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

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#211

Post by bigyabai »

klooney wrote: post #137
bix6 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ridiculous. It’s so easy to find VC funding for software but heaven forbid you try and make agricultural innovations. Biotech is slightly better but still a struggle. Hardware only counts right now if it’s defense tech but even then people would rather have another SaaS.

A16Z gets a lot of guff for their bad politics, but their "American dynamism" portfolio, if a little defense heavy, seems great

You forgot the most important thing about A16Z portfolios: they look great at the beginning of a bubble, and then... https://www.wsj.com/articles/andreessen-horowitz-went-all-in...

Re: US Intel

#212

Post by downrightmike »

nine_k wrote: post #207
bigyabai wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recently, the US was pushing NVDA to start using Intel's foundry. I assume it's for national security reasons. The real reason is simple, if you've been following IFS: Intel's foundry has no large customers. The free market has spoken and almost every single customer prefers TSMC or Samsung silicon. America was boxed-out of serious world-class chip manufacturing ever since Intel swerved on EULV. If it was for natse…

But NVidia chips are now part of national security, I suppose.

And to China with a 10-15% tax

Re: US Intel

#213

Post by nateglims »

otterley wrote: post #142
troad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have developed an economy oriented around selling one another websites, and we are only belatedly noticing that none of our enemies seem to have followed.

Let’s not forget here that Chinese companies operate some of—if not the —most popular social networks in the world. WeChat and TikTok/Douyin are enormous. (Also, in neither country is the majority of its GDP comprised of websites.)

Yes but the Chinese state is much more willing to direct capital to where it thinks it should go. The argument w.r.t. geopolitics is usually that the US is late to doing this and now lacks production capacity which is useful for competing.

Re: US Intel

#214

Post by cricketsandmops »

onetimeusename wrote: post #189

The other day when the US's stake in Intel was announced, people assumed it was a political stunt. I suspected it was because of national security interests. The CHIPS act probably didn't get the result US Defense wanted quickly enough. Some details that were glossed over include that there was a chip shortage a few years ago as a result of COVID and TSMC supply chain disruptions that led to a shortage in electronics…

I always hear about Taiwan and TSMC for Nvidia, but what I never heard until recently is that all these forbidden and banned chips are still assembled into GPUs in China. I am not sure how the US beleives any of this will do much good when the the chips are still sent to China to be completed into GPUs and other AI devices.

Re: US Intel

#216

Post by downrightmike »

Insanity wrote: post #16

To be honest, regardless of the government involvement or not, I have little hope for intel. Maybe they can, over time, have an AMD-esque comeback, but given their track record of the past few years I'm not hopeful. The Pentium -> Core2Duo was a great era for intel, but I feel like ever since then they've started a decline in both price/value proposition as well as just general hardware. The i-series was arguably pre…

And Core was a lucky happenstance for Intel as they were not innovating at all and fell behind, thank goodness their isreal lab was doing something other than P4 work.

Even recently, we've seen that all intel can do is increase cores and increase power consumption, and they still can't compete. This is itanium all over again, because that is how intel functions.

Re: US Intel

#217

Post by downrightmike »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #157
monknomo wrote: post #121

the president unilaterally extorting 10% ownership out of a company isn't going to build the kind of system that competes with anyone. Big business can't really thrive under this kind of thing any more than corner stores can thrive under a protection racket.

Didn't the US pay $9.8 billion? Intel's market cap is $106 billion, so $9.8 billion for 10% is buying at a slight discount. If that data is correct, how did the US "extort" ownership? Look, I'm as terrified of Trump's overreach as the next guy. I could easily see him extorting partial ownership of companies. But I don't see this as being that. Can you make a convincing argument otherwise?

All in so far it is $11.1 billion

Re: US Intel

#218

Post by twoodfin »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #171
mallets wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trillions of dollars spent just for redundancy? Most wouldn't even succeed in building a working process, forget profitable.

Starfleet code requires a second backup? In case the first backup fails. What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?

This is too glib: If you imagine a world where every critical industry is replicated in every large nation, often inefficiently or inadequately, that’s a world where the average person is much, much poorer.

And for what?

Re: US Intel

#219

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kccqzy wrote: post #200
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two problems with a command economy. First, as you say, because of communication bottlenecks. 300 small bakeries (number made up) keep a better eye on how much bread is needed in Manhattan than a technocrat in DC, or even Albany. As you say, we now have the communication technology to overcome that. But second, there is the command problem. You may be able to get the data there, but who's going to make the…

You don't really micromanage things, just like managers in a company shouldn't micromanage things. You don't make decisions on how much bread should be made by each of the 300 bakeries; you decide that making bread itself is important so you give subsidies. You decide that making bread locally is important so subsidies are only available to locally made and not imported bread. You decide that whole wheat bread is mor…

That's one possible outcome, yes. If the commander is smart/realist enough, you might even get it.

Re: US Intel

#220

Post by onetimeusename »

bigyabai wrote: post #201
onetimeusename wrote: post #189

The other day when the US's stake in Intel was announced, people assumed it was a political stunt. I suspected it was because of national security interests. The CHIPS act probably didn't get the result US Defense wanted quickly enough. Some details that were glossed over include that there was a chip shortage a few years ago as a result of COVID and TSMC supply chain disruptions that led to a shortage in electronics…

> Recently, the US was pushing NVDA to start using Intel's foundry. I assume it's for national security reasons. The real reason is simple, if you've been following IFS: Intel's foundry has no large customers. The free market has spoken and almost every single customer prefers TSMC or Samsung silicon. America was boxed-out of serious world-class chip manufacturing ever since Intel swerved on EULV. If it was for natse…

I'm not sure they need to claim Intel as eminent domain and that type of move is beyond what I know about but I suppose they could've done that previously but opted instead for market based solutions like with the CHIPS Act. That is really what led to the equity stake. The purpose of the CHIPS Act had more to do with the AI Cold War and securing the supply chain than it did trying to save one particular business. So I believe national security is the major concern and not saving one particular business.
Post reply on HN