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

241–250 of 734 posts

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#241

Post by vkou »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

We may need this, but the stakeholders holding the purse strings don't. And they are the ones who will decide what gets built.

It's how we end up with shit like grocery self-checkout machines and robots answering customer support calls. Nobody likes being yelled at by a robot who doesn't understand the situation, except the decision-makers buying the machines.

This isn't peak tech, not by a longshot. This is just Intel's competitors eating it's lunch.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#242

Post by ac29 »

iancmceachern wrote: post #221

It's the people, the talent, the knowledge that drives any industry like this. The US government, US, we, gave Intel and some other companies a huge sum of money to stay awesome. Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business. So, wouldn't we have been better off as a society of we had just offered thT CHIPs money as a startup find and asked a bunch or people from I…

> Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business.

Intel has not announced layoffs. There is a rumor layoffs will be announced at the next quarterly earnings release.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#243

Post by d_graeme »

whimsicalism wrote: post #212
chrischen wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Tbh its constantly surprising why Americans view the CCPs zero-covid policy as a failure. Even the most pessimistic reports (based on actual facts, not tabloid-driven wishful thinking) acknowledges that China has avoided at least 2 million+ deaths through their zero covid policy. Is the right to life no longer a human right? Or have a lot of us so internalized anti-China propaganda that we're no longer able to think logically?

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#244

Post by ajross »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

This is actually sort of a strawman. It relies on a definition for "tech" that's different from the English word "technology". You're talking about "peak {tech industry as defined by the last three decades of investment behavior}", and... OK, there's an argument there.

But to argue that technology as a whole has stopped is... well, not irrefutable, but almost certainly wrong. And if it's right, wow, is that bleak.

Constructed more naturally, your statement here:

> we need to make better, more humane and effective technology, not just more and more and more of it.

Is certainly true, but frankly is just a tautology. "Technology" as commonly understood means new stuff that makes people's lives better.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#245

Post by AdrianB1 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #230
iancmceachern wrote: post #221

It's the people, the talent, the knowledge that drives any industry like this. The US government, US, we, gave Intel and some other companies a huge sum of money to stay awesome. Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business. So, wouldn't we have been better off as a society of we had just offered thT CHIPs money as a startup find and asked a bunch or people from I…

Targeted layoffs might be the best thing long-term. From my limited perspective of having recently worked at Intel, they had a lot of dead weight. There was a lot of talent, but it was also diluted by a lot of management and bureaucracy. I honestly don't know if layoffs are an effective solution to this, but IMHO they could definitely benefit from lower headcount and greater urgency.

A friend that also worked at Intel until a couple of years ago confirmed what you say.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#246

Post by paulmd »

sylware wrote: post #78
detaro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no spare capacity to build highest-end process fabs, and there is huge demand for capacity in 22/28nm too.

"spare capacity" ? what do you mean ? Taiwan and South Korea are enough to supply the world demand? Well, it is still hard to get your hands on top-notch chips at a reasonable price whatever the news is saying...

> Well, it is still hard to get your hands on top-notch chips at a reasonable price whatever the news is saying...

it's really not and actually the slowdown is so bad that AMD has had to reduce production, as well as other companies reducing memory/flash wafer starts etc.

it's not just intel or fake news, availability really hasn't been a problem for a year or more at this point, and if anything we're starting to shift into the "glut" phase of the bullwhip cycle.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#247

Post by dont__panic »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #229
ouid wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Xi Jingping is a tyrannical insane dictator His people like him. Who are we to decide whether he is “tyrannical” or “insane”? The west has this constant undercurrent of “we know what’s best for you” when talking about other countries and their leaders. Its neither warranted nor welcome by the locals.

How do you know "his people" like him, when anyone who criticizes the Chinese government either disappears or shuts up when the government threatens their family?

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#248

Post by bee_rider »

vkou wrote: post #241
nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

We may need this, but the stakeholders holding the purse strings don't. And they are the ones who will decide what gets built. It's how we end up with shit like grocery self-checkout machines and robots answering customer support calls. Nobody likes being yelled at by a robot who doesn't understand the situation, except the decision-makers buying the machines. This isn't peak tech, not by a longshot. This is just Int…

Grocery self-checkout machines are great. There's even a system now where you can bring a little scanner with you and scan as you pick them out, that way you can bag them directly in your cart, saving the time of the final scan and the bagging (it was great during the peak of the pandemic, skip the cashier and waiting in the high-population line area).

Robots answering support calls are annoying, but self-service websites are pretty good for 99% of things.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#249

Post by nonrandomstring »

ajross wrote: post #244
nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

This is actually sort of a strawman. It relies on a definition for "tech" that's different from the English word "technology". You're talking about "peak {tech industry as defined by the last three decades of investment behavior}", and... OK, there's an argument there. But to argue that technology as a whole has stopped is... well, not irrefutable, but almost certainly wrong. And if it's right, wow, is that bleak. Co…

I hoped it was obvious that I chose the word "tech" to mean something less than a grandiose Francis Fukuyama style comment on "The End of Technology".

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#250

Post by phlipski »

rzwitserloot wrote: post #235
phlipski wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That last one is the economic argument: Russia had to do something or their economy would fall apart if europe delivers on their plans to rapidly reduce their dependence on (russian-supplied) gas." Putin didn't have to invade! If he was truly worried about Russia's economy he could have (and should have) gone about instituting reforms/policies to encourage economic diversification and growth. I fail to see how even…

> Putin didn't have to invade! If he was truly worried about Russia's economy he could have (and should have) gone about instituting reforms/policies to encourage economic diversification and growth. Yes, absolutely. Russia, 60m people (or how much is it? More even) notwithstanding, is essentially a petrostate. It was too hard to try to get the population-driven productive elements to compete against the easy resourc…

I don't get the feeling that the majority of the Russian Elite wanted this war. They only started getting suicided after the war started and they criticized Putin. Sure the ex-military, arm-chair warriors and nationalist delusionists wanted this war, but that's a small minority. America has it's share of crazy vocal "bomb, bomb, bomb" folks too - see John Bolton, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Pompeo etc....

Outside of Putin's delusions of grandeur for an empire that never existed I still fail to see ANY upside for Russia for this war.

Post reply on HN