bravo22

I meant it in the sense it is used in economics not in the colloquial sense.

If A cares enough about an issue and is willing to deal with the consequences and B does not then A wins and B loses.

Everyons is willing to commit something for a cause they care about. It could be as little as taking time to convince others by writing an article or a tweet, or as much as being able to commit violence for it and deal with the consequences.

One aspect of life, from negotiations to geopolitics to convince your opponent that A) you would be willing to pay a higher price than they are for your position B) you CAN pay that price.

In case of Intel v China, CCP has something to lose by banning Intel but they've demonstrated or at least convinced them and most other companies that they're willing to pay that price and CAN pay it (by the virtue of being the CCP and having absolute authority). A nation with less resources may not be able to convince a mega corp in order to get concessions.

So in this case if Americans care more about this issue they have to convince the Chinese that they're willing AND able to pay a higher price than they are.

Well you presumably know what is in your portfolio or can find out if social issues are that important.

Interesting take. Here is my view:

If the American consumers of Intel chips -- the people and government actors -- are unhappy with Intel's stance then they can also not buy their chips. This is basically what the Chinese are doing (without owning shares). Now granted the Chinese people have little say in it but the government is ostencibly acting on their behalf. Even if China was a democractic country and the CCP could not ban Intel outright then the government or the people could say that they would not buy Intel chips.

So if Americans did the same to uphold their own belifes then Intel would suffer here and that would reduce the stock price, which would make it easier for people who want to take them to take the progressive position to buy the stock and force them to reverse their position.

The key take away is that there is no scenario in which both sides actuall care about the issue and Intel stock doesn't drop.

Since it doesn't it means that Americans do not care about it as much as the Chinese, or do not know how to express their displeasure :)

Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.

Which again goes to my point. People who care about Intel taking a stand against China should actually buy shares from the existing investors and make them.

If no one wants to do that then what is all these kvetch about "capitalism" and "greed" corrupting companies and our values when it is the people who do not care. Certainly not enough to pay up for the shares.

I think the shareholders SHOULD take a stand, at Intel, Disney and other companies. The point I was making was that the power is in their hands, not management.

No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction.

A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of their own values.

Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing what it is supposed to do -- operate in accordance with wishes of the shareholders.

If it wasn't desigend to be disabled it would be buried under multiple and multiple metal layers. You can't "cut" it like a wire. Metal layers run all over the place [1].

Therefore it would have a an e-fuse or a regular old 'current' fuse -- which is just passing a calculated amount of current through an intentionally thin interconnect so that it burns away.

1 - https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1840/images/2019-0...

"cuts" are almost always fuses that are blown by ATEs during wafer manufacturing or post packaging tests. It is a bit flip.

There is no extra cost.

The power they have over the "corporate" entity is a function of what they have to offer relative to everyone else. A few decades ago when US corps made everything and the rest of the world bought them they could demand high paying union jobs and get them. The cost of this was subsidized by buyers from around the world and cheap input material and energy corps could get due to US's geopolitical position.

That ship has sailed.

Now they have to be more in line with the rest of the world.

What the "corporation" can offer and survive or stay ahead of the pack is a function of choices available to it. Which are different now than decades ago.

This myth that Americans can demand better things that the rest of the world can't needs to die. If they want to work less, great! They can. They need to become more efficient and produce more goods with less labor. Otherwise people in other countries will not want to trade with them. That is reflected to the American worker through the set of jobs and work conditions available to them.

Because she took things that she knew to be not true and said the they were true in order to get money.

She didn't say we hope to work with the US Army or that we plan to. She said that units were in use by them.

She didn't say the devices are on the verge of being used to analyze blood samples. She said that they were indeed being used to analyze a high percentage of the samples.

Many, many other examples.

That's the plain definition of fraud.

When the speaker implies uncertainty it is difficult for the investor to claim fraud because uncertainty was expressed to them. That the speaker "knows" the 95% figure is BS is very difficult to prove and generally everyone treats it as BS/puffing anyways.

If you could easily show that the CEO saying hitting the next milestone is 95% in the bag but in fact it is impossible AND they said so to others in private then that would also be prosecutable fraud.

I don't know if this is true but I really want it to be.

Taxing gains on sales of primary homes just leads to fewer homes for sale and higher prices. The only thing that correlates with the price change is months of available inventory in the market.

If people buy less stuff that's a drop in demand and an increase in supply translating to lower prices.

If input costs like energy go up, which affect virtually every item, then that can lead to higher inflation because the aggregate spending across everything can't drop.

I agree with your points but want to add that higher wages don't lead to high inflation directly. Higher spending does. If you have high wages and high savings it wouldn't lead to inflation in the same way that high wages and high spending would.

