Such great sadness. There will be college courses on how Intel Management over the course of the last few years failed miserably. Intel Management has been a total disaster.
At SOME point the lesson will be understood that you either weed away some of the complexity every year (or every few years) [like Apple or ARM], or you sell perpetual compatibility (which means ever large complexity) till the point that you fail as a business (Intel? Microsoft?).
Real problem is that the people setting strategy see the immediate costs of retaining compatibility just one more year, but not the costs of that retention over the next decade and more. Until this is understood...
The die had been cast by the time Pat got there. There was no way they were going to let Intel get rid of the fabs and leave the west with no leading edge technology. It’s all in on the Fab at this point. The governments who let industry ship everything to Asia are going to have to pay up now to keep Intel from folding.
Big failure on the fabs. Bug failure on trying to keep competitive through the microcode and power performance and efficiency. One has to realize that the support cost of coding. And microcode coding is very costly to support. KISS - keep it simple... That is one of the nice things about ARM.
Gelsinger is not responsible for this. Companies do as big as Intel do not turn on a dime. Thats why the quarterly economics are so harmful for longterm value. Be aware that your comment plays into that notion.
Not really, BM was supposed to be released against RDNA3 / LL and not 2 years later than even RDNA4, you’re off the mark quite a bit. BM at this point must be released against RDNA4 / BW and not even later or they can just ditch it, cause it will never never never be competitive against RDNA5 and Nvidias next after BW.
They had every opportunity to move to DEUV earlier than others, yet they just watched their balance sheet. Typical of all mangers with no background in tech. They will be back now that they are buying all the DEUV machines they can. But that will take until next year to come fully online for the quantity they need to make a difference to the bottom line. Their biggest risk is the gap they created until then, when customers will just move to AMD platforms and will be unwilling to move back. Because the platforms are already getting to the point of not needing replacement until it fails. What surprised me more that they have only $20Billion in cash equivalent, what happened to the near $20B in profit they were making for years!!
The fab side from a technology perspective has caught up but at great fiscal cost. Arguably fixing the fabs is what has gotten Intel into this situation they are in today. It can pay off if there are other customers to use these fabs. So who are they?
Altera doesn't count since they were absorbed by Intel and then spun off again. They can migrate back to TSMC though chips in-flight in the design process are likely still married to Intel's fabs. Not worth the risk to change fab providers halfway.
Cisco was a previous IDM 1.0 client though currently they are leveraging Intel for their silicon-photonics expertise to make high speed, lower power transceivers. It is unclear if Cisco is interested in using Intel for bulk logic for a switch ASIC again and/or some advanced packing.
Intel needs a win from the likes of nVidia, Apple or even AMD to really make their fab investments worth while. The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor.
Yeah, I could see them splitting out the Fab business eventually for this reason but it’s too weak right now. Also I think you’ll start seeing investors in TSMC pushing them to raise wafer prices since they don’t have competition and their customers are making obscene amounts of money. This could open the door a bit for Intel to at least present the threat of competition.
“ The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor.”
That kinda makes sense for AMD, but I wonder if that’s really a legit worry for apple. Let’s imagine an apple design did leak to the design team at Intel. Intel would be suicidally insane to piss off apple (again). I can’t imagine intel acting on such information. The benefits would be trivial compared to the cost.
I suspect the bigger issue with apple is that they would rather use the threat of intel to extract better terms from TSMC than actually using intel, especially given the history of the relationship.
But I think Apple is foolish not to hedge their bets, especially given the geopolitical situation. If apple doesn’t fab AC/DC with Intel, I think they are making a mistake
Design leaking is a nonsense fantasy - let’s say Intel copies a design, they would be sued to hell and back. AMD already won a suit against Intel when they were small, now they’d suit Intel to hell, Apple anyways.
"The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor."
I don't know if I really buy this. Any semiconductor company can (and does) go buy products off the shelf and analyze them in their own labs to understand competitor's designs and technology. Or they can buy reverse engineering research reports from a company like TechInsights. Sure, using Intel as your foundry might let them see your designs a year or so before they reach the shelf, but there is not a lot of design knowledge to be gained anyway from the raw layout/geometry that the foundry gets without a significant amount of reverse engineering work.
Apple made their priorities clear many years ago, repeatedly! LOWER POWER. That's the only priority that matters. Density and other process elements (like GAA or BSPD) are nice INSOFAR AS they further the goal of higher performance at lower power.
And Intel made their priorities clear, repeatedly. GHZ. That's the only priority that matters. Meaning they rejected requests to build iPhone chips, then rejected requests to build lower power x86 chips.
So here we are today. Intel is optimizing its fabs for GHz, even as the only thing Apple (and most of the rest of the world) cares about is power. Apple ain't gonna pay for the ability to run 6GHz M6's at 300W.
nVidia details are different, but the big picture is much the same: nVidia wants density, not GHz. And both Apple and nVidia will stick with the company that's delivered year after year rather than risk catastrophe on the company that has failed to deliver year after year. Having to delay GAA or BSPD by a year won't change these fundamental facts.
