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

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 765 posts

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#481

Post by adastra22 »

hajile wrote: post #474
adastra22 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing systems do this. Look up the F-35. It's what I was referencing. Bleeding edge state of the art chips aren't required though, or even practical -- these systems need a lot of validation before use, and that makes them always a few process generation behind.

I'm not talking about the plane. I'm talking about the weapon itself. Imagine a next-generation fire-and-forget weapons with radar and broad-spectrum camera arrays and an AI trained on a fused version of all this data. Typical defenses like chaff or flares would be rendered almost entirely useless. This kind of visual approach also renders modern stealth almost completely useless. When an unexpected plane is found on…

Yeah, this kind of whole-battlefield sensor integration is part of the F-35 program. It's not specific to the plane. You don't need the absolute latest gen hardware to do this.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#482

Post by ivewonyoung »

LPisGood wrote: post #448
ivewonyoung wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a company it'd have failed already. > The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci... And that's just…

>Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little? Yes, absolutely. I think you might be overestimating VC’s a little bit.

It can happen yes, but VCs have very strong incentives to not waste their own money, if they feel like putting the effort into it. If they fail they may learn the lesson not to waste money, or even end up not having money to waste. In the government all the incentives are the opposite, to keep spending money or the budget would get reduced next year. If anyone tries to save costs, they make a lot of enemies both within and outside. They get nothing if they succeed, so the incentives are bad.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#483

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sgnelson wrote: post #468

Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…

> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government

Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#484

Post by sanex »

bongodongobob wrote: post #476
fach wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branding nationalizing companies as “citizens control” is quite the spin. Chinese citizens surely own the means of production, right?

Nationalizing a company isn't communism and isn't intended to resemble it.

How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#485

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bko wrote: post #418
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the average taxpayer ever actually end up benefitting point blank?

Not that I agree with bail-outs, but 2008 financial crisis that resulted in a number of bail outs actually netted the treasury a profit. > In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the 2008 financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion,…

To be clear, that bailout was passed by the Congress. This is a new phase of the President gets to just bail out anyone.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#486

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #483
sgnelson wrote: post #468

Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…

> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#487

Post by intended »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #346
ch4s3 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.

If shareholders are losing ownership it's less a pure bailout and more a strategic investment and/or takeover. It also potentially lets the average taxpayer benefit rather than just those its directly propping up.

This has worked REALLY well in countries like India. Where it resulted in the ability to be badly run, AND be excluded from market pressure. Which resulted in corruption and a drag on the economy.

There are governments which can take a stake and be ok, and then there are governments which are setting up to set money on fire.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#488

Post by ryoshu »

Henchman21 wrote: post #478
whoisthemachine wrote: post #373

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for the old "Tea Party" to rise up again and start protesting this.

The only way you're going to get people to notice anything at all is if you shut down the internet.

Working on it.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#489

Post by lugu »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #463
lugu wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If TSMC diseaper tomorrow, people will still buy computers, with chips made from Korea, or China, who cares. What are apple or Nvidia risking? They have worked hard to lock their customer. The problem is for the US military.

Apple & Nvidia switching to, say, Samsung as their foundry would likely take at least a year before they'd start to see production. Meanwhile, little to no revenue. It is a risk for them. And if China went for Taiwan, why not also cause some trouble for S Korea while they're at it? (Wouldn't have to invade, just block shipping, etc. - if China decided to do maximal damage. It's also quite possible that N Korea would…

I think it would be shorter, they work with Samsung to evaluate their option. And if China did went after TSMC (Taiwan and us) plus Samsung, Nvidia can still switch supplier (Intel?). The risk (let's say one year revenu) isn't worth joining the fab business. They have seen what happened to Intel and AND. And they know China will have good fabs in not too long. Nvidia true competitor is apple, and they are in the same boat.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#490

Post by gmd63 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #196
lugu wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can this be any good for Intel? Why is the stock value bumping 6%?

Because the government having a financial interest in Intel’s success is expected by the market to result in the government acting in Intel’s interest, in order to profit.

You would think the US government would be interested in the US government's success, but the past eight months have proven starkly otherwise. What makes one think they will be looking out for Intel's interests any better?
Post reply on HN