Is the US slowly bowing out of the international tech scene? China is still going to get their processors from somewhere, the difference is if they don't get them from US companies then no money gets added to the US economy when they do buy their chips. This type of government interference doesn't hurt Chinese businesses at all, but could damage or destroy US-based businesses that may depend on foreign customers to s…
MIPS CPUs are better anyway - a good British company (now).
Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
81–90 of 96 posts
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#82I wonder how long it is before someone decides to buy AMD with a view to evading these sorts of problems with an x86 license...
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I could decipher from the end of the article, it sounded like China has already migrated away from Intel's architecture and replaced it with a different architecture they could get their hands on more reliably—meaning even if the US were to reverse their decision about this denial list, the damage to Intel is already done. This may have killed the demand for Intel's products in China, even if they were free…
"L'avion s'est envolé!"
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference. It's a term used for pragmatic openness between companies. Avoiding secrets. I prefer using the term 'lay your cards on the table'. Less charged.
> It's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference. Yes, but it looks like the author thought they were being clever by using that specific phrase, given the article was about China.
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#85I can't help but feel that not supplying processors to the "National University of Defense Technology" is basically a textbook use of export regs? I don't really understand why people are complaining about this one?
Well, you know, free market etc.
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe they are arranging for a "special batch" of CPUs to make their way to China like they did with IBM 360s in the cold war. That only lead to oil pipeline failures...
Got any more info on this? A quick Google didn't reveal anything.
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#87I find it interesting to consider valuations for the two costs in allowing the chips to be used. Intel chip revenue, and future business growth = +X Security concerns, and future security concerns = -Y I really wonder what the value of X-Y is, i.e., what's the net benefit? It's hard to reason about as a member of the public without inside information. Y is particularly opaque in this case. Also I really think the nar…
> It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other However domestic concerns that are hard to solve can benefit from (made-up) external concerns. It has also been used to enforce power internally. Other than that domestic concerns have the problem that solving them can change status quo and give the fact that such decisions of course are made by people that are…
Of course there are traditional ones like Palantir and veteran spin offs for intelligence and military procurement. And there's the big and small DoD contractors in Maryland. And I've also at various times heard about startups that aim to "digitize" government in terms of putting forms and processes in the cloud.
In some ostentatiously liberal places like in South America it seems these kind of digitisation startups are more popular, because there they're proud of how "progressive" they are :)
I just feel there has to be way way more possibilities. Maybe I'm just out of the loop tho, and there's lots of movement.
Basically I like government, because I feel the fundamental principle is noble: safeguarding order for the people. And I feel like all the things which don't work, like corruption, are simply inefficiencies which will be removed as the model (and maybe the tech) evolves.
Status quo is often raised as a criticism of government, and status quo is government's core purpose, and doesn't necessarily mean it's sinister or stagnant, tho those sides can emerge.
I think it really works that while everyone is rushing ahead to push their own agendas, there's large groups who are mostly trying to safeguard the order we already have. It seems to be not like an evil, and instead a necessary balance.
So I don't think status quo needs to equal corruption, or lack of innovation: you can find better ways to maintain what you have!
Also the issues that are sometimes attributed to the status quo attribute of government I believe stem from other things. The narrative of a crusty elite few concocting repressive schemes to hold onto the power they're so afraid the proles will somehow steal from them, even tho the proles haven't interfered with said elites success in the first place -- just seems like something too much out of a hero villain trope from the popular consciousness, and lacking in fidelity or explanatory power for reality. I'd go so far as to say this is the "Disney delusion" because the spectre of such fictional villains is alike to something conjured by the finest Disney cartoons! :)
Another cognitive dissonance is people attribute the outsized evils effected by governments to so called outsized evil of the people in them. It's actually because power is a force magnifier, so ordinary evil, or which there is plenty even in everyday life, is given outsized expression through the lens of governments. Actually, with how chaotic individuals are I find it an amazing miracle that governments are as peaceful and stable as they are. Which no doubt stems from the conspicuous effort of people involved.
So while it's a sometimes a common narrative to sledge governments, for a number of reasons only some of which I touch on here, I feel a more balanced view of them is clearer. And without a clear view, how can we operate effectively?
None of which is to say that there aren't plenty of opportunities to create improvements in governments, a fact which, given the stakes, seems surprising more startups aren't magnetically drawn to it. An important point is I feel one reason contributing to lack of sexiness of government for startups is incorrect stories about government that we are inclined to tell.
I basically think that ordinary people don't reason usefully about power, because they feel it's something somewhat incomprehensible to them, so they fallback to tools like the fake hero villain story above, comfortable "creation" myths which seem to explain the world, and actually may not.
This lack of widespread useful conceptual tools for thinking about government and power may be one reason contributing to the dearth of government startups, if there is such a lack!
Thanks for your comment, I hope you also got something out of this, I appreciate the opportunity to touch on such ideas.
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe they are arranging for a "special batch" of CPUs to make their way to China like they did with IBM 360s in the cold war. That only lead to oil pipeline failures...
Got any more info on this? A quick Google didn't reveal anything.
Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#89Re: Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got any more info on this? A quick Google didn't reveal anything.
I think he's referring to the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion. (Not sure it had anything to do with IBM) [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage ] [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier ]