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

741–750 of 765 posts

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

#741

Post by dllthomas »

gmd63 wrote: post #739
dllthomas wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say they don't care about success? When they got bad numbers they immediately fired the person responsible.

Just in case you aren't joking, they did not fire the person responsible for the bad numbers. They fired the person responsible for observing and reporting them.

I was joking, although it was a gesture at a real thing. I don't know how much they don't care about success, versus caring but being deeply confused about how to reach it, versus in some sense "caring" but prioritizing other things. But regardless, retaliation against bearers of bad news is a great way to horrifically mismanage an organization, and we seem to be seeing it repeatedly from this administration, and it is alarming.

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

#742

Post by burnte »

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

US wants to maintain chip manufacturing presence and expertise within the borders, so saving everyone would achieve the goal but at a higher cost, so they're just focusing on the US ones in trouble.

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

#743

Post by SJC_Hacker »

camdroidw wrote: post #730
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite. Part of the reason Trump wanted to end the Russia-Ukraine war so bad was because they wanted to gear up for the "big fight". Ukraine simply wasn't a big strategic priority which is why they wanted to either end the war (best case), or shift responsibility over to Europe if that failed. Lookup Elbridge Colby - served in first Trump admin and now Undersecretary of Defense. Along with Hegseth and JD…

Elaborate a bit more on the last para, please? I know Rubio is a hawk and bannon (who Trump still talks to) wants war

Here's Elbridge Colby on a debate about Ukraine and China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMRYvl2Jefg

Hegseth on China

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/41... https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/asia/pete-hegseth-asia-to...

I don't think the views of all the "high level strategist" types align precisely. But there are very few true isolationists like Rand Paul in the executive branch

I find it doubtful that the current admin would just let China walk in to Taiwan. Trump doesn't want a war, but he's not going to want to get bent over and make the US look weak either.

And its not all that different from Democratic position, its a bit of "Washington Consensus" type of situation, like anti-Communism was during the Cold War. The approach between admins is slightly different however, and the Trump admin doesn't like Europe all that much.

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

#744

Post by cma »

rayiner wrote: post #675
cma wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President, And then you find the executive is what chooses to enforce rulings against the executive. They were not trying to set up something like the UN security council with a defacto veto on all passed law.

> And then you find the executive is what chooses to enforce rulings against the executive Correct. But this is true in almost any conceivable system. The entity charged with enforcing the law will be charged with enforcing the law against itself. “Who watches the watchers?” The founders thought of that and their solution to that was elections and a relatively short 4-year term. Conceiving of the executive as having…

> Because now, whatever subpart you assign the law enforcement function is unelected and insulated from political accountability.

Justices can be impeached by congress. The supreme court can also be diluted with new appointments by the elected branches acting together, even if justices serve for life.

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

#745

Post by [deleted] »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #218
reg_dunlop wrote: post #22

Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?

Corruption is worse than taxes, because it's unfair. Now the government has an incentive to hurt AMD and free competition. The distorts incentives and destroys the free market.

[deleted]

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

#747

Post by johnecheck »

kragen wrote: post #665
johnecheck wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I hadn't known that silicon is itself a semiconductor before all the circuits are added. Am I correct in saying that the etching process transforms a single semiconductor into billions?

No, silicon is still just one semiconductor, just like water is just one liquid. The substrate is still just one piece of silicon, despite having many silicon semiconductor devices fabricated in it. Polysilicon layers may or may not be additional pieces of silicon.

I see! Thanks for the info.

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

#748

Post by forkeep »

yieldcrv wrote: post #381
nine_k wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture existed since 1660s, and was used initially to confiscate smugglers' vessels. Then it was dug out during Prohibition, and turned toxic in 1980s when the agencies doing the forfeiture (e.g. police) were allowed to keep the confiscated property. Ideally it should be used for restitution (e.g. to victims of fraud), but... I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.

We also have criminal forfeiture, which was leveraged a lot more then. Civil forfeiture use expanded dramatically in recent decades due to profit sharing with DOJ alongside court challenges failing, suggesting the need for constitutional amendment if awareness of the practice improves. Both should have more reforms.

[dead]

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

#749

Post by kragen »

johnecheck wrote: post #747
kragen wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, silicon is still just one semiconductor, just like water is just one liquid. The substrate is still just one piece of silicon, despite having many silicon semiconductor devices fabricated in it. Polysilicon layers may or may not be additional pieces of silicon.

I see! Thanks for the info.

Happy to help!

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

#750

Post by mempko »

vel0city wrote: post #433
mempko wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related story. Tesla was saved by a $500 million bailout loan from the DEO loan office. Part of the agreement was that the US government would take a stake in Tesla UNLESS they pay back the loan ahead of schedule. That's why Tesla paid it back ahead of schedule, Elon didn't want the government to take a stake. But he spun it as a victory for the US tax payer. EDIT: Before downvoting, tell me where I'm wrong.

You're wrong because it wasn't some bailout it was a normal government loan available to to a wide range of companies. I'm not Tesla stan but it's massively misrepresenting the loan to call it a bailout. It's the kind of market investing the government should be doing, underwriting somewhat riskier loans to push the envelope on technology. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/advanced-technology-vehicles-manu...

What would have happened to Tesla without the loan? You don't think the DOE loan department had no idea of their finances? A bailout by another name is called?
Post reply on HN