Fannie and Freddie bought up a lot of subprime mortgages.

Pin size limits the available current. 48V @ 5A = 240W

the investors who get the money back through share buybacks can do that with the 77B. There is no reason for Tim Cook to be leading fusion research and everything else you listed.

Gate drivers are discrete parts and aren't integrated into microcontorllers because they require high voltages (12/24V vs 3.3V) amongst many other reasons.

They also have to be located close to the IGBT and the designers would want it as a separate part because it gives them enormous flexibility. You aren't saving much by adding a gate driver to a micro and I can't think of any micro that has it integrated. There are simple things like motor drivers, etc. that may have a gate driver integrated but that's not a micro and those are also built on large nodes -- much larger than nodes used for microcontrollers.

FWIW: I design advanced node (20-5nm) ASICs for a living, and have designed on older nodes before. I've also worked in power electronics.

You're right. Definitely a "hot" wafer for the engineering samples.

High voltage MOSFETs and IGBTs are built on a completely different process. Size is definitely not an issue with them. It is about exotic doping to create the desired characteristics.

They're built using much larger feature sizes but on completely separate lines.

A lot of chips are made on mature fab lines because they don't need the performance of 5nm lines or can't justify the mask costs.

No one is investing in mature fab lines because they're not leading edge and they're being run to amortize the initial investmnet made into them years ago. Therefore not much additional capacity for mature lines.

So yes you can see 5nm chips being taped out but the 40-130nm chips are squeezed for capacity. Also this chip is likely not running in the same crazy volumes that ST microcontrollers. It is easier for TSMC to squeeze in a few dozen to a hundred wafers for SiFive on their line.

The problem is a lot of the models you use are black box characterized models and not differential equations. I don't mean Julia won't speed things up a lot and won't be helpful but your point about modern sim tools using old techniques is not true. Simulation RCL in semiconductors is a huge business where customers have been paying a lot for faster solutions.

If you're serious about it then assume you can't be sure and plan your purchases around that.

Until people start crying about PS-1 through PS-10 being in more affluent neighbourhoods and somehow going to PS-73 means you're being oppressed by colonial powers.

I'm all for number naming btw. They should do PS-${RANDOM} or assign them by random to district.

Free markets don't work when the cost of the transaction isn't paid by the two sides of the transaction but by a third party. For example the environment where I can buy a gas guzzler from you and drive away polluting the environment. There you need intervention but the framework of intervention and has to meet some specific criteria. I don't want to digress.

Other than that I have yet to see a problem that isn't solved by this scheme: increase the set of choices available to the person, and in some corner cases give them money so they are free to choose.

You have to bear in mind that the alternative to the free market approach is for someone else to come in an constrain either the buyer and seller in some way. Ths may work for a limited time and for a specific set of buyers and sellers but it won't work beyond that. Given that people have diverse and evolving needs the forced solution causes long term harm. Then you'll need some kind of propoganda machine to either exagerate the good or down play the harm.

To be clear I do not believe that we have a free market in the US in a lot of areas and what people conceive of as free market -- or rather what has been shoved down their throat as free market is anything but that.

I entirely agree with you on the above!

I suppose it all depends on how you define market mechanisms. What I've found -- after personally studying the subject -- is what a lot of people consider free market is the opposite of what the literature considers it to be.

To answer your point:

Most/all of the issues you raised are met by "pooling" aka insurance. The need arises at random and when it does there is a massive cost and you urgently need the service. This is what insurance is for.

What I was suggesting isn't that people go and pay the doctor out of pocket -- although they can. Rather that they purchase insurance. Those who can't get $$ indexed to some national average or whatever scheme you prefer. The point is everyone gets to purchase insurance if they so prefer.

The problem is that choice of insurance providers is artifically limited right now and the choice of healthcare providers is as well. So you have a system where you are captive to the need and those who provide the service have a monpoly. Naturally costs will rise. Putting political preassure on government to increase spending is easy way out but that will only shovel more money from the pockets of the many into the pockets of the few. In fact this was predicted when Medicare was first introduced, and here we are. It is not like doctors and providers magically became greedy capitalists in the last 40 years.

Also to be very clear this isn't an issue of "profits". Insurance companies don't have huge profit margins. They make their "wealth" by being a monopoly. The execs make their money on the rise in stock prices which isn't sensitive to their 3-5% profit margin.

Sure but that single payer has political motivations and sources of influence which ensure that won't happen.

If concentration of power was good we'd just find a few wise persons to run the country and leave it all up to them. Other than the little snag, the sinle buyer argument would work.

Giving the individual the money to make their choices is a better way to ensure that people get what they want. A universal healthcare plan (irrespective of how it is funded) because different people -- or even the same person at different stages of their life -- don't have the same needs and the same risk profiles.