Delay of a decade, maybe, but delay of one year? Who cares? Both nV and Apple know that there's always another year; the only customers who switch away from you because of a one-year delay are the internet fantasy customers, continually complaining about this or that, continually claiming they're moving to Canada or Europe, continually threatening to switch to Linux or Windows, or to stop paying for Netflix, or to boycott Steam; experts in everything except actual, you know, reality...
Nvidia wants density? Don't make me laugh. AMD/Radeon has been consistently more dense over the course of Nvidia's history. Although I guess it's possible that Nvidia is trying to catch up now.
That's wrong, they just didn't "beta test" like AMD did, like being super fast with it, instead being a bit later with it cause usually they had the bigger chips which need mature nodes and not the newest ones. And currently they are on par with AMD. I don't think this will change again.
What the gentlemen, Jim, was saying, is that the highest end dies of the companies varied in size, with Nvidia's being the larger of the two options. See the slide he presented with red and green rectangles? Those are the dies for the highest end SKUs.
And at the time, AMD was competitive. So, for the given area, AMD had higher density. Granted, that may have had a lot to do with the node being used.
AMD (or better ATI) used to move to newer nodes faster cause they had the smaller chips (not necessarily always but often). Nvidia waited a bit longer and moved then as well, I already said why. Recently they were on parity and this is like, Nvidia being serious. In 2020 AMD had the better node, and they were relatively on par aside from ray tracing. Unless something miraculous happens or AMD gains another node advantage, sadly AMD won’t be competing with top end Nvidia GPUs anymore. AMD is about multiple things while Nvidia is only about GPUs, it’s obvious why.
I agree and am likewise concerned about AMD competing in the current market. It's going to be tough. It will be interesting to see what they can pull off. Nvidia's not "asleep at the wheel" like Intel was when Ryzen first came out.
Apple's only priority is taking money from one's wallet. Same with all these corporations.
Intel is rotten to its core. But Apple wanted to use Intel CPUs for a long time (the Star Trek project) and eventually did, at a time when Intel had the better design, Core, and they benefited from this design through its heyday; and when they were ready, with Apple Silicon, left that sinking ship, wisely and much like rats.
As for the Common Folk complaining about various things, it is a symptom of the sham order the world is structured on, rife with lies, double standards, and what suits those in power, or at the control panel of the world. Making a noise is futile but better than silence.
"Apple's only priority is taking money from one's wallet."
This is still wrong, I already explained it. Further, you don't get as far if you're just about money, then you end up like Intel - undoing yourself because of stagnation. No, Apple is far better. You don't like Apple? Fine, you don't have to, but reducing the company to "money" is nonsense.
Apple's products are, usually, well designed, but I stand by my comment. It is up to the people to hold these companies to account, point out their lies, and show them for what they are.
And on another, tangential point, these "good products" of Apple: who are they for? Is it code for "a certain class of people and not for others"?
wow you are either naive, ignorant, or just shilling us. EVERY publicly traded company has a #1 priority to return value to the shareholders, which means MAKING MONEY. If they don't, the CEO gets voted out and replaced with a new one. Steve Jobs himself said the iphone (and other) *hardware* is just a vehicle to get people locked into their app store, itunes, and other retail structures to buy stuff solely from Apple. That's why they are being sued left and right and being investigated by the EU and other gov't entities. Just like Microsoft, they have illegally locked people, both consumers and developers, into unjustly high overheads and fees. So don't try and blow your unicorn dust my way
Like the 2019 16" MacBook Pro that suddenly wouldn't turn on — with no way to turn it on nor any way (for those with normal means) to get the data out of it? In previous times, there would be plenty of workarounds.
Apple has been steadily downgrading the ability of Mac users to customize their hardware and software experience, taking control away, for years. For example, deploying Macs in computer labs has been off the table for years because of the erosion of buyer control.
How 'good' was it when Apple was pushing the AFPS file system onto machines with mechanical hard disks (including their hybrid mechanical hard disks), which made them unusably slow?
The one thing Apple has done well is reversing course from the 'thinner is better' midset for the MacBook Pro. At least now they come thicker and don't have awful fan noise so easily. MagSafe was restored, too. Apple has gotten away with plenty of substandard products and tactics over the years and the way the company designs Macs as a giant dark pattern to push cloud services is very unfortunate for ordinary users.
Apple also has a long history of extremely deceptive treatment of user data to make it easier for 'forensics' folk to get what they want — in total contrast with the image Apple sold the public about privacy.
Good products? Good for Apple and for certain people. Not so great for 'the rest of us.'
You're basically picking exceptions to hate on Apple, it's fine, money speaks and Apple is ultra valuable as everyone knows. If Apple were so bad, they wouldn't be that high. If you have specific needs Apple does not give you, don't buy it, but don't say Apple is bad (you implied it).
Apple since its inception was like this. Steve Jobs stole a lot of technology back when Xerox was alive, same for Bill Gates, M$. Apple however jumped above and beyond on screwing the companies. They stole Imagination IP by poaching, the ruined GT Advanced.
They almost got Qualcomm shot by that Broadcom takeover. The silent yet most dangerous part is influencing the California or more like Tech sector by making their junk with soldered parts and impossible to service plus the design philosophy of sealing the li-ion battery packs in the laptops.
