> Barrett also said Washington must do its job to stay ahead of the semiconductor race. The U.S. has invested more in the semiconductor industry in the past year than in the last 28 years combined, but he says it should do even more, especially in academic research.
Oh. Okay. So why don't we split up Intel and then make this exact investment in the spun off divisions?
I expected at least a little bit more substance and insight, but the whole article basically boils down to, “if Intel’s fab splits off, they risk becoming another GlobalFoundaries.”
Which, yeah, I don’t think that’s much of a revelation to anyone discussing Intel’s future. There’s no argument put forward that it’s not still the best path for Intel.
That is obviously what the headline is saying. Don't know if comment guidelines apply to when one responds to a headline rather than a person in the thread, but per "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it seems like an easy critique to point out what the headline says rather than critiquing the person's actual argument or the article's contents
I went in thinking the same thing. After reading it, it's not 100% sure which type of bias it is. In the most charitable case, it could be sincere opinions formed by a career as Intel's CEO. An aftershock of a career in innovation.
Maybe it's the "grizzly thinks latching trashcans are a sign of hedonistic excess and should be shed" kind of bias. Less clear to me as an ex-ceo. Equity ownership could bend the needle that way for sure.
Honestly, more than the click-baity title, I was more amused by the subtle demand for even more subsidies ( that after putting US through offshoring, nearshoring and now taxpayer sponsored reshoring ):
"Barrett also said Washington must do its job to stay ahead of the semiconductor race. The U.S. has invested more in the semiconductor industry in the past year than in the last 28 years combined, but he says it should do even more, especially in academic research."
Makes one question whether he still owns substantial stake in the outcome.
I never did that kind of analysis, but the point is largely moot. They are going to get the monies bar some kind of event that completely changes the rules of the game.
That said, at certain point, even US government won't be able to bail out everyone and everyone is holding out their hands lately.
> Barrett also said Washington must do its job to stay ahead of the semiconductor race. The U.S. has invested more in the semiconductor industry in the past year than in the last 28 years combined, but he says it should do even more, especially in academic research.
Oh. Okay. So why don't we split up Intel and then make this exact investment in the spun off divisions?
US still has AMD and Nvidia.
[delayed]
I expected at least a little bit more substance and insight, but the whole article basically boils down to, “if Intel’s fab splits off, they risk becoming another GlobalFoundaries.”
Which, yeah, I don’t think that’s much of a revelation to anyone discussing Intel’s future. There’s no argument put forward that it’s not still the best path for Intel.
Given his position, is it possible the Intel CEO is a little biased? /s
That is obviously what the headline is saying. Don't know if comment guidelines apply to when one responds to a headline rather than a person in the thread, but per "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it seems like an easy critique to point out what the headline says rather than critiquing the person's actual argument or the article's contents
I went in thinking the same thing. After reading it, it's not 100% sure which type of bias it is. In the most charitable case, it could be sincere opinions formed by a career as Intel's CEO. An aftershock of a career in innovation.
Maybe it's the "grizzly thinks latching trashcans are a sign of hedonistic excess and should be shed" kind of bias. Less clear to me as an ex-ceo. Equity ownership could bend the needle that way for sure.
Ah well, I doubt either of us know the man.
Honestly, more than the click-baity title, I was more amused by the subtle demand for even more subsidies ( that after putting US through offshoring, nearshoring and now taxpayer sponsored reshoring ):
"Barrett also said Washington must do its job to stay ahead of the semiconductor race. The U.S. has invested more in the semiconductor industry in the past year than in the last 28 years combined, but he says it should do even more, especially in academic research."
Makes one question whether he still owns substantial stake in the outcome.
Intel would barely survive, possibly even declaring bankruptcy, if it weren't for all the subsidies they receive from the US Government.
I never did that kind of analysis, but the point is largely moot. They are going to get the monies bar some kind of event that completely changes the rules of the game.
That said, at certain point, even US government won't be able to bail out everyone and everyone is holding out their hands lately.
Compared to other companies that are developing their own chips? Hardly moot at all. The CHIPS act is the only thing keeping Intel afloat lately.