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

551–560 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#551

Post by troad »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #524
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You do know that the per capita number is from your own link? Japan sits at number 19 per capita. ctrl-f "per capita", nothing comes up. I do notice that Japan is #19 in terms of % of GDP however... I actually think your confusion here explains a lot. You don't know the difference between "per capita" and "GDP". That shows you don't speak English well. That's probably why you don't know much about the US. The fundam…

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…

It's pretty wild that you think AP US History - an introductory course aimed at school-aged children - gives you some great insight into "the US psyche". An insight you gleamed as... what, a high school exchange student?

Re: US Intel

#552

Post by Herring »

MangoToupe wrote: post #522
Stephen_0xFF wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, this is the attitude I'm referring to. The people who run this country (emphatically including people who frequent this forum) are far more my enemy than anyone in china could even pretend to be. I also don't think Americans realize how quickly we will slide from relevance once our grip on the world slacks. We could have built this world into something amazing but instead we just got fat.

To be fair though, China has its morons too. If you can't deal with Republicans where you share a common language/culture/history, how are you gonna deal with a Chinese Trump on the other side of the world?

In the last election, Latinos voted 50-50 for Trump. That should have been a massive warning sign.

I like liberals, but they're way too passive. They really need to play the Prisoner's Dilemma in high school until they learn what to do when someone refuses to cooperate.

Re: US Intel

#553

Post by sofixa »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #518
sofixa wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you understand anyone who plans to vote for RN, the most popular political party in France by far, lead by a woman who said she shares Putin's global vision? "by far" only if you get stuck on political party; considering there has been a united left coalition for multiple years and rounds of elections, that seems purposefully omissive. United left and RN are pretty close, polls and election results wise, with t…

>it's "just" for stealing government and EU money, which a lot of people don't actually mind I think your double standard is pretty clear at this point. I won't be offering further replies to you in this subthread after this one. >Comparing to a delusional and senile old man who is literally convicted of rape, and there is plenty of credible evidence, out in the open, is also a pedophile. With a shit program with lit…

> think your double standard is pretty clear at this point

What double standard?? I'm merely pointing out that people distrustful of the government/EU are fine with Le Pen stealing from them. It's not an opinion I share, but I can understand it. I can't understand those people being fine with Putin bankrolling Le Pen though.

And still a million times better than Trump who not only stole from a cancer charity, but whose corruption is directly in the open and undeniable.

> IMO, the fundamental reason people in the US vote for Trump is because they don't trust the establishment/media

Regardless of that, they can see and hear with their own eyes and ears that he cannot string two coherent sentences together, and is obscenely disturbing as a human being.

Re: US Intel

#554

Post by epolanski »

high_na_euv wrote: post #483
epolanski wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your infotainment tracks everything from temperatures, lighting, temperature, car asset, etc.

Re: US Intel

#555

Post by margalabargala »

woooooo wrote: post #406
margalabargala wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the one hand, I strongly agree with this article. This kind of state ownership never brings anyhing good. I don't see how this is different. There's short term stable and long term stable. Having a BDFL can, when the BDFL is genuinely concerned with the welfare of whatever they are managing, result in something much better than what would be created if designed by committee. This is equally true for software pro…

They've lifted a literal billion people out of third world, no-indoor-plumbing poverty in the last 30 years. And, to the point of the article, SMIC is already doing 5nm manufacturing. Political systems are more complex than dictator/freedom, there are lots of stakeholders. The USA stakeholders tend to be short-term focused financial engineers, this is separate from whether we have checks and balances or what color ti…

Yes, they have had great success.

The comments you made about political systems indicate you don't really grasp my point.

- Governments are formed of people. People make mistakes.

- Power tends to corrupt, and the likelihood of corruption scales with the quantity of power and the quantity of people passing through the role (that is, one person may truly have best interests at heart, but will their successor? Or their successor?)

The result of the above is that when assessing long term stability of systems, problems that can happen inevitably will. If a system allows massive sweeping changes, then they will happen, and eventually an incorrect one will be made.

For example, let's take the scenario above, where Chinese companies were ordered to begin using Chinese GPUs. Did that work out? Yes. Could it have gone poorly? Yes.

Will every similar decision go as well? No. Thus, a situation where the "you must use Chinese GPUs" dictation is possible, is less stable than one where it is not.

You brought up a comparison to the US, because the US and China always get compared I guess? The US does this sort of thing more weakly, so gains less instability from this particular source of instability. Whether it's currently more unstable in other ways is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: US Intel

#556

Post by nostrademons »

rswail wrote: post #486
Fade_Dance wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They're very much yin and yang. PE's operating model is to take businesses that are operating inefficiently, squeeze all the inefficiencies out, sell off assets that would be more productive under other management, and basically strip the company bare. If it kills the company, that creates fertile ground for new startups funded by VC.

Think of PE as the decomposers of capitalism, and VC as its seeds. Most people don't like to think of it that way because they don't like to be reminded that death is a part of life. But if you view capitalism as a living ecosystem and your role within capitalism as someone to accelerate growth and then accelerate death so that new growth can take its place, it all makes sense. And you can probably profit pretty handsomely from it, because most people don't view capitalism like that and instead seek stability in the dying parts.

Re: US Intel

#557

Post by unethical_ban »

AngryData wrote: post #376
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?

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.

That sounds like you expect a competitive, free market for things as complex as the world's cutting edge CPU or nuclear weapons or fighter jet technology. I think when it gets as specialized and capital intensive as those things, a true free market is less likely to exist.

Re: US Intel

#558

Post by MichaelZuo »

galangalalgol wrote: post #503
rswail wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

PE played a part in manufacturing leaving the US. Often the buyouts were of sick companies, and it was just the optimum way to monetize their death. But without PE not all of them wouldnhave eventually died, and it would have given policy makers more time to react to what was happening.

It’s just natural that nobody wanted to pay for outdated machines and tooling in developed countries.

Labor costs, permits, fees, etc., means that buying used just doesn’t make sense unless it’s almost free.

Whereas developing countries were willing to pay a lot more, sometimes as much as 50 cents on the dollar compared to brand new equipment and they would send a team to rip it out too.

I’ve heard that applied to almost everything too heavy to move by forklift during the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.

Re: US Intel

#559

Post by CincinnatiMan »

hrq wrote: post #277
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 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…

It could be argued that new drug development is less needed during wartime than processor manufacturing.

Re: US Intel

#560

Post by woooooo »

margalabargala wrote: post #555
woooooo wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've lifted a literal billion people out of third world, no-indoor-plumbing poverty in the last 30 years. And, to the point of the article, SMIC is already doing 5nm manufacturing. Political systems are more complex than dictator/freedom, there are lots of stakeholders. The USA stakeholders tend to be short-term focused financial engineers, this is separate from whether we have checks and balances or what color ti…

Yes, they have had great success. The comments you made about political systems indicate you don't really grasp my point. - Governments are formed of people. People make mistakes. - Power tends to corrupt, and the likelihood of corruption scales with the quantity of power and the quantity of people passing through the role (that is, one person may truly have best interests at heart, but will their successor? Or their…

Im saying that people live in a culture, and that sets the parameters of what's conceivable.

You're commenting from the post-reagan consensus, which inevitably leads to Intel's current situation. But it doesn't have to be like that, America had a different consensus from 1930-1970.

(BTW, deepseek was trained on nvidia.)

Xi doesn't personally set every industrial policy in China, its a ton of people all over the country. Culture.

Post reply on HN