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

471–480 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#471

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

af78 wrote: post #466
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget France. The far-right party is most popular by far: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/france/ The majority of second-round polling has the far right winning the next presidency in France, potentially even by a landslide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2027_F... For that reason, it's rather ironic to me when I see Europeans rally around Macron. France is poised to rug-pul…

I share your pessimism. Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) has had ties with the Kremlin for a long time. That alone should have discredited this party a long time ago, but no, it is ranking as high as ever, even after russia's overt invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Mélenchon's far-left "France Insoumise" party ranks very high too, and is similarly pro-russian, anti-EU, anti-NATO. In the town where I live, more than…

Don't worry, you'll have the pleasure of being blamed for the votes of your neighbors before much longer ;-)

Re: US Intel

#472

Post by high_na_euv »

nemothekid wrote: post #235
ecshafer wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many workers do we need? TSMC has 80k workers all in. 15-24 there is about 3 million US NEETs. I think that we could have a 10 year plan to get 80k people with EE/CE/NanoTech Eng/ChemEng/etc degrees. Make college free, or hell even a stipend for people to pursue "Critical Careers", heavily fund Phds in the same areas for US Citizens, and we will see workers with the skills.

This is the wrong way to look at it. The people in the US that you would want working in semiconductors aren't NEETs. They are at Facebook/Google/Jane Street/Citadel/McKinsey. If I am a capable person working on delivering node improvements dealing with smaller and smaller challenges as the physics issues become quantum - I will eventually start to ask myself: why am I working on the hardest physics problems in the p…

Top semico ppl aren't way more than 150k

Also skills from one industry do not transfer that easily to the other

Re: US Intel

#473

Post by graycat »

Fade_Dance wrote: post #359
MichaelZuo wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems really unlikely so many elements of American society decided to prioritize returns simultaneously… but more like those who didn’t… eventually couldn’t compete anymore and left the market. Leaving behind only those completely focused on returns.

I'd reframe that slightly. There is a vast foundation of stable, optimized businesses that are in commoditized/low-growth ares. They function as the underpinnings of the American economy. When turning the spotlight to capital that is seeking returns, it is true that these areas may be mediocre places to deploy fresh capital, but it doesn't mean that these players aren't competing, and they will probably be cranking o…

Okay, "logistics optimization"???

In the US there have been a few, i.e., apparently less than 20, universities with an applied math program up to date in and teaching optimization.

Sooooo, anyone at all seriously interested, long, for decades, would, could, should visit some of those math programs, meet some of the profs, get recommendations for their former students, call them, chat, and offer a job better than their current lawn mowing, fast food restaurant kitchen cleaning, or car washing. Instead of just the US, might also consider Waterloo in Canada. Actually the Chair of my Ph.D. orals committee specialized in optimization in logistics. After sending 1000+ beautifully written resume copies and hearing back nothing, can begin to conclude that optimization is not a hot field and for highly dedicated optimizers who want to sleep on a cot in a single room, forgo bathing, most days eat bread, other days peanut butter, have no children, wife, or family contact, don't own a car, and must get any needed medical care from some of the last resort special clinics. Ah, real optimization!

Re: US Intel

#475

Post by graycat »

bix6 wrote: post #267
nine_k wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that VC funding may be an inappropriate tool for that. VCs want you to either grow fast, or fail fast. Not necessarily to bring profit fast, but to visibly capture the market (see Uber). Move fast, break things, rework things every week, trigger that wave of sign-ups. Agriculture is much slower, every iteration may be is a year, or (in tropical climates) half a year. Microelectronics is comparably slow, and e…

It shouldn’t be that way though. Venture capital is only for SaaS? It should be for technology in general. But the IRR demands are too much so it concentrates to SaaS.

Early on, with a good technical background, I guessed that, of course, the key to success in technology was some good technology but soon discovered that VCs just want to make money, a lot of money, quickly, and otherwise will hear from the investors in their fund.

Just heard of Palmer Luckey. Hmm! Money? No big staff, not much equipment, essentially just one person?? $1B+, quickly? Example: Taylor Swift. Did she ever hear of Linux???

Re: US Intel

#476

Post by pyrale »

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.

Probably because the US let software be a breeding ground for monopolies. People invest there because they understand that's the best sector to, if the company works out, get unreasonable returns. As an example, the current AI valuations make no sense if the industry doesn't solidify around one or two companies.

If you have money, the returns you'll get elsewhere are much less attractive, and can only be justified if they're very safe investments.

Re: US Intel

#477

Post by SlowTao »

prewett wrote: post #424
SlowTao wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, that defense allows hoarding wealth. If the wealth was more evenly distributed globally, there would be little reason to defend against raids. This is how places like the US despite having 4% of the population have about a quarter of the material and energy consumption. Not to single them out, I am in Australia, it is a similar ratio. I am not defending this situation, just highlighting its role.

Not all wars are about raiding, especially in the modern era. Putin isn’t interested in Ukraine’s wealth. Nor would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be about money.

You are right. I was far to reductionist there.

"No wars have been more ruthless and ravaging than “just” wars, fought in “defense” of religion, honor, or principle. If war must be, give me rather a war to capture an enemy’s wealth and territory, based on honest greed, in which I shall be careful not to destroy what I want to possess. " - Alan Watts

Re: US Intel

#478

Post by silverliver »

This was always going to be the logical conclusion to US hostile policy regarding the the proliferation of IC fabrication. The US, not cost, was the primary factor that discouraged many countries from pursuing their own IC fabrication capabilities. Had they not been so hostile, many countries would have had enough capacity to cover for the US until it rebooted its own industry.

This is also the same trap that China is barrelling into right now and they will absolutely find themselves in the same position eventually.

Re: US Intel

#479

Post by corimaith »

troad wrote: post #446
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Americans may be proud of that, but that’s pure bullying. It's slightly weird to me how foreigners seem to look on the Trump era as personifying the US to a greater degree than e.g. the Biden or Obama eras. Trump is not especially popular right now: https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

And for some reason Europe is always excused from that standard, despite Orban, Fico, Meloni, Wilders, Nawrocki, Erdogan, etc etc. We're meant to believe that the 49%-to-48% election of Trump is some deep window into the eternal American psyche, but Orban's fifteen-year drive into corrupt, racist autocracy, endorsed by the voters at every turn, is just some sort of very temporary oopsie that says nothing at all about…

What Trump is and his values aren't particularly different from the usual right-wing populism elsewhere, hell for most of the "global south" people like him or the norm if not the majority of voters.

Re: US Intel

#480

Post by variadix »

davedx wrote: post #161
dfxm12 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such a stunning dereliction the US let things get to this point. It's a side effect of systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research. CHIPs act may be too little, it is certainly too late...

> systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research That's more the stock market than the US government though. You could argue the US government tries to play a long game, and often the way the US plays that game is to let the free market decide (hands off, small government). It's definitely a valid strategy and has worked extremely well in a number of other industries, but for this specific niche, l…

The strategy is fine, the problem is there aren’t enough domestic competing players in cutting edge semi nodes for it to work anymore. The US had many competing foundries before its semi industry was hollowed out by Japan and Korea. Now the only player in the US is Intel and, having been mismanaged for the last decade or more, it’s at risk.

I don’t think propping up Intel is going to work though, they’re a sinking ship and their management seems too risk averse and incompetent. It might be better for the US, long term, to let them collapse and sell off strategic parts to different domestic players (NVIDIA, AMD, micron, TI, etc) and use tariffs or other trade policy to force some amount of leading edge semi fabrication to use domestic manufacturing.

Post reply on HN