Remember when we had old Precision machines with user accessible battery packs that are hotswappable ? Gone. Intel used to make rPGA processors with sockets to replace, gone. MXM GPUs gone. Now everything is thin and light and made to fail. Apple started this.
OS design philosophy once Steve was gone, the one massive downgrade was Skeuomorphic design death, that made the Software absolute generic slop. Plus removing UI power features. Android got inspired so bad that by Android 10 Google forced Scoped Storage killing all powerful nature of Android, they also abandoned Nexus for Pixel which was a fail since start todate. Apple corporation is the most dangerous of all, privacy in the face meanwhile NSO Spyware Pegasus got free pass, Israeli tech. Another software Pegasus same story. As Oxford guy here mentioned how Apple makes their technology accessible to forensics far more than users is also a resounding yes.
Yep, they benefitted from Intel as long as they could they even made the eDRAM Crystalwell exclusive for them while Intel squandered that technology with i7 5775C being last and now we have AMD doing similar stuff, but on Intel side it was not having any limitation of heat or OC blocking back then. Intel was too close to Apple, also the Investors on Intel as well are super greedy they let the ship rot for decades while they can and jumped off leaving mismanaged company, ever since they put money into Intel Israel fabs 10nm was delayed and they even killed Optane. Although Intel is to blame but the Investors, mismanagement, Apple's WallSt stalwart state everything caused Intel to corrode overtime. Add the California politics into the picture by forcing the C suites and exec positions go based on political aspects than skill, ultimately leading to the leaving of Jim Keller Royal Core project.
Jobs had his good points but one thing that wasn't good was his closed system + massively fast (even fraudulently at times) planned obsolescence model.
For instance, the first Mac (the 128K non-expandable RAM model) wasn't unveiled to the tech press. It was actually the second Mac (the 512K model) in disguise.
There's a famous joke; I don't know if Gates actually said it. When Jobs criticised Microsoft for copying Apple, Gates said, "No, Steve. I think we both had a rich neighbour named Xerox, and when you went to burgle their house, you were angry that we had already been there."
Unfortunately, whatever Apple does these days, the rest will copy like robots; for example, Samsung. I think the computer industry is becoming increasingly anti-consumer and anti-democratic, and people reward these corporations uncritical belief. Actually, the roots go deep; it is a societal problem; the world is built on rotten foundations.
One can prioritize performance per watt (lower power consumption, lower absolute performance relative to the competition, higher performance per watt, and higher density) or one can prioritize performance (higher power consumption and higher absolute performance relative to the competition, lower density and lower performance per watt).
This is complicated by the ability to clock chips outside of the ideal voltage curve for the node. It's possible, for instance, to 'overclock' chips designed on a lower-power higher-density process. Higher-density nodes, though, don't have as much overclocking headroom. Overclocking comes in two forms: factory and user. The one I just mentioned would be factory-level.
In an old article about Nvidia's Fermi architecture here, it was claimed that Nvidia intentionally prioritized a lower density transistor that not only had worse performance per watt but also could handle higher temperatures. The goal was higher absolute performance, with performance per watt and density being deprioritized. My recollection of the '28nm bulk' process versus Global Foundaries' 32nm SOI process was that it was cheaper and denser, at the expense of lower absolute performance. That helps to explain why AMD produced its Bulldozer/Piledriver desktop parts using the latter and the lower-power Steamroller and Excavator parts using the former.
Chip designs can also employ dead space to spread heat around, reducing the problem of hot spots limiting the clock rate. That limits the chip's total density but can increase performance.
One of my criticisms of AMD's GPU designs (post-Fiji), especially Radeon VII, is that the company pursued smaller chip size and increased the clock well beyond the optimal performance per watt range. That seemed to be nakedly a margin-pursuing move rather than one that benefits customers. A more balanced design featuring a larger chip and a lower clock would have offered better performance. AMD also used loud cheap cooling for cards like Radeon VII. Part of the blame rests on consumers, as many rejected AMD's use of an AIO with Fury X. However, the majority of the blame rests on AMD for not making Fury X competitive enough against Nvidia's GPU.
Aren’t the trade offs you’re describing at the process or even design level, not the fab level? Is there some reason low power and high power chips can’t be made in the same building?
I’m not an expert, but my read of descriptions of the 18A process is that it can be used either for high density, low power designs or high power less dense designs. Just because the word “power” appears in “backside power delivery” doesn’t mean that it can’t be low power.
According to report by GN Intel's Customer Support is not really granting the RMA for the issues.
It means that Intel's "defaults" are on the same level as "AMD RAM overclocking" which Anandtech multiple time deemed unacceptable in benchmarks, making essentially all Intel affected processors benchmarks by Anandtech garbgage...
All other benchmarks for Intel are garbage too, but other publications didn't have that silly "AMD RAM overclocking" rule.
I don't know if it's considered appropriate to say here, but I anticipated this coming years ago when Intel "went woke", even though they were still on top at the time. You just can't prioritize both having the most skilled/competent possible workforce, and something else, at the same time.
My understanding is that research demonstrates that workplace diversity improves corporate performance. That is the opposite of the dominant narrative of current ‘conservative’ populism.
