3 ms·

That's not currently possible because all of the best devices come out of the border between that part and the rest (Taiwan). So we can't leave the devices. We

by ilaksh 3y ago

That's not currently possible because all of the best devices come out of the border between that part and the rest (Taiwan). So we can't leave the devices. We need them. I think this ties into the $7 trillion Altman quest a bit. Maybe if you build enough reactors and chip fabs then the world becomes safer?

yieldcrv 3y ago
We take those $50bn aid packages requests, and invest it into a state side semiconductor supply chain instead and then we can ignore the idea of China invading China forever. Literally 180+ countries operating with that specific level of empathy right this moment, let’s meet parity with them. Given the clamoring for semiconductors right now, a more expensive state side will sell like hotcakes. I guarantee you this won’t be seen as controversial in the world that exists after we did that. We’re going to look back at this time and think “lol what”
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Swear off defending Taiwan, let millions of people die when China sees weakness and invades, but it's cool because we got chips bro.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    Meet parity with 180+ countries level of empathy until our internal infrastructure meets parity with other developed nation’s 21st century level of advances.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      Calling any US airport a "third-world" airport is an insult to the third world.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        Uniquely, we have the resources for that not to be the case. We could have the best infrastructure of any nation, across the entire continent and far flung extremities Just held up by a lack of leadership, lack of consensus, and paranoia
  - Zpalmtree 3y ago
    this but unironically
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  Yup. Because having no allies, no one to back us up in the international stage, no access to resources, no trading partners, just a world united against us is totally a logical way to live. That won't have any negative consequences for a country that depends on both imports and exports. When did the Trump possy arrive at HN?
  - swells34 3y ago
    You can find idiots and assholes in every sector; they've always been there, just are more vocal now.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    interesting conclusion that this is a Trump supposition, when you’re entire worldview is that “they’re against us” unless we pay for our friends the defense industry isn't partisan and you’re totally subscribed to their faulty logic for your money
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I suppose you are correct that China commands far more geopolitical power than anyone else including the US today. China knows how to play this game far better than anyone; the Hugos being held in China was just one example of many of that. This state of matters won't change whether it's the Republicans or Democrats in the State Department, though.
  - makerdiety 3y ago
    You don't need to depend on imports and exports if you just win an imperial conquest campaign that allows you to control everything. If you win the world war, imports and exports and resource problems turn into domestic affairs that you can regulate according to your whims. ;)
- zopa 3y ago
  Good news: we’re spending more than five times that on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, already, starting two years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I remember that act, thanks
    - zopa 3y ago
      Then I’m not sure why you’re arguing that $50 billion would make the problem go away. Care to explain the good faith reason if you have one?
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        I didn't remember that act before you posted it, did you think my "thanks" was snark? in any case, although I like the government's distributed approach to merely incentivizing competition in the semiconductor supply chain in the CHIPS Act, I think a parallel more direct approach is still useful with direct construction and direct ownership of the entire supply chain - a public option if you will - in parallel to the private sector efforts. the way the US government works would still enable all sorts of private sector competition from contracting bids, as opposed to a really nationalized industry, which we tend to avoid in the US. with that view, all of the world police funding, while our infrastructure is decrepit, is untenable. especially when our world police efforts are stated specifically to deter other actions from occurring, amongst other reasons, while all reasons are selective outrage.

by ilaksh 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

We take those $50bn aid packages requests, and invest it into a state side semiconductor supply chain instead and then we can ignore the idea of China invading China forever. Literally 180+ countries operating with that specific level of empathy right this moment, let’s meet parity with them. Given the clamoring for semiconductors right now, a more expensive state side will sell like hotcakes. I guarantee you this won’t be seen as controversial in the world that exists after we did that. We’re going to look back at this time and think “lol what”

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Swear off defending Taiwan, let millions of people die when China sees weakness and invades, but it's cool because we got chips bro.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Meet parity with 180+ countries level of empathy until our internal infrastructure meets parity with other developed nation’s 21st century level of advances.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    Calling any US airport a "third-world" airport is an insult to the third world.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      Uniquely, we have the resources for that not to be the case. We could have the best infrastructure of any nation, across the entire continent and far flung extremities Just held up by a lack of leadership, lack of consensus, and paranoia
- Zpalmtree 3y ago
  this but unironically
light_hue_1 3y ago
Yup. Because having no allies, no one to back us up in the international stage, no access to resources, no trading partners, just a world united against us is totally a logical way to live. That won't have any negative consequences for a country that depends on both imports and exports. When did the Trump possy arrive at HN?
- swells34 3y ago
  You can find idiots and assholes in every sector; they've always been there, just are more vocal now.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  interesting conclusion that this is a Trump supposition, when you’re entire worldview is that “they’re against us” unless we pay for our friends the defense industry isn't partisan and you’re totally subscribed to their faulty logic for your money
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I suppose you are correct that China commands far more geopolitical power than anyone else including the US today. China knows how to play this game far better than anyone; the Hugos being held in China was just one example of many of that. This state of matters won't change whether it's the Republicans or Democrats in the State Department, though.
- makerdiety 3y ago
  You don't need to depend on imports and exports if you just win an imperial conquest campaign that allows you to control everything. If you win the world war, imports and exports and resource problems turn into domestic affairs that you can regulate according to your whims. ;)
zopa 3y ago
Good news: we’re spending more than five times that on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, already, starting two years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I remember that act, thanks
  - zopa 3y ago
    Then I’m not sure why you’re arguing that $50 billion would make the problem go away. Care to explain the good faith reason if you have one?
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      I didn't remember that act before you posted it, did you think my "thanks" was snark? in any case, although I like the government's distributed approach to merely incentivizing competition in the semiconductor supply chain in the CHIPS Act, I think a parallel more direct approach is still useful with direct construction and direct ownership of the entire supply chain - a public option if you will - in parallel to the private sector efforts. the way the US government works would still enable all sorts of private sector competition from contracting bids, as opposed to a really nationalized industry, which we tend to avoid in the US. with that view, all of the world police funding, while our infrastructure is decrepit, is untenable. especially when our world police efforts are stated specifically to deter other actions from occurring, amongst other reasons, while all reasons are selective outrage.