The company budgets cannot sustain this. Behemoths like Google and Amazon with insane balance sheets are now on their knees begging for loans.
We (as a country) should contain our exposure to this insanity. If companies want to go bankrupt let them go, but we cannot strangle the liquidity of the entire market to feed the ambitions of these handful of companies.
The Fed decides this, it's the whole point of the Federal Reserve being independent from the political parties. They will do the right thing because a slow boil is better than a whole bunch of people starving and having a civil war.
Look at Russia. Nabullina was handed a complete shit sandwich deluxe with the war, but she did the economically right thing with the cards dealt, raised interests to 20%, forced businesses to trade in rubles, freeze equity/bond trading, cut regulation on banks, etc.
And the Russian economy which should have been in shambles like Irans because of sanctions is still kicking after soon 5 years of war.
Sure it's not really prospering and growing, but it's a graceful decay rather than a collapse and internal war like in Venezuela.
After covid the masks have fallen. Employees dont care about their companies, they jumped overnight to the highest bidder. Companies don’t care, all of the office theatrics were not needed (remote worked fine). After Trump election they dropped pretending too, all of the corporate responsibility programs were cancelled, and now all of the ceos openly talk about firing their personnel while they have vastly profitable businesses.
It is all going great, we are becoming south Europe. Nobody will be willing to work for any price, and employers will have nobody to sell their products for any price. Enjoy.
There will be a company using Intel's fabs to make chips 5, 10 or 20 years from now. Because it is in the national interest of US to make sure that happens.
It is not in the national interest to make sure that the Intel common stock remains valued above 0. Plenty of companies that are of national interest were saved directly from bankruptcy, by nationalizing them in a way that wipes out the common stock.
The lack of self awareness of HN posters thinking that these 'dumb finance people' can't understand how 'chips are made'.
Good gosh. Goldman probably has 50-100 people, inc. maybe 20 Engineers just on that alone, full time.
And yes, Intel can fail 100%. They can absolutely go into receivership and/or be broken up and bought for pennies by other entities.
It would be a strategic dismantling, obviously the government won't allow certain things to happen, but they could 100% allow investors to be wiped out.
Boeing is a bit different as there are no substitutes, but it could go into receivership. Some parts of Boeing will 'always exist' but the corporate entity can fail.
>> Intel, like Boeing cannot fail. If you believe they can, you better start searching for a bunker.
>> Advanced chip manufacturing is so incredibly hard. The finance bozos are clueless, again.
> The lack of self awareness of HN posters thinking that these 'dumb finance people' can't understand how 'chips are made'.
Finance people are even dumber. However that can just mean "they will happily welcome next 2k or 2008 crash". Dumb or evil - do not realy matter for most of
computer/phone users...
> Goldman probably has 50-100 people, inc. maybe 20 Engineers just on that alone, full time.
So what ? Goldman people are Goldman peoples and not some active government or good fairies - not their responsibility to save US, without a hefty profit that is.
And "finance peoples" are responsible for a lot of things... Example: it was I WW or II WW they caused ? SO plain DUMB ! Lehman bros was financial peoples too...
> And yes, Intel can fail 100%. They can absolutely go into receivership and/or be broken up and bought for pennies by other entities.
Possible by law. But it would mean that US (or US owning peoples) wants to dismantle their schame - IBM at the bottom, wintel in the middle and Apple for dumb peoples with creative skills.
Also Intel trying to do something with photonics what looks like future. But it's possible that that know-how will be extracted from company, some new entity will be created and shareholders will be left with Intel corpse.
So yes, Intel is like Boening and can't fail for some time. And no reason for Intel falling yet, they have better stuff that AMD which always mess something.
So dumb HN peoples are quite good at seeing reality, just not so machiavellic like financial peoples that plain choose to do dumb and evil things. Modulo CEOs beliving in llms...
Goldman “engineers” are English majors who did a six week visual studio training course in 2006. Can’t tell you the difference between RAM, CPU, and GPU.
Dunno what to tell you but the dude I’m thinking of is a department lead, and I remember helping him stuff his head with an MCSE 20 years back, and it was excruciating.
English Majors are not Engineers, that's just what it is.
A Dept Head of Research for silicon/fabs etc - absolutely may not be an Engineer, and their ability to do MCSE is maybe distressing but not really that important. And they can manage Analysts who are actually Engineers - that is fine. At least nominally.
Failure here is getting restructured and people losing money in the stock market, which I guess is so detached from the actual companies and reality that it might as well be a polymarket bet (I mean overall stock market and not intel specifically).
A lot of retail investors lose the shirts off their backs holding Intel stock well before Intel every approaches anything close to "failure". Intel stock could drop 90% and the machines will still be running, because stock valuations which aren't tied to fundamentals on the way up are also not tied to fundamentals on the way down.
"Failure" here can be something like the stock going to near 0 and then the govt hands Intel fabs to some other rich company that it likes, for example SpaceX at a criminally low rate
I think this is a geopolitical question beyond any cabinet or chair. In general, I think it would surprise people, but a Democratic cabinet would have to do many of the same geopolitical choices as Trump has done.
