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

481–490 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#481

Post by grues-dinner »

> TSMC’s foundries — and Samsung’s — are within easy reach...

To be honest, every foundry is in easy reach of something that can take it out. If there's a conflict that results in missiles hitting Korean factories, someone will be drone-bombing the power interconnects or driving trucks into water purifiers or whatever and taking out foundries in Texas.

It doesn't take much to ruin semiconductor foundry throughput. Wafers spend weeks or even months progressing from stage to stage. If you can cause a power failure, for example, you can scrap the whole content of the line and there will be no output until the pipeline refills: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomcoughlin/2019/07/05/nand-fab...

Perhaps process robustness is better now, but in the constant scrambling state of semiconductor manufacturing, I doubt it is better enough to be able to shrug off concerted, deliberate attacks rather than just accidents, fuckups and bad luck.

Re: US Intel

#482

Post by aurareturn »

nonethewiser wrote: post #85
Diog wrote: post #51

To be honest, for most Chinese people, the reason we haven't taken action regarding Taiwan is not because of TSMC, but rather our patience with the current will of the Taiwan people. However, this patience has its limits. Even if TSMC has better chips now, China mainland will surpass them next 10 years. You can compare the gap in chip technology between Chinese companies in 2015 and that projected for 2025 to see thi…

Do you think an invasion of Taiwan brings risk of a new, worse status quo? I think that's primarily why China doesn't invade. If it were possible to just achieve an easy, total victory then there is no reason to wait for Taiwanese people to change their mind about joining China. Im also confused why you say China's inaction on Taiwan isnt about TSMC its about patience, but patience is running out because China wont n…

  Do you think an invasion of Taiwan brings risk of a new, worse status quo? I think that's primarily why China doesn't invade. If it were possible to just achieve an easy, total victory then there is no reason to wait for Taiwanese people to change their mind about joining China.
In my humble opinion, if China wanted to, they could win it now. China's vast resources and manpower will be overwhelming. Doesn't matter if they lose a few battles or takes a few years.

The reason China doesn't want to is because they want a peaceful reunification. They want to wait when it's so obvious that Taiwan would lose and lose quickly that Taiwan simply gives itself up.

Re: US Intel

#483

Post by high_na_euv »

epolanski wrote: post #462
mrheosuper wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which can already be done with >7nm chip.

Yes, everything we have out there can already be done on 28nm chips, that doesn't mean that the goal stays idle. And in a car you have hundreds of subsystems to control and monitor too.

What subsystem you mean?

Re: US Intel

#484

Post by baq »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #330
baq wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only in software there's a clear, tried and tested multiple times path for 1000x ROI for an investor. thermodynamics themselves limit ROI for anything physical.

Thermodynamics is also the limiter in AI these days.

It limits token generation, but not token utility.

Re: US Intel

#485

Post by roenxi »

fxtentacle wrote: post #279
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…

Yeah, it's almost as if prioritizing returns on investment over EVERYTHING!!! else has bad side-effects for the economy as a whole.

What country are you thinking when you say that? It doesn't sound like the US. Through the zero-interest rate era they've been absurdly tolerant of companies offering no- to little- returns on investment. They've basically been operating investor-led charities.

It is still unsettling seeing Uber turning a profit, but even with that they're not turning a net profit over the lifetime of the company yet and won't be for a few years. Hopefully no-one pops up to compete with them now the sector has profits in it.

Re: US Intel

#486

Post by rswail »

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…

Not only leverage, but also destabilizing those optimized businesses to harvest the capital assets from their balance sheets to pay for the leverage, while destroying the underlying business.

PE is arguably much worse than VC. VC's business model is well understood and by taking VC funding, you are committing to their expected returns.

PE is, usually, unsolicited and is designed to exploit what appears to be a "lazy" balance sheet, but which is actually a stable business producing output and providing a reasonable ROI.

PE has very few redeeming features.

Re: US Intel

#487

Post by sofixa »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #470
sofixa wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Europe Yes, Orban says nothing about Europe. It says plenty about Hungary though. Europe not being a country, and the EU being very heavily decentralised, that makes sense.

>Orban says nothing about Europe. Hungary is literally in Europe. If Orban says nothing about Europe, then nothing can ever say anything about Europe. Your country is choosing to stay in a union with Orban's. If EU membership is meaningless, as you imply, it should be easy for your country to quit in order to make a point about Hungary.

> Hungary is literally in Europe. If Orban says nothing about Europe, then nothing can ever say anything about Europe.

so are the Vatican and Andorra and Belarus, so all of Europe is theocratic and/or a kleptocracy?

> Your country is choosing to stay in a union with Orban's

Because the benefits far outweigh the association with that pigshit, who will also die some day. Also, the EU can and does exert influence over countries, so some of Orban's excesses can be curbed.

Re: US Intel

#488

Post by hengheng »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #227
makestuff wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah seeing the innovations DJI is making in agriculture makes me wonder why VCs do not want to fund other startups like it. I know the margins are worse and it takes way more capital to fund hardware companies, but that has to be better than funding another chat-gpt wrapper. I guess that is why I am not a VC though lol.

To fund a software start-up you need 5 people and 5 laptops to get to tens of millions of value. To fund a similar sized hardware start-up you need a full lab andddd already the proposition is dead.

I've seen US startup people deal with manufacturing. There is a class gap that leaves no real space for skilled blue-collar work to exist and also be business critical, and fully integrated into the team. That is how a three-week turnaround for a milled prototype part ends up being tolerated.

Re: US Intel

#489

Post by speleding »

themgt wrote: post #7

I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for t…

I would like to challenge the notion that you absolutely need state of the art fabs to win a war. Most military gear uses "proven technology" several generations behind SOTA. When push really comes to shove there is a lot you can do with the chips you already have and nationalizing the fabs under your control.

The dependence on oil from the Middle East is comparatively a bigger problem for the West (though not for the US with its shale oil reserves).

Re: US Intel

#490

Post by Sammi »

sofixa wrote: post #461
safety1st wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not backwards. It's ECON101. Government makes policy. Government decides when and where to apply tariffs. If government applies a tariff on imports from any country that has cheap labor, businesses will stop offshoring to that country because it will no longer be cheaper. Or at least, that's what businesses do in a free market economy. In the free market where many firms compete for your dollar, they can and wil…

It is wild to see someone bringing the benefits of tariffs and free markets at the same time. The two are kind of antithetical.

Free markets are unnatural. Monopoly is natural.

Free markets only exist in unnaturally heavily regulated circumstances. If you let the markets to be on their own devices then you get monopoly. Regulation is ironically what makes free markets possible.

It's basically exactly the same as democracy vs feudalism.

Post reply on HN