3 ms·

Our memory is fading. Just 5-6 years ago, Intel fabs had the best process technology and TSMC was behind. No one could have guessed what the state of the world

Our memory is fading. Just 5-6 years ago, Intel fabs had the best process technology and TSMC was behind. No one could have guessed what the state of the world would be in 2021 with any significant certainty. Who knows what would happen in another 5 years? We are so myopic when it comes to the bias towards the status quo. We give more weight to what the current situation is and then extrapolate that the future will be exactly the same. We are bad at projecting the future. Is it worth a war that can last many years? By the end of the war, what if US doesn’t need TSMC technology and the tides are reversed? I’m not conjecturing, I’m shedding light on how much we are willing to risk now vs a few years later. It could also be that Intel fabs fall further behind and TSMC becomes 10x more important than now. Who knows!!! Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better.

totalZero 5y ago
Your last sentence is exactly on point. What's sad is that we spend far more on naval power projection than on detours around obvious risks to prosperity and peace, such as the semiconductor supply chain. We are barely spending 50 billion dollars on domestic semiconductor fabrication in the upcoming legislation, despite acknowledging that the economic costs of the semiconductor shortage are far greater. Contrast that 50 billion number with Apple's expenditures on buybacks and dividends over the past decade. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Indeed, semiconductor industry investment is a drop in a bucket compared to 10 years of war. Not to mention, after a war, there still exists a dependency. It's funny how most of the semiconductor topics lead to war discussions but no one talks about outcompeting Taiwan. It's doable if there is will and resources (I am a Fab engineer). IMO the best way to move forward.
ta_ca 5y ago
> Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century. a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same. so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.

totalZero 5y ago

Your last sentence is exactly on point. What's sad is that we spend far more on naval power projection than on detours around obvious risks to prosperity and peace, such as the semiconductor supply chain. We are barely spending 50 billion dollars on domestic semiconductor fabrication in the upcoming legislation, despite acknowledging that the economic costs of the semiconductor shortage are far greater. Contrast that 50 billion number with Apple's expenditures on buybacks and dividends over the past decade. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Indeed, semiconductor industry investment is a drop in a bucket compared to 10 years of war. Not to mention, after a war, there still exists a dependency. It's funny how most of the semiconductor topics lead to war discussions but no one talks about outcompeting Taiwan. It's doable if there is will and resources (I am a Fab engineer). IMO the best way to move forward.

ta_ca 5y ago

> Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century. a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same. so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.