The quality of sociological research is questionable, according to some researchers who say, for instance, that peer review is both broken and inadequate to fulfill the general oversight role most seem to think it occupies and should. They also cite failure to adequately replicate, due to newness bias.
My anecdotal experience and observation has suggested that it is a mixed bag. Bringing women into the workforce beyond the old third-tier roles, though, unquestionably improves the quality of the labor pool. It is irrefutable that one gains more talent to choose from when 50% of a population is added to the game. That works out well for corporations/business but how well it works out in the big picture is arguable. Productivity has increased far beyond wages so what women gained in independence they arguably lost in time to live life (for the majority who, contrary to corporate mythology, don’t have the opportunity to find a job that they would rather do versus having more of their life for ‘hobbies’ — work they self-direct and thus prefer to do, as it seems more fulfilling). Giving women the choice to become higher-ranking wage slaves, therefore, is a mixed bag. Personally, I would choose to have more life rather than more work under duress but the system we live in is overwhelmingly duress-based. Women, in general, were not given enough agency/latitude to fully live life in a system in which they didn’t have the full ability to participate in the forced labor game. Watch Mr. Skeffington for a refresher on that.
I have an unconventional moderate approach. I think owner-operator business should be able to grow a bit more (in terms of size), via more legal stability/protection. For those businesses, I think the owners should be able to hire and retain the employees they prefer to have work there, regardless of how homogeneous the owner prefers the employees to be. For corporations and public entities, though, DEI measures should be mandatory.
I think this approach is more balanced. Few expect to see ugly, unkempt, awkward, and old runway models of either sex. Similarly, some smaller businesses should have the ability to have more specific employee types, even if that means discriminating on the basis of ‘protected’ attributes such as sex and age. Why should beautyism, ableism, and ageism be allowed in the modeling industry but other forms of discrimination not? It is arbitrary. It is also arbitrary to favor female-owned businesses, particularly when public entities are doing that, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong to have a male-only small business. Freedom of association should, in my view, encompass small business, in terms of employees. In terms of serving the public, however, I do not agree with barring customers for bigoted reasons.
Blaming poor corporate performance on DEI is so common lately that it seems to be reflexive and robotic — even meme-grade. I think it’s far more likely that the vastly disproportionate compensation model of corporations is the first real problem that should be remedied. Invest more into more employees and see better returns.
I agree with some points. As for the problem, it goes deeper, and there is no simple answer.
Complaints about diversity and "wokeness" are not, as one might think, about economics. It is about something older and more primitive, and the shifts we are seeing across the world, going backwards, such as the rise of the RN in France, the UK riots, or MAGA, are a symptom of it. Today's post-WW2 world is not as progressive, fair, or rational as one would like to think, but is built on the rotten foundations of the 19th century and the past. Most of the time, this is hidden, but recent events, such as present wars, have brought the double standards into daylight for all to see. We realise that what politicians, governments, and corporations say is talk, but when it comes down to it, owing to peculiar circumstances, they tend to show where they stand. Also, many countries claim democracy, but are oligarchies or despotisms in disguise; the "world country" as a whole---West and Global South---is unequal and undemocratic. How can it be fixed? I don't know: the foundations are worse than Windows ME or Bulldozer, and there is no XP or Zen forthcoming.
As for the brainwashing that makes people work themselves to death, with the boss as worshipped monarch, it is part of the system, making all "higher-ranking wage slaves," as you pointed out. We work our whole lives for a broken system, retire, and then die shortly afterwards. Don't mistake me; I believe everyone should work or contribute, and labour is excellent for our mental and physical health; but we are being misused, usually for the benefit of billionaires, and half the world's wealth is held by a small percentage of people. As for the modelling and beauty industry: we shouldn't look for fairness there; it is a manipulative industry, draining purses, and the harm it does to women is massive, regarding false standards and body image.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wrote a lengthy one but these posts have already veered from the expected lane of this site. I will only make a few very brief notes. 1) I wasn't suggesting that modeling is an overall good thing. However, society currently agrees that business discrimination based on type is necessary, given the existence of modeling and other businesses that do so. 2) Totalitarianism has been marked by the notion of the melting pot/assimilation. There is a debate about the value of culture/subculture and maintaining subculture requires discrimination. The early Soviets had peasants live with the intelligentsia (although not the leaders, of course) and Merkel told Germans to open their homes to immigrants but when a reporter finally asked her when she was going to have them live with her she said 'I can't imagine it.' 3) It's hard to separate economics from most everything in human life, as greed is so foundational. 4) I agree that people should contribute to the welfare of one another and the perpetuation of the species of flora/fauna that were here before we were. However, a large portion of that work could be voluntary (intrinsic motivation not extrinsic) instead of supplied via the cudgel. Automation should be used to reduce the yoke but instead it's used to further extract/destroy life from ordinary people and the biosphere. 5) Since people are forced to spend the majority of their time at work, it would be nice, I think, for people to be able to associate with those who share their values enough for compatibility. Research shows that the 'opposites attract' belief is unfounded, that people select mates primarily based on similarity. Similarly, forcing people together who don't respect one another does not sound like a recipe for happiness. This is why I am inclined to believe that small business should have much greater latitude when it comes to freedom of association, versus corporations. However, the line must be drawn at customer service. Business owners should not discriminate against customers for any reason related to prejudice. I think the difference should be that smaller businesses are less lucrative and that is the tradeoff for having more latitude when it comes to those one works with. Want the big bucks? Then, go into corporate and have DEI. I think DEI is important to combat unfairness is employment but I don't think it should apply to small business. I, for instance, don't want to hire someone who won't shake hands with female clients because his religion tells him he can't. I don't want to be the slave of someone's organized irrationality. That's not freedom in my view; it's insanity. (I am not a supporter of religious oppression, which means the oppression of rational people by religions.) Not all employment discrimination is based on irrationality, therefore.
