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

211–220 of 734 posts

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#211

Post by mehlmao »

windexh8er wrote: post #141
Dah00n wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The USG might be trying to slow them down but they're not concerned about China militarily. The one thing that matters in the long run is money and even though the US is fighting tooth and nail to halt China it isn't very likely to happen - who knows, we'll see. Whenever this discussion pops up it reeks of racism. People from China aren't less intelligent than people in Germany or in the US so with time and more mon…

> Whenever this discussion pops up it reeks of racism. People from China aren't less intelligent than people in Germany or in the US so with time and more money they will with 100% certainty overcome any technological gap. Sure they are behind in some areas but pretending they can't make a pen is disingenuous. It's not disingenous and it's not racist as I've laid it out. Facts are facts. I've never discounted the fac…

AMD is Taiwan; they design chips but those are manufactured by TSMC. Intel is Israel.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#212

Post by whimsicalism »

chrischen wrote: post #158
greggsy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Braindead from an American perspective, it is also likely those policies have averted upwards of 4 million deaths.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#213

Post by whimsicalism »

ouid wrote: post #176
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…

Nah, fuck it. We're allowed to commit to war too. Xi Jingping is a tyrannical insane dictator and his successor will be worse. He needs to be stood up to, and no one is in a better position to do that than the US.

Why Xi Jinping and not, say, MbS?

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#214

Post by hackandthink »

authpor wrote: post #203
hackandthink wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK: PRC blockades Taiwan leads to american navy blockading PRC

Nobody wants that.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#215

Post by tlear »

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.

They can't, not even remotely close any time in the next 20 years at least. Can you imagine what a landing beach would look like being pounded by drone spotted artillery? See war in Ukraine. Forget the approach, anti ship missiles, mines, sheer volume of logistics needed. Stepping on the landing beach is a suicide without absolutely astronomical advantage in air power and ability to suffer huge attrition, even then.. 155mm hidden under camo/thermal nets, DJI drone rigged with magazines of small bombs.. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson Childs play, this would make Diep and Galipoli look like walk in the park.

I would go as far as to say that US Army + Marines + Navy could not land on Taiwan without suffering multiple brigades of attrition AFTER at least a year long blockade and air campaign. It is that hard.

PRC has to surpass US in GDP, then spend 10-20 years of US level military spending, then maybe.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#216

Post by whimsicalism »

glitchc wrote: post #149
bryanlarsen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Very little of your comment is true. I attribute increasing vitriol and false statements being thrown around as a symptom of our increasingly escalating cold war with China.

It is interesting to see how dramatically opinion has cooled on China in the past few years, simply because they have become a great power competitor.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#217

Post by whimsicalism »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #92
breckenedge wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating political and military leaders as rational entities is dangerous.

Likewise, treating everyone you disagree with as completely insane; devoid of any reasonable motivations is a lazy hand-wavy viewpoint. It’ll also make you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases.

> you prone to suck up any and all propaganda that aligns with your biases.

A phenomena that is very clear in threads about China.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#218

Post by whimsicalism »

jychang wrote: post #128
randomopining wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taiwan as a piece of land has much more strategic importance than Ukraine. Ukraine's grain and terrain are the two things that are important about it from a utilitarian sense.

Ukraine as a piece of land was Russia's only warmwater port.

Russia has plenty of allies it can use as a warm water port and Crimea was already lost.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#219

Post by [deleted] »

Huh1337 wrote: post #64
rr888 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

These people would rather be dead than under Russian rule. Why would 97% of them support continuing defense if not? And don't forget that when Russians still thought they're going to win, they brought in mobile crematoriums and started filtrating people and sending them off to Siberia if not torturing and murdering them. It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "w…

[deleted]

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#220

Post by whimsicalism »

Huh1337 wrote: post #64
rr888 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

These people would rather be dead than under Russian rule. Why would 97% of them support continuing defense if not? And don't forget that when Russians still thought they're going to win, they brought in mobile crematoriums and started filtrating people and sending them off to Siberia if not torturing and murdering them. It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "w…

> These people would rather be dead than under Russian rule. Why would 97% of them support continuing defense if not?

Certainly this is not true of Crimea, where people have been independently polled by Western NGOs and the weight of the evidence is they want to be part of Russia.

> It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "war, possibly survive"

Your thesis is that if Russia won they would murder a substantial %-ge of the population in mobile crematoriums?

Post reply on HN