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

541–550 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#541

Post by high_na_euv »

high_na_euv wrote: post #472
nemothekid wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Earn way more than 150k*

Re: US Intel

#542

Post by jollyllama »

Aurornis wrote: post #241
jollyllama wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billions for fast food delivery apps, not a dime for defense or sustainable agriculture.

> Billions for fast food delivery apps, not a dime for defense or sustainable agriculture Defense venture capital funding is literally in the billions and has resilient even in a broader VC pullback: https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insight...

Fair enough, I suppose I was being hyperbolic, but nevertheless...

It would be interesting to see the graph before 2019. For a decade, all of the investment money, talent following behind it, piled into Uber, etc.

> has resilient even in a broader VC pullback

Yes, people are starting to catch on now. Even so, investment is at best a leading indicator. In terms of existing on-the-ground domestic infrastructure, we're sorely lagging in real-world capabilities, but the better part of the last fifteen years was spent creating a vast Grubhub-type delivery infrastructure across the US while the amount of resources dedicated to peer or near-peer conflict logistics and long term agricultural production were relatively ignored.

Re: US Intel

#543

Post by buellerbueller »

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…

DeSantis says a lot about Florida, less so the USA. Pritzker says a lot about Illinois, less so the USA. Abbott says a lot about Texas, less so the USA. Newsom says a lot about California, less so the USA.

Understand why your argument is a very poor one? If not, I have 46 more of these examples.

Re: US Intel

#544

Post by [deleted] »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #534
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you? Sorry, the massive difference of "per capita" and "% of GDP". Which would be aligned assuming equal GDP. Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively. What is even more funny is that…

>Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you? You were the one who started with dickish behavior. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. >Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively. Actually it does make a difference here. Se…

[deleted]

Re: US Intel

#545

Post by simne »

elliotto wrote: post #425
simne wrote: post #307

I really wonder, why so much noise about this case. I agree, semiconductors are extremely important in current world, but did you know, Volkswagen AG is partially owned by State of Lower Saxony (~ 11.8%)? Also worth to remember cases of Rolls-Royce, Ericsson, and some other unfortunate Western companies, important for many humans, but once became unable to stay economically viable. (BTW it make me laugh, when I got i…

If Volkswagen goes under, the Lower Saxony government likely loses an income stream. If Intel goes under, Taiwan becomes the battleground for WW3.

Unfortunately, auto industry is core industry of modern economy for a long time. - Semiconductors and computers become core industry much later.

But core industries are just head of iceberg, you may not hear, typically 90% of iceberg are deep under water surface, very much like core vs non-core.

Any way, if large entity from core industry goes under, this could lead to killing domino effect for many "underwater" entities.

That is really big problem, which president Trump tried to avoid, when bought share of Intel.

And no, I disagree about battleground for now. What really important, really good strategists know, wars win by economy, not by military, as military could not withstand if they have not enough money for weapons and equipment.

So, basically, now US is stronger than China, so Chinese tops decide to not begin war which will not be profitable, while US is strong.

When and if China will feel competitive to US economically, they will be much more confident to begin war, so now the best what could do US tops to avoid war - to make China weaker and US stronger ECONOMICALLY.

Re: US Intel

#546

Post by simne »

simne wrote: post #545
elliotto wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Volkswagen goes under, the Lower Saxony government likely loses an income stream. If Intel goes under, Taiwan becomes the battleground for WW3.

Unfortunately, auto industry is core industry of modern economy for a long time. - Semiconductors and computers become core industry much later. But core industries are just head of iceberg, you may not hear, typically 90% of iceberg are deep under water surface, very much like core vs non-core. Any way, if large entity from core industry goes under, this could lead to killing domino effect for many "underwater" enti…

Current situation very similar to space race, which was started when Soviets launch first satellite in 1957, because ICBMs are basically space scale rockets.

Unfortunately, now China already could make space scale rockets, so competition moved to other space - to computers and semiconductors (and possible branch to nano-industry or bio-nano, or something similar).

Re: US Intel

#547

Post by aurareturn »

nonethewiser wrote: post #538
aurareturn wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 want to wait when it's so obvious that Taiwan would lose and lose quickly that Taiwan simply gives itself up. I agree they prefer a peaceful resolution but that would be in the form of Taiwan wanting to become part of China and deciding to reunify. It makes no sense to surrender without being forced to.

It makes sense if it's inevitable.

Re: US Intel

#548

Post by vel0city »

esafak wrote: post #427
hrq wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe something similar is happening in drug development right now. It may take less than 5, 10, 15 years to see the impact to the US. But from someone who has a vantage point to see it across many parts of the industry, including having seen the evolution of Intel / TSMC, I think it is a very similar story. Right now is like 2007 (or maybe even a bit later) for therapeutics. In the future, we will look back on t…

What's happening exactly?

Billions in grants have already been cancelled. Lots of research is losing its funding.

Re: US Intel

#549

Post by snapcaster »

righthand wrote: post #117
jmyeet wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bailout to Intel. It's essentially the US government pfoviding guarantees to Intel and its customers. How would you describe that as anything but a bailout? But really I was talking generally, such as the bank bailouts in 2008. When a bank normally fails the FDIC comes in and takes control of it including ownership. The shareholders are SOL. In my mind, this is exactly what should've happened to all the ban…

Bailouts are different from the CHIPS act you’ll just have to accept that those other bailout agreements didn’t have a profit-sharing clause attached. Emotionally you call it a bailout but it is not and by trying to enforce that fact you are ignoring the truth and pressing a lie. Plain and simple the CHIPS Act is not a bailout. [0] [0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> ht…

Do you think nitpicks like this are effective arguments? It's a bailout: they received privileged access to financing others didn't get

Re: US Intel

#550

Post by minkzilla »

twoodfin wrote: post #218
throwawaymaths wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starfleet code requires a second backup? In case the first backup fails. What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?

This is too glib: If you imagine a world where every critical industry is replicated in every large nation, often inefficiently or inadequately, that’s a world where the average person is much, much poorer. And for what?

Maybe instead of all the wealth flowing to a couple huge companies in a couple countries wealth would be distributed more broadly.
Post reply on HN