For now, let me tackle number five. While people have the right to associate with whom they want, I reject that businesses, small or big, should be allowed to hire based on external characteristics. The world is riddled with this sort of discrimination at all scales. It should be merit- and character-based (though of course, meritocracies also lead to unfairness because not everyone has equal talent). Indeed, if such a thing were possible, hiring should be "blind," such as when testing lossy compression, not knowing whether a file is the MP3 or reference. I don't agree with quotas; but when it comes to hiring, one standard should apply to all, regardless of the size of the business. Simply put, one should not get a job, or fail to do so, because of outward, accidental characteristics.
Touching on the example of shaking hands. That, too, is an accident of custom, not necessarily tied to religion, and varying from country to country. In some places, such as here in South Africa and not owing to religion in the least, people aren't fond of shaking hands and it's got worse since Covid. So, if we were to take someone from a place where shaking hands is not customary and make them shake hands on the job, it might be uncomfortable. The solution: during the interview, they should be asked, "You will shake hands with clients, women as well as men. Is that all right?" The custom of the French to kiss as greeting brings this point out well. To them, it is similar to shaking hands, with no funny connotation at all, but others may find it too close for comfort. Should an American in France be discriminated against for a job because they find kissing as greeting odd? Perhaps! So, it is a matter of recognising what is customary in one place may not be a universal standard; indeed, it may be positively odd elsewhere. Therefore, tolerance is key, solving a host of problems.
Unrelated, but on the point about opposites not attracting, I agree that those with similar lives and interests tend to come together. However, the key factor is actually "attachment," and it is overwhelmingly seen that those with opposite attachment styles end up in relationships. The anxious is drawn to the avoidant and vice versa. Both are diametrically opposed in their attachment dynamics, leading to endless problems and the eventual dissolution of the relationship or marriage. The anxious is rarely attracted to the anxious, nor avoidant to avoidant.
(I agree that religion is often irrational. But belief in a creator, or something else, is a different thing and can exist quite independently from the circus of religion. For my part, I believe in a creator, but don't go by religion, being fed up with the lies and delusions. For a contemporary example, take a look at different groups' views on the Gaza War. Also, irrational people exist everywhere, religion or no religion. But when people try to force their ideas onto others, that is the problem and the spirit of fascism. Anyway, this is another topic in itself.)
Concerning number four, I agree it would be ideal if work were voluntary. Indeed, if one looks at "Star Trek," it is a world without money where work seems to be voluntary. There, technology was used to defeat scarcity. Here, it is used to cut jobs and make the few rich.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
Back to Article
[email protected] - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
Such great sadness. There will be college courses on how Intel Management over the course of the last few years failed miserably. Intel Management has been a total disaster.EJ42 - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
They just need to update their ME firmware. 🤔[email protected] - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Its goes a bit more than that. My take is they are drowning in there own complexity to keep competitive.name99 - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
At SOME point the lesson will be understood that you either weed away some of the complexity every year (or every few years) [like Apple or ARM], or you sell perpetual compatibility (which means ever large complexity) till the point that you fail as a business (Intel? Microsoft?).Real problem is that the people setting strategy see the immediate costs of retaining compatibility just one more year, but not the costs of that retention over the next decade and more. Until this is understood...
Threska - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
The important thing with compatibility is getting those that need it to pay for it.Strunf - Tuesday, August 6, 2024 - link
All of them are becoming more complex Intel, Apple, there's no way around it. Number of transistors keeps increasing...flgt - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
The die had been cast by the time Pat got there. There was no way they were going to let Intel get rid of the fabs and leave the west with no leading edge technology. It’s all in on the Fab at this point. The governments who let industry ship everything to Asia are going to have to pay up now to keep Intel from folding.[email protected] - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Big failure on the fabs. Bug failure on trying to keep competitive through the microcode and power performance and efficiency. One has to realize that the support cost of coding. And microcode coding is very costly to support. KISS - keep it simple... That is one of the nice things about ARM.powerarmour - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
Staggering that Pat G got a raise when he's responsible for this mess. Reliability and customer confidence are in the toilet.MarcusMo - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Gelsinger is not responsible for this. Companies do as big as Intel do not turn on a dime. Thats why the quarterly economics are so harmful for longterm value. Be aware that your comment plays into that notion.Oxford Guy - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
No executive should be given a raise when large numbers of employees are being fired for budget cutting reasons.That should be a law.