If you read Chokepoints by Fishman, it's for example clear that US had to do something with Iran soon, because all of the economical sanctional options were squeezed to the max, there was no offramp for that country.
Is it? Obama era actions against Iran were pulled back by the following administration and unfortunately the world will never know if Harris could have been goaded into bombing Iran the same way the current President was. Hillary Clinton, while working for the state department has stories about being told that jets were hot on the runway and the US needed to jump in as well.
> a Democratic cabinet would have to do many of the same geopolitical choices as Trump has done. , it's for example clear that US had to do something with Iran soon, because all of the economical sanctional options were squeezed to the max, there was no offramp for that country.
That is just not true. No, US did not had to start a war with Iran. There was zero reason for that, rationally. It was against all the recommendations. And especially, it did not had to waste its assets in such ridiculous way while gaining nothing. Fishman may agree with Trump or support Netanyahu or whatever, but US did not had to do it.
It also did not had to threaten Greenland. It did not had to ally itself with Putin. It did not had to try to destroy NATO. It did not had to start trade wars. It did not had to mock and insult foreign leaders. It did not had to support Orban or Bolsnaro. It did not had to murder fishermen on boats.
Going back in history, US did not had to tear down nuclear agreement with Iran either. Democratic president made it, Republican destroyed it. Claiming that Democrats would do the same choice is absurd.
Of course Intel can fail. If revenue is down, they have to reduce investment in future nodes, making them even more uncompetitive in the future, reducing revenue even more, etc.
In the worst case when the free market deems Intel worthless, the government will nationalize Intel at a cheap nominal price. Shareholders are wiped out anyways.
The entire industry of Personal Computing is inefficient, given his definition.
Like we have these billions of smartphones just sleeping all the time instead of running at 100% all the time.
But the whole point of personal computing is that you can do whatever you want.
It is the same old argument between centralization and decentralization. Yes, centralization is more efficient, but also the goals of centralized systems are ultimately wrong. So they are efficiently sailing towards the cliff.
I never got any excitement from driving an electric car, with the exception of the 0-60 of the powerful ones.
But they are the smoothest commuters I have ever driven. Linear acceleration, super snappy for when you want to overtake, you never need a gas-station if have a garage.
I would take an electric over the camrys and crv’s any day.
I find fascinating the difference between people who think of cars as a tool versus a toy. And certainly for some people it simply depends on which car.
For me, all cars are a tool. I don’t really enjoy driving. Driving is a chore I have to do in order to do things I do like.
I don’t yet own an electric car, but I find them very appealing because they would eliminate a chore from my life: going to the gas station.
I do wonder what it would be like to enjoy driving for its own sake.
Same, I find it especially miserable to drive at night with how car lights have changed to brighter LEDs and people wanting larger and taller cars. Its like getting hit with multiple flash bangs.
In rural areas where car lights are the only illumination, with denser traffic I see continuous strobing and flickering by the adaptive LED and laser headlights.
For me it depends on the state of the roads. If they’re empty, I don’t mind driving and can even enjoy it. If traffic is moderate or above, my opinion of driving takes a hard nosedive.
I’m not even a wild driver. Whenever it’s safe to do so I’m in the right lane doing exactly the speed limit. I just don’t like having to deal with other drivers.
I'd guess that driving was probably more broadly enjoyable for people in the era of manual transmission. That's not to say manual transmissions are fun, but the greater degree of interactivity, control, and skill made it a more interesting and overall enjoyable experience. Also it was kind of cathartic getting up to speed somehow. Driving an automatic is just boring, outside of like others have mentioned - the insane acceleration in an EV.
Manuals on a bridge during traffic though are... unpleasant.
Even my 2011 Jeep manual transmission has hill start assist, it never rolls backwards .
Interestingly, it will roll forwards if you’re on a steep hill and trying to reverse up it. I guess it doesn’t know which way you want to go ( the computers don’t know what gear you’re in)
What I find fascinating is people who have never driven a fun car, then get an EV that has some decent acceleration. Then they talk about how fun the car is to drive and say how its the best thing ever. I see these posts all the time, and I just think... Yep, now you get what car enthusiasts have been enjoying all this time. If you just drive Rav4s and other appliances, no wonder you hate driving.
What's a fun car for you, and what parts of the driving experience do you find fun? I drive a car that's widely regarded as boring as fuck, and I love it (Toyota Auris with 1.8 HSD). I really enjoy the scenery rolling by and the problem solving part of the driving, like what roads I take and such. I also really like that the cabin is quiet (compared to my last car), so the engine / wind / etc noise doesn't stress me extra, and that I can hear my music, podcast, or own thoughts better.
I just remembered, I also have this minigame where I make the car consume as little as possible. The UI gives the avg consumption after each drive, so there's immediate feedback on how I did. I currently count 4.1-4.5 l/100 as a success (52-57 us mpg). Nicest I ever got over a meaningful distance is 3.5 l/100 (67 mpg).
