3 ms·

I'm all for globalism but that's one area where the best strategy is probably to keep production inside the borders. Not that I'd condone misleading the press t

I'm all for globalism but that's one area where the best strategy is probably to keep production inside the borders. Not that I'd condone misleading the press to create a case for the legislation.

sneak 8y ago
Yes, manufacture the high security chips on one of the many 7nm fabs in the US. I suppose it also follows that the fab and design should be staffed only as NOFORN? That rules out the lead on the Apple silicon team. I don’t think you understand how this works. This isn’t a nationalism vs globalism thing.
- lwansbrough 8y ago
  You're the one that jumped from no foreign production to no "foreign" employees. Of course there's a difference between a factory operating under the supervision of the People's Liberation Army and an immigrant working in a lead role at a company. My comment is basically a pre-reaction to nationalists who would want to use this situation as an excuse to bring as much manufacturing work home as possible, even if it doesn't make sense (and if this were all a ruse, it would be a good way to get the White House on board.) Granted, it would also be pretty dumb to trust your adversary (from a national defence perspective) to build your weapons for you. Which is what the US is doing to a certain degree. Of course this is about globalism, because it's what lead to this situation in the first place. But nationalism, importantly, is not the solution. That's what I hope people take away from this.
  - sneak 8y ago
    Who is the adversary, though? You assume chinese nationals in the PLA are. Are chinese nationals in California working for Apple the enemy, too? What about chinese nationals in China not in the PLA that just work on the line? My point via the contrived example is they countries are fictions and so is citizenship and presence in one or “possession” of one is no way a litmus test for “adversary” or even a reasonable proxy. “China” isn’t a person, and so “China” can’t be an adversary. (Even if it could, that would be dumb, for reasons explained above.)
thstart 8y ago
You are for globalism -and which side of the table are you on?

I'm all for globalism but that's one area where the best strategy is probably to keep production inside the borders. Not that I'd condone misleading the press to create a case for the legislation.

sneak 8y ago

Yes, manufacture the high security chips on one of the many 7nm fabs in the US. I suppose it also follows that the fab and design should be staffed only as NOFORN? That rules out the lead on the Apple silicon team. I don’t think you understand how this works. This isn’t a nationalism vs globalism thing.

lwansbrough 8y ago
You're the one that jumped from no foreign production to no "foreign" employees. Of course there's a difference between a factory operating under the supervision of the People's Liberation Army and an immigrant working in a lead role at a company. My comment is basically a pre-reaction to nationalists who would want to use this situation as an excuse to bring as much manufacturing work home as possible, even if it doesn't make sense (and if this were all a ruse, it would be a good way to get the White House on board.) Granted, it would also be pretty dumb to trust your adversary (from a national defence perspective) to build your weapons for you. Which is what the US is doing to a certain degree. Of course this is about globalism, because it's what lead to this situation in the first place. But nationalism, importantly, is not the solution. That's what I hope people take away from this.
- sneak 8y ago
  Who is the adversary, though? You assume chinese nationals in the PLA are. Are chinese nationals in California working for Apple the enemy, too? What about chinese nationals in China not in the PLA that just work on the line? My point via the contrived example is they countries are fictions and so is citizenship and presence in one or “possession” of one is no way a litmus test for “adversary” or even a reasonable proxy. “China” isn’t a person, and so “China” can’t be an adversary. (Even if it could, that would be dumb, for reasons explained above.)

thstart 8y ago

You are for globalism -and which side of the table are you on?