[email protected] - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
Intel needs to trim in order face the BIG lawsuit coming.ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
Which big suite?deepblue08 - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
You didn't hear of 13th and 14th gen chips failing everywhere?ballsystemlord - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Yes, but I didn't know they got sued over it.ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
I wonder if this has anything to do with Intel being the biggest investor in High-NA EUV machines...ikjadoon - Thursday, August 1, 2024 - link
Did they share anything on Battlemage GPUs?At this pace, they’ll certainly be competing with AMD’s upcoming RDNA4 and NVIDIA’s upcoming Blackwell.
Khanan - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
They’re lucky if they’re competitive with RDNA 2 at this point - or maybe I missed your sarcasm.TheinsanegamerN - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Problem is blackwell and rDNA4 will be 2 years old by the time battlemage releases.Khanan - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Not really, BM was supposed to be released against RDNA3 / LL and not 2 years later than even RDNA4, you’re off the mark quite a bit. BM at this point must be released against RDNA4 / BW and not even later or they can just ditch it, cause it will never never never be competitive against RDNA5 and Nvidias next after BW.sharath.naik - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
They had every opportunity to move to DEUV earlier than others, yet they just watched their balance sheet. Typical of all mangers with no background in tech. They will be back now that they are buying all the DEUV machines they can. But that will take until next year to come fully online for the quantity they need to make a difference to the bottom line. Their biggest risk is the gap they created until then, when customers will just move to AMD platforms and will be unwilling to move back. Because the platforms are already getting to the point of not needing replacement until it fails. What surprised me more that they have only $20Billion in cash equivalent, what happened to the near $20B in profit they were making for years!!TheinsanegamerN - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
That was gross profit, not net, and most of it went into the manufacturing and R+D, plus servicing debt.Blastdoor - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
“our annual revenue in 2020 was about $24 billion higher than it was last year“Ouch — that’s about one AMD worth of revenue. I guess about 20 percent of that is due to losing Apple and the rest is market share loss to AMD.
They have to get some big foundry customers or they are dead.
Threska - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
AI is the big thing in a lot of books.Kevin G - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
The fab side from a technology perspective has caught up but at great fiscal cost. Arguably fixing the fabs is what has gotten Intel into this situation they are in today. It can pay off if there are other customers to use these fabs. So who are they?Altera doesn't count since they were absorbed by Intel and then spun off again. They can migrate back to TSMC though chips in-flight in the design process are likely still married to Intel's fabs. Not worth the risk to change fab providers halfway.
Cisco was a previous IDM 1.0 client though currently they are leveraging Intel for their silicon-photonics expertise to make high speed, lower power transceivers. It is unclear if Cisco is interested in using Intel for bulk logic for a switch ASIC again and/or some advanced packing.
Intel needs a win from the likes of nVidia, Apple or even AMD to really make their fab investments worth while. The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor.
flgt - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Yeah, I could see them splitting out the Fab business eventually for this reason but it’s too weak right now. Also I think you’ll start seeing investors in TSMC pushing them to raise wafer prices since they don’t have competition and their customers are making obscene amounts of money. This could open the door a bit for Intel to at least present the threat of competition.Blastdoor - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
“ The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor.”That kinda makes sense for AMD, but I wonder if that’s really a legit worry for apple. Let’s imagine an apple design did leak to the design team at Intel. Intel would be suicidally insane to piss off apple (again). I can’t imagine intel acting on such information. The benefits would be trivial compared to the cost.
I suspect the bigger issue with apple is that they would rather use the threat of intel to extract better terms from TSMC than actually using intel, especially given the history of the relationship.
But I think Apple is foolish not to hedge their bets, especially given the geopolitical situation. If apple doesn’t fab AC/DC with Intel, I think they are making a mistake
Khanan - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Design leaking is a nonsense fantasy - let’s say Intel copies a design, they would be sued to hell and back. AMD already won a suit against Intel when they were small, now they’d suit Intel to hell, Apple anyways.ErikSwan - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
"The general presumption is that none of these companies are not willing to let the manufacturing wing of Intel see their designs in fear that it will leak to Intel's design teams which is a direct competitor."I don't know if I really buy this. Any semiconductor company can (and does) go buy products off the shelf and analyze them in their own labs to understand competitor's designs and technology. Or they can buy reverse engineering research reports from a company like TechInsights. Sure, using Intel as your foundry might let them see your designs a year or so before they reach the shelf, but there is not a lot of design knowledge to be gained anyway from the raw layout/geometry that the foundry gets without a significant amount of reverse engineering work.
name99 - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
What's the value for Apple in using Intel Fab?Apple made their priorities clear many years ago, repeatedly! LOWER POWER. That's the only priority that matters. Density and other process elements (like GAA or BSPD) are nice INSOFAR AS they further the goal of higher performance at lower power.
And Intel made their priorities clear, repeatedly. GHZ. That's the only priority that matters. Meaning they rejected requests to build iPhone chips, then rejected requests to build lower power x86 chips.
So here we are today. Intel is optimizing its fabs for GHz, even as the only thing Apple (and most of the rest of the world) cares about is power. Apple ain't gonna pay for the ability to run 6GHz M6's at 300W.
nVidia details are different, but the big picture is much the same: nVidia wants density, not GHz. And both Apple and nVidia will stick with the company that's delivered year after year rather than risk catastrophe on the company that has failed to deliver year after year. Having to delay GAA or BSPD by a year won't change these fundamental facts.
