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

371–380 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#371

Post by roody15 »

Stephen_0xFF wrote: post #282
MangoToupe wrote: post #68

Note that all our issues with china would be solved if we stopped pretending like they're our enemy.

China wants to be number one and they have a good chance of doing it. Every nation’s leaders and people want that. It affords luxury and influence. The US understandably doesn’t want to lose their spot. It also helps making this an issue to give it a sense of urgency so things can get done — be it policy or innovation. There’s some game theory in there — e.g Prisoners Dilemma. Treating them as the enemy won’t lead to…

One could argue China may have already surpassed the US or at least equalled it on the world stage as of now. It will be interesting to see how historians view the rise of China and write about the emergence of a new super power.

Just a hunch and I am really going out on a limb here but I could see China wait another year or two and then step in and force a peace settlement in Ukraine. This would really show the world who the new super power is, as the US and Western powers have struggled with this conflict, a patient China could step in and reach a peace deal as they hold significant leverage over Russia.

Re: US Intel

#372

Post by roody15 »

anonymars wrote: post #40
jmyeet wrote: post #30

The short version is: this can work but it won't. Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Penti…

This is a bit of a long piece but if you're interested in this subject I think it's a good read https://docseuss.medium.com/the-biggest-threat-facing-your-t...

Good Article thanks for sharing

"Doc Burford contends that the true danger facing teams today isn’t competition, disruption, or lack of capital—it’s leadership devoid of expertise, decision-making dominated by superficial metrics, and a culture that values appearances more than actual value creation. Sustainable success comes from building things people want, not engineering facades to appease investors or the market. Relying solely on executive titles or data without understanding the craft or customer rapidly leads to collapse."

Have to agree and think this encapsulates alot of what we have been living through in the US over last few decades.

Re: US Intel

#373

Post by jojobas »

bix6 wrote: post #87
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.

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.

VCs are happy to send a vast majority of their investments in search for billion-dollar company. There is no chance to get an agricultural startup to billion dollar valuation, agricultural innovations don't scale at a click of a button.

Re: US Intel

#374

Post by bitwize »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #363
supportengineer wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These ads ain't gonna show themselves.

So the greatest military force in the world now needs to fight the war on ... adblockers?

Yes, which is why people who use and advocate for "general purpose computing" will find themselves on terrorist watchlists.

Re: US Intel

#376

Post by AngryData »

unethical_ban wrote: post #270
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically Intel has engaged in illegal wage suppression. Now we bail them out for their crimes. This was a poor business decision for exactly the reasons you’re pointing out. The market is dictating their failure and we’re now undermining it.

I see your point, but isn't it fair to say Intel is too big to fail? Not in the "lots of people would lose jobs" or "ripple effects would cause economic disruption" but in the true national security sense. What allied semiconductor manufacturers have significant cutting edge fabs in Europe?

If they are "too big to fail" then they shouldn't exist because they are also a national security issue. Either let them fall apart and fund everyone but them, or split them apart into multiple companies with new leadership.

Re: US Intel

#377

Post by freeopinion »

willhslade wrote: post #237
packetlost wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, the answer is management via performance reviews.

So current management, who had proven incapable of running a business, will be trusted to ignore past political games and just retain talent? That's certainly a take

Presumably the same management that is proposed to be axed en masse with the 50% they are now tasked with selecting...

Re: US Intel

#378

Post by chrsw »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #300
unethical_ban wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point, but isn't it fair to say Intel is too big to fail? Not in the "lots of people would lose jobs" or "ripple effects would cause economic disruption" but in the true national security sense. What allied semiconductor manufacturers have significant cutting edge fabs in Europe?

IMO the company can fail. It’s the people, facilities and equipment that matter. Those can get picked up by a company or companies that know how to use them. Secondarily, a TSMC fab on US soil seems like a better investment. In the catastrophic event that Taiwan were invaded — it’s still people, facilities and equipment that remain here.

China taking Taiwan might finally force us to get our act together.

Re: US Intel

#379

Post by SlowTao »

nemothekid wrote: post #299
chatmasta wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I thought a lot of semi-conductor work is borderline blue-collar factory work and physical labor. What you’re describing is in the R&D area and also not physically dependent on being colocated in a fab. So we should have an easier time finding that talent, although we’re probably underpaying them now, as you point out.

The most salient issue with Intel in the past 10 year was their constant delay of the 10nm node process. While TMSC was constantly pushing down the Node size, Intel struggled and ceded a lot of ground to AMD & Apple. At the same time Intel struggled to develop a competitive 5G radio, and GPU. These are all downstream of R&D. If your fab cannot shrink it's node size, then you won't get the most profitable orders.

Hey... that Arc GPU is the one silver lining to what intel is doing recently. Is it perfect, far from it but it ain't bad.

Re: US Intel

#380

Post by SlowTao »

chatmasta wrote: post #325
nemothekid wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most salient issue with Intel in the past 10 year was their constant delay of the 10nm node process. While TMSC was constantly pushing down the Node size, Intel struggled and ceded a lot of ground to AMD & Apple. At the same time Intel struggled to develop a competitive 5G radio, and GPU. These are all downstream of R&D. If your fab cannot shrink it's node size, then you won't get the most profitable orders.

I’m not sure it would have made a difference if they hit 10nm faster. Apple has always wanted to make its own chips. Some marginal efficiencies wouldn’t dissuade them from investing in themselves. And it’s not like Intel was going to start a consumer PC business…

Yep, Apple buying PA Semi was an indicator of their intention all those years back. I suspect intel was just hoping they would fail at their ambitions.
Post reply on HN