You are just swapping one chore for another. Now instead of going to the gas station occasional, you have to plug it in, all the time. Or you have to go to a plugging station and sit there for a while.
...I assume that's satire? I plug in our EV once a week at home, it takes like what, 5 seconds? Maybe 10 if I'm distracted. Another 5 seconds to unplug it the following morning.
I don't drive in my day to day life but I have enjoyed things like karting or rally driving and I like sim racing video games, maybe try some of those out. Driving for fun at least for me is more about seeing what you can do with a car than anything else.
>>I never got any excitement from driving an electric car, with the exception of the 0-60 of the powerful ones.
I've owned some really powerful cars in the past, and I swear I have never had as much fun as I did when I took our little Volkswagen e-Up to the Lake District for a week, yes it only has 80bhp but only a tonne of weight and instant torque - it was sooooo much fun on these narrow tight roads, you could really push it and just enjoy every second of it. I even drove the Hardknott Pass several times back to back because it was so much fun - I'd take it over my Mercedes AMG any day, yes it was cool to do 160mph past Berlin at 4am in that, but the little 80bhp Volkswagen gives me about 20x more enjoyment in day to day driving.
I don’t miss gear changes and clutch control any more than I miss a manual choke or tuning carburettors. They were fun in a way but they were intermediate goals between me and going fast. EVs skip straight to the fast.
I never got any excitement from driving an electric car, with the exception of the 0-60 of the powerful ones.
Huh? I never got any excitement from driving any car except the powerful ones.
And I gotta say, EV6 GT 0-60 in 3 seconds for $60k with a real suspension (not that Tesla garbage) and active electronic rear differential... get it while you can. Nothing remotely close for even twice the price. Its the NSX of the 2020s.
Garbage you say? The Tesla garbage suspension that gets 0.96g vs the EV6 GTs 0.92g? Or were you comparing the $60k top of the line Kia against the $40k base model 3 instead of the performance model (still cheaper at $55k)?
On the track: The Tesla finishes a massive 6.5 seconds faster than the Kia. Despite the EV6 GT's horsepower advantage on straightaways, the Model 3 Performance utilizes its lighter weight (~4,035 lbs vs. the Kia's ~4,800 lbs) and lower center of gravity to carry vastly superior speed through VIR’s demanding technical sections, such as the famous Climbing Esses.
And they had to remove features found on lower trims like electric seats from the GT6 model because weight I guess?
I rented both for a day before buying one. The M3P is more comfortable on the street and more predictable in anger.
But if we can put aside our team spirit, yes, I agree, EVs are the performance car of choice. EVs are the fastest car under 100mph and $100k. An RS3 will beat us over 100mph and a $140k Z06 will beat us all the time. For ~60k, performance EVs can’t be beat.
Yeah I don’t know where I got that from. They are actually tied for VIR hot lap. So yay! Ah the 2022 RS3 came with sticky tires and got a better time. The main thing tho is that the RS3 can do it again and again. If it’s even a two lap race, the EVs die (to thermals).
I drove a Miata for years in the early 00's. It was one of the early models, so dramatically underpowered, but still a blast. I found it fun to drive in the exact same way bikes are fun to ride. I could hit any line around any corner, the stick shift was tight. I even learned how to heel-toe shift (even though I never got good at it)
I think it was car and driver reviewing the new corvette that said the vette was so stable and poised that to have any fun it it you’d be breaking any speed limits on backroads so if you lost control you’d probably die, and maybe you should just by a Miata instead!
Anyone who can't find fun driving in even econoboxes isn't trying. Nearly everyone will run out of skill before they run out of car on the right kind of road.
I think that, fortunately, most people don't consider the road to be a place where you're supposed to find fun driving. Perhaps for a lot of people on the road the realization that they shouldn't be pushing themselves, or their car, at anywhere near the limit kicks in long before any kind of fun starts.
I mean, I wouldn't object to having fun while doing it, but I'm pretty sure anything people would use an example of "fun" would massively increase the danger to me and everyone around me.
I thought the old (new) Top Gear episodes with celebrities in a reasonably priced car vs F1 drivers in the same car was very fascinating. The F1 drivers managing to wring that much more out of the little cheap car.
That's not it, it's tax optimization, it's sibling with friends in a political parties. Easy to confuse them, looking almost the same, but it's in fact two separate concepts!
Haha, making better compression algorithms is a detriment to society, I love it. Finally. Getting those bastard HEVC devs behind bars is a lifelong dream of mine.
I visited China 5 years ago. All the fancy cars of the upper middle class were German. Audis, vw, bmws and Mercedes everywhere.
I visited this year again. Almost none of the new cars were German. I did not see most of their latest models on the streets. And I definitely did not see a single German electric car.
They now have a dozen of brands some of them under the tech umbrella of Huawei that provides the info-entertainment and auto pilot and they are everywhere! And btw the assembly quality was now reaally nice.
No idea about their safety or longevity, but it was nice being driven in them
had the same experience this past summer, though I did have a Didi that was a fairly new Mercedes S class and it was hugely disappointing compared to the Chinese EVs.
reply