Delay of a decade, maybe, but delay of one year? Who cares? Both nV and Apple know that there's always another year; the only customers who switch away from you because of a one-year delay are the internet fantasy customers, continually complaining about this or that, continually claiming they're moving to Canada or Europe, continually threatening to switch to Linux or Windows, or to stop paying for Netflix, or to boycott Steam; experts in everything except actual, you know, reality...
ballsystemlord - Friday, August 2, 2024 - link
Nvidia wants density? Don't make me laugh. AMD/Radeon has been consistently more dense over the course of Nvidia's history. Although I guess it's possible that Nvidia is trying to catch up now.Khanan - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
Every company on earth wants density that’s nothing special as it helps you design better chips.ballsystemlord - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
Well, sure, but as I said above, from a historical perspective Nvidia hasn't valued density that much.See, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6TiSdKT0A
Khanan - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
That's wrong, they just didn't "beta test" like AMD did, like being super fast with it, instead being a bit later with it cause usually they had the bigger chips which need mature nodes and not the newest ones. And currently they are on par with AMD. I don't think this will change again.ballsystemlord - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
What the gentlemen, Jim, was saying, is that the highest end dies of the companies varied in size, with Nvidia's being the larger of the two options. See the slide he presented with red and green rectangles? Those are the dies for the highest end SKUs.And at the time, AMD was competitive. So, for the given area, AMD had higher density. Granted, that may have had a lot to do with the node being used.
Khanan - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
AMD (or better ATI) used to move to newer nodes faster cause they had the smaller chips (not necessarily always but often). Nvidia waited a bit longer and moved then as well, I already said why. Recently they were on parity and this is like, Nvidia being serious. In 2020 AMD had the better node, and they were relatively on par aside from ray tracing. Unless something miraculous happens or AMD gains another node advantage, sadly AMD won’t be competing with top end Nvidia GPUs anymore. AMD is about multiple things while Nvidia is only about GPUs, it’s obvious why.Threska - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
Only about?https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/grace-cpu...
Khanan - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
Those CPUs are more or less irrelevant, they could do without their own CPUs, it would make no significant difference.ballsystemlord - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
I agree and am likewise concerned about AMD competing in the current market. It's going to be tough. It will be interesting to see what they can pull off. Nvidia's not "asleep at the wheel" like Intel was when Ryzen first came out.ballsystemlord - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
But if you really want to talk node advantage, how about mentioning Nvidia's custom 4nm process they financed through TSMC?https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/technolog...
GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
Apple's only priority is taking money from one's wallet. Same with all these corporations.Intel is rotten to its core. But Apple wanted to use Intel CPUs for a long time (the Star Trek project) and eventually did, at a time when Intel had the better design, Core, and they benefited from this design through its heyday; and when they were ready, with Apple Silicon, left that sinking ship, wisely and much like rats.
As for the Common Folk complaining about various things, it is a symptom of the sham order the world is structured on, rife with lies, double standards, and what suits those in power, or at the control panel of the world. Making a noise is futile but better than silence.
Khanan - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
That’s cynical, no.1) apples priority is to design good things, good things are expensive. But sure they want your money. Like every other company.
2) it’s a smart decision to leave Intels inefficient CPUs behind, calling them rats for that is beyond weird. Not apples fault that Intel sucks.
GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
Except for the rat metaphor, which I accept is excessive, what part of my comment is not the truth?Khanan - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
"Apple's only priority is taking money from one's wallet."This is still wrong, I already explained it. Further, you don't get as far if you're just about money, then you end up like Intel - undoing yourself because of stagnation. No, Apple is far better. You don't like Apple? Fine, you don't have to, but reducing the company to "money" is nonsense.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
Apple's products are, usually, well designed, but I stand by my comment. It is up to the people to hold these companies to account, point out their lies, and show them for what they are.And on another, tangential point, these "good products" of Apple: who are they for? Is it code for "a certain class of people and not for others"?
do_not_arrest - Monday, August 5, 2024 - link
wow you are either naive, ignorant, or just shilling us. EVERY publicly traded company has a #1 priority to return value to the shareholders, which means MAKING MONEY. If they don't, the CEO gets voted out and replaced with a new one. Steve Jobs himself said the iphone (and other) *hardware* is just a vehicle to get people locked into their app store, itunes, and other retail structures to buy stuff solely from Apple. That's why they are being sued left and right and being investigated by the EU and other gov't entities. Just like Microsoft, they have illegally locked people, both consumers and developers, into unjustly high overheads and fees. So don't try and blow your unicorn dust my wayOxford Guy - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
In reality, if corporations push too far away from the illusion that they're beneficial to society, they could find themselves redefined.GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 10, 2024 - link
Oxford Guy, exactly.Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
'apples priority is to design good things'Like the 2019 16" MacBook Pro that suddenly wouldn't turn on — with no way to turn it on nor any way (for those with normal means) to get the data out of it? In previous times, there would be plenty of workarounds.
Apple has been steadily downgrading the ability of Mac users to customize their hardware and software experience, taking control away, for years. For example, deploying Macs in computer labs has been off the table for years because of the erosion of buyer control.
