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

81–90 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#81

Post by Der_Einzige »

nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #35
slt2021 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing wealth and capital, just take an equity stake in it ?

"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

But when you link evidence that hitler had secret meetings with capitalist business leaders to bankroll him, the entire mefo bill nonsense, etc to the "were nazis socialist?" argument you get downvoted.

Re: US Intel

#82

Post by jmyeet »

righthand wrote: post #39
jmyeet wrote: post #30

The short version is: this can work but it won't. Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Penti…

> So I think the US government should take equity interests in companies they bail out rather than just giving them gifts or even loans. The US government never gave bailout and gifts to Intel. The original agreement was profit-sharing with Intel through the CHIPS act is standard with any business wanting the funds. All Trump did specifically for Intel was alter the deal to be an equity stake instead, which will stil…

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 banks that were essentially insolvent.

As another example, the US government bailed out LTCM in the 1990s when there was a willing buyer (Warren Buffett).

Re: US Intel

#83

Post by kneegerm »

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…

[flagged]

Re: US Intel

#84

Post by pcthrowaway »

ModernMech wrote: post #5

I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. It's going to be interesting hearing everyone who spent decades spilling volumes about the evils of communism and the failure of the USSR quickly pivot to being champions of state capitalism.

You're mixing up communism and nationalization[1]. I suppose those are related concepts, but since communism ostensibly serves the working class, I'd expect to see nationalization under communism/socialism to start with things like health-care, civilian infrastructure, and agriculture, whereas under fascism (which famously also nationalizes), I'd expect the industries which help the state expand (military and military infrastructure) or control its own population (surveillance, telecom, police) to be prioritized in nationalization efforts.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Re: US Intel

#85

Post by nonethewiser »

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 need TSMC in 10 years. That seems to contradict itself.

Re: US Intel

#86

Post by qwytw »

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…

> companies in 2015 and that projected for 2025 to see this trend

It's easy to grow very fast when you are starting from a very low base. Especially when you are chasing someone.

It's a bit like China's GDP per capita. If it continued growing at the same pace as between 2000 and 2020 it might have had a chance to catch up with US in a few decades or so from now. Certainly Western Europe.

Yet based on current trends they will never close the gap (then again who knows what will change in the next 10-20 years or so).

Of course demographic collapse is not that far either. US and Europe at least have immigrants propping them up.

Re: US Intel

#87

Post by bix6 »

troad wrote: post #65
georgeburdell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may add my view as a formerly high-achieving semiconductor worker that Intel would benefit greatly from having right now, a lot of us pivoted to software and machine learning to earn more money. My first 2 years as a software engineer earned me more RSUs than a decade in semiconductors. Semiconductors is not prestigious work in the U.S., despite the strategic importance. By contrast, it is highly respected and r…

We have developed an economy oriented around selling one another websites, and we are only belatedly noticing that none of our enemies seem to have followed.

It’s ridiculous. It’s so easy to find VC funding for software but heaven forbid you try and make agricultural innovations. Biotech is slightly better but still a struggle. Hardware only counts right now if it’s defense tech but even then people would rather have another SaaS.

Re: US Intel

#88

Post by JustExAWS »

jrk wrote: post #71
scarface_74 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel hasn’t been “the best” since the world cared more about mobile in 2010. There GPUs have always been also ran. It just wasn’t a big deal until crypto and later machine learning. Even for integrated graphics, Intel has been behind Apple’s/TSMC ARM based processor before the Mx based Macs.

The OP is talking about fabrication technology, not end products. Even years into their delays getting to 10nm, Intel had more advanced fabrication technology than TSMC until N7 reached volume in 2018.

What’s the use of having “better fabs” to make worse products that the market doesn’t need and not be a foundry for other companies that can use it?

The reason they are in the shape they are in right now is because they didn’t have the volume to invest in the next generation and even now the CEO said they aren’t going to invest in making a cutting edge foundry until they have customers committed to it.

Re: US Intel

#89

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

georgeburdell wrote: post #23
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…

If I may add my view as a formerly high-achieving semiconductor worker that Intel would benefit greatly from having right now, a lot of us pivoted to software and machine learning to earn more money. My first 2 years as a software engineer earned me more RSUs than a decade in semiconductors. Semiconductors is not prestigious work in the U.S., despite the strategic importance. By contrast, it is highly respected and r…

Historically Intel has engaged in illegal wage suppression. Now we bail them out for their crimes.

This was a poor business decision for exactly the reasons you’re pointing out. The market is dictating their failure and we’re now undermining it.

Re: US Intel

#90

Post by JKCalhoun »

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…

Perhaps then fabs should be considered important enough for the US then that a new entity, perhaps not unlike NASA, is created to create and run these.
Post reply on HN