4 ms·
Then nationalize it. If it is genuinely so important to the country then we can't let it die then it should be nationalized if it needs to be bailed out.
by BadHumans 2y ago
Then nationalize it. If it is genuinely so important to the country then we can't let it die then it should be nationalized if it needs to be bailed out.
- whatwhaaaaat 2y agoGreat idea. Let’s let the same people who built and managed healthcare.gov build bombs and airplanes.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago[flagged]
- saulpw 2y agoThe government would run the existing, already-innovated fabs, and not be responsible for any new innovations. Just keep the lights on and the factory producing.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoHonestly, I don’t think our government has the competence.
- BadHumans 2y agoIntel clearly doesn't have the competence.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIntel is already doing what only a few nations in the world can do, and at a more advanced level than our rival superpower. The view of incompetence is because they are a few years behind cutting edge, and as such, are losing orders. There is absolutely no reason to believe our government is competent enough to solve that particular issue. Heck, China hasn’t succeeded in solving it; and only recently began mass production of 14nm. If TSMC, and only TSMC, was not around, Intel would be viewed as ultra-competent right now.
- JohnBooty 2y agoThe view of incompetence is because they are a few years behind cutting edge, and as such, are losing orders. Thank you. I thought I was going crazy. Everybody's talking about Intel like they are turning out absolute garbage. It's true they're lagging the cutting edge, but from reading this discussion you'd think they were trying to sell 2003 P4 Netburst chips in 2024.
- lupusreal 2y agoIntel may have incompetent leadership but they nonetheless have valuable capabilities which, presently, need to be preserved for strategic reasons. Letting those capabilities go isn't an option. If that means protecting Intel from their own incompetent leadership, so be it. This is little different than the time Boeing got caught doing illegal corporate espionage against Lockheed, but possessed a launch capability that the American government needed. Boeing wasn't allowed to fail as some here probably think they should have; instead their launch business was merged into Lockheed's, forming ULA, to ensure that both could continue.
- V_Terranova_Jr 2y agoThis is a poor example of "Government innovation". It's more an example of legislative overreach / "pork barrel" politics, and bad acquisition practices. The Government is certainly capable of doing a shitty job, but that tends to happen more when the Government contracts things vs. actually doing real work in-house. At least in my field, I've seen some incredible innovation done within the U.S. Government.
- imtringued 2y agoYou seemingly ignore that Boeing is a publicly traded corporation.
- lostlogin 2y agoWhen advocating for SpaceX over NASA, Musks connections with countries like Russia must surely give you pause? And yes, the people in positions of power are exactly the ones that are concerning, in government and even more so in private enterprise.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoI find them heavily exaggerated by a dishonest media.
- BadHumans 2y agoI am more in favor of that then continuing to give money and bailouts to failed executives.
- Pikamander2 2y ago> healthcare.gov Are people really still citing this website as a government failure? It had some scaling issues at launch that were fixed within 2-3 months and has been serving tens of millions of Americans without any major incidents since then.
- vacuity 2y agoAs opposed to having companies do it while asking for exorbitant contracts and not necessarily delivering on par? (cough Boeing cough) It's not really better on the other side, and we need change somewhere.