost never be considered something that constrains the government, and especially not in grandiose cases like this. The government will do as it pleases, regardless of the law. That is more of a strong press release than a binding proposition. However, I am not arguing that China is not serious about retaking Taiwan. They are deathly serious.

this is applicable to most countries...

wriggling around the law needs only an emergency.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#202

Post by Sakos »

sylware wrote: post #189
kuschku wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what Intel put out in marketing materials, even at 14nm they had a very unreliable process with DUV. So, it might not be economical for the type of IC produced in these factories.

So it means that chinese SMIC announced '7nm' implies they have EUV working?

No, they don't have EUV. They have 7nm which they're doing with DUV, but they're hitting the same issues Intel did with abysmal yields and there's no guarantee that SMIC will be able to solve something Intel was never able to.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#203

Post by authpor »

hackandthink wrote: post #179
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…

Does it make sense for PRC to blockade Taiwan and stop TMSC delivering/producing chips? I guess only if PRC is embargoed (US Sanctions TMSC). Maybe next year. https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-gives-reprieve-least-t...

no it doesn't.

that would be equivalent to shooting themselves in the ocean.

for now, they are still under the thumb of the american navy. how else would they ship out all the consumer goods? and to whom? USA is their biggest buyer.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#204

Post by LeifCarrotson »

nscalf wrote: post #188
tgtweak wrote: post #174

To be perfectly honest, this is still within a 1000km radius circle that encompasses Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. That covers the majority of next-generation fabs that aren't Intel. It's great to legally diversify these fabs, but it does very little to mitigate geopolitical issues that are brewing in and around the east china sea.

How does it do little to diversify these fabs? The current situation is that if China invades Taiwan, the entire Western world is compelled to engage militarily over Taiwan's high end chip fabs. It cannot be overstated how much we depend on that, if TSMC operates in other countries, we don't HAVE to engage in WW3.

A fab in Ohio, Oregon, or Arizona 10,000 km from China is safe from threats like cruise missiles that the proposed fab 1000 km from China in Japan or South Korea would not be.

It's not so much that cruise missiles used on civilian targets in South Korea or Japan would not be a reason to start WW3, more that it would be less tempting.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#205

Post by galangalalgol »

kragen wrote: post #185
glitchc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xi is not rational. His isolationist policies and "return to Mao-style communism" have killed China's economy. The current zero-COVID policy is the icing on the cake: It runs completely counter to scientific thought and is impossible to achieve for 1.2 billion people. He's painted himself into a corner and is unwilling to budge (how can the Premier be wrong?), and is doing tremendous damage to China in the process.

> Xi['s] ... isolationist policies ... have killed China's economy. The PRC's GDP was US$17.7 trillion nominal in 02021, the latest year for which we have numbers, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China . That makes it the world's second largest economy by nominal dollar value (after the US) and the largest by PPP. That's not just individual countries, either; it overtook the economy of the EU in…

The games played with currency and private debt that fueled the massive export boom are not sustainable indefinitely. There are already signs it may be tipping, and the world raising interest rates to combat inflation will worsen the situation. Combine that with their exports to the US falling due to sanctions and a new interest in US manufacturing. And as their population and the population of their other trading partners all shrink...

They are still growing, they are still getting stronger, but for how long? Meanwhile 70% of Taiwanese residents now identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese?

If they wait for that percentage to climb, and for TSMC to diversify fabs to other places? The cost to take Taiwan is going up, and the prize for taking it is falling with no reason to expect inflections in either. If they don't take it now, there is really no point taking it at all.

Rationally speaking, there probably already isn't any point in taking it. It would tank exports and speed the adoption of local manufacturing elsewhere. All to get a temporary stranglehold on chip supply? What would they do with those chips? They are already far too export dominated. They need consumers to reduce their exports. If they want to win the long game, let their 1% give half their wealth to educating knowledge workers to buy their manufacturing rather than exporting it.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#206

Post by ericmay »

intrasight wrote: post #173
mastax wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese law should almost never be considered something that constrains the government, and especially not in grandiose cases like this. The government will do as it pleases, regardless of the law. That is more of a strong press release than a binding proposition. However, I am not arguing that China is not serious about retaking Taiwan. They are deathly serious.

"Chinese law" - an oxymoron ;) They said they will retake Taiwan and they can and few will really care. So of course they will.

Whether they can or not is highly questionable. "Few will really care" is certainly false.

And in terms of nation states caring, that's also incorrect because Taiwan is a linchpin of US Pacific foreign policy and for the US to do nothing or "not care" about Taiwan being invaded would signal to allies in the region that they cannot count on the United States and that they should find their own defense arrangements. It would de facto kick the US out of the Pacific and end global hegemony overnight.

Frankly, Taiwan is a big fucking deal w.r.t US, Japanese, and Australian national defense concerns and is a big deal to other nations such as New Zealand.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#207

Post by swamp40 »

> American chip bosses now fear that China could retaliate

They will certainly retaliate. The question is how. Most think they will react similarly, banning cutting edge electronics exports that could have military use.

But I suspect they will go after our weak spots. Prescription drugs, solar, lithium. I'm sure there are more.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#208

Post by authpor »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #108
cjf4 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many thought it was not only possible but inevitable: The Schlieffen plan, French revanchism, general military buildup across Europe, and of course Biskmark's 1888 comment: "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans."

You're both wrong. Many people subscribed to each belief. The economists, globalists and industry people believed that it could never happen. The military, nationalist and political folks figured it would be inevitable, or at very least if it happened they had to win. Many people subscribed to the argument of the economists and globalists in more democratic countries because it was a comforting illusion the people in…

it seems that only our instutions, or big chunks of the whole global trade system, want this war; but this this point, a lot of those systems are automated by rules and regulations and a overly complicated network that become inentelligible to the people 'running' it.

nobody that is alive and sentient (in the traditional sense) wants a war... and yet, we all see it looming.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#209

Post by simonsarris »

swamp40 wrote: post #207

> American chip bosses now fear that China could retaliate They will certainly retaliate. The question is how. Most think they will react similarly, banning cutting edge electronics exports that could have military use. But I suspect they will go after our weak spots. Prescription drugs, solar, lithium. I'm sure there are more.

yeah. They might even flood the country with fentanyl.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#210

Post by cameldrv »

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…

> progressively violating more and more of Taiwan's sovereign airspace

Just in terms of international law, the Chinese flights near Taiwan are provocative but don’t violate any laws. The U.S. and Russia still do this sort of thing all the time. An ADIZ is not sovereign airspace.

Post reply on HN