←back to thread

437 points adventured | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ChuckMcM ◴[] No.27162309[source]
Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Will be interesting to see how China reacts as it moves forward.

If Intel is serious this time about letting third parties into their fabs then it could be quite the reversal of fortune. However, as I've said in the past Intel is most likely to do this with "alternate" process streams, in order to not expose their full capabilities to competitors.

High hopes but low expectations. Real estate in AZ could be a good investment though.

replies(4): >>27162367 #>>27163144 #>>27163398 #>>27166662 #
m00x ◴[] No.27162367[source]
Why China? Most of the major chip fabs aren't made in China. They're mostly made in Taiwan, South Korea and the US. Unless we're strictly talking about TSMC, which does have 2/18 fabs in China.
replies(2): >>27162393 #>>27162609 #
lstamour ◴[] No.27162609[source]
This article explains some of the conflict: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silico...

China’s stance on Taiwan is clear[1] but given Taiwan doesn’t agree, it has remained independent despite what China says. The same was true for Hong Kong until recently, however, so concerns remain.

The US is waking up to realizing that they have a heavy reliance on China for civilian goods and a slight to moderate risk that it might be disrupted or used against them in future.

The worry I suppose is that it might be easier for supply chain-based attacks to weaken US defences, not that we’ve seen anything like this in practice yet due to how easy it is to exploit existing software bugs, for example.

1. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tens...

replies(2): >>27163026 #>>27163308 #
nl ◴[] No.27163026[source]
The situation with Taiwan (an independent - if unrecognised - country) is very different to HK which was a separately governed province of China.
replies(1): >>27163048 #
ChuckMcM ◴[] No.27163048[source]
This statement conflicts with my understanding of the British rule of Hong Kong and the accords under which is was placed under the sovereignty of China.
replies(2): >>27163172 #>>27170144 #
bigfudge ◴[] No.27163172[source]
HK was always going g to be returned to the Chinese. It took 20 years for the charade to end, but the situation is different to Taiwan.
replies(1): >>27164915 #
elefanten ◴[] No.27164915{3}[source]
You’re not responding to the point. There was a clear deal in place regarding how China could govern/change Hong Kong, with strict timelines.

China broke its word and trashed the deal. Eventual certainty notwithstanding — the CCP demonstrated (as it has oh so many other times) that their word is unusually unreliable, even in the shitty arena of international politics.

replies(2): >>27170162 #>>27270666 #
1. bigfudge ◴[] No.27270666{4}[source]
I'm late returning to this, and I don't normally like whataboutism, and I don't want to be seen to be condoning what is happening in HK, but I have very low expectations for nations keeping commitments made in international politics. I think everyone was pretty clear when the HK deal was struck that it wouldn't make the distance. The UK just wanted to avoid rocking the boat + there was very little that could be done. The US has renagaged on several international agreements in recent history — we all know that these agreements reflect the preferences of those in power at the time and are contingent on it remaining convenient.