How 'good' was it when Apple was pushing the AFPS file system onto machines with mechanical hard disks (including their hybrid mechanical hard disks), which made them unusably slow?
The one thing Apple has done well is reversing course from the 'thinner is better' midset for the MacBook Pro. At least now they come thicker and don't have awful fan noise so easily. MagSafe was restored, too. Apple has gotten away with plenty of substandard products and tactics over the years and the way the company designs Macs as a giant dark pattern to push cloud services is very unfortunate for ordinary users.
Apple also has a long history of extremely deceptive treatment of user data to make it easier for 'forensics' folk to get what they want — in total contrast with the image Apple sold the public about privacy.
Good products? Good for Apple and for certain people. Not so great for 'the rest of us.'
Khanan - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
You're basically picking exceptions to hate on Apple, it's fine, money speaks and Apple is ultra valuable as everyone knows. If Apple were so bad, they wouldn't be that high. If you have specific needs Apple does not give you, don't buy it, but don't say Apple is bad (you implied it).Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
I don't hate Apple nor do I love Apple.Silver5urfer - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
Apple since its inception was like this. Steve Jobs stole a lot of technology back when Xerox was alive, same for Bill Gates, M$. Apple however jumped above and beyond on screwing the companies. They stole Imagination IP by poaching, the ruined GT Advanced.They almost got Qualcomm shot by that Broadcom takeover. The silent yet most dangerous part is influencing the California or more like Tech sector by making their junk with soldered parts and impossible to service plus the design philosophy of sealing the li-ion battery packs in the laptops.
Remember when we had old Precision machines with user accessible battery packs that are hotswappable ? Gone. Intel used to make rPGA processors with sockets to replace, gone. MXM GPUs gone. Now everything is thin and light and made to fail. Apple started this.
OS design philosophy once Steve was gone, the one massive downgrade was Skeuomorphic design death, that made the Software absolute generic slop. Plus removing UI power features. Android got inspired so bad that by Android 10 Google forced Scoped Storage killing all powerful nature of Android, they also abandoned Nexus for Pixel which was a fail since start todate. Apple corporation is the most dangerous of all, privacy in the face meanwhile NSO Spyware Pegasus got free pass, Israeli tech. Another software Pegasus same story. As Oxford guy here mentioned how Apple makes their technology accessible to forensics far more than users is also a resounding yes.
Yep, they benefitted from Intel as long as they could they even made the eDRAM Crystalwell exclusive for them while Intel squandered that technology with i7 5775C being last and now we have AMD doing similar stuff, but on Intel side it was not having any limitation of heat or OC blocking back then. Intel was too close to Apple, also the Investors on Intel as well are super greedy they let the ship rot for decades while they can and jumped off leaving mismanaged company, ever since they put money into Intel Israel fabs 10nm was delayed and they even killed Optane. Although Intel is to blame but the Investors, mismanagement, Apple's WallSt stalwart state everything caused Intel to corrode overtime. Add the California politics into the picture by forcing the C suites and exec positions go based on political aspects than skill, ultimately leading to the leaving of Jim Keller Royal Core project.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
Jobs had his good points but one thing that wasn't good was his closed system + massively fast (even fraudulently at times) planned obsolescence model.For instance, the first Mac (the 128K non-expandable RAM model) wasn't unveiled to the tech press. It was actually the second Mac (the 512K model) in disguise.
GeoffreyA - Thursday, August 8, 2024 - link
There's a famous joke; I don't know if Gates actually said it. When Jobs criticised Microsoft for copying Apple, Gates said, "No, Steve. I think we both had a rich neighbour named Xerox, and when you went to burgle their house, you were angry that we had already been there."Unfortunately, whatever Apple does these days, the rest will copy like robots; for example, Samsung. I think the computer industry is becoming increasingly anti-consumer and anti-democratic, and people reward these corporations uncritical belief. Actually, the roots go deep; it is a societal problem; the world is built on rotten foundations.
Blastdoor - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
What does “optimizing their fabs for GHz” mean?Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
One can prioritize performance per watt (lower power consumption, lower absolute performance relative to the competition, higher performance per watt, and higher density) or one can prioritize performance (higher power consumption and higher absolute performance relative to the competition, lower density and lower performance per watt).This is complicated by the ability to clock chips outside of the ideal voltage curve for the node. It's possible, for instance, to 'overclock' chips designed on a lower-power higher-density process. Higher-density nodes, though, don't have as much overclocking headroom. Overclocking comes in two forms: factory and user. The one I just mentioned would be factory-level.
In an old article about Nvidia's Fermi architecture here, it was claimed that Nvidia intentionally prioritized a lower density transistor that not only had worse performance per watt but also could handle higher temperatures. The goal was higher absolute performance, with performance per watt and density being deprioritized. My recollection of the '28nm bulk' process versus Global Foundaries' 32nm SOI process was that it was cheaper and denser, at the expense of lower absolute performance. That helps to explain why AMD produced its Bulldozer/Piledriver desktop parts using the latter and the lower-power Steamroller and Excavator parts using the former.
Chip designs can also employ dead space to spread heat around, reducing the problem of hot spots limiting the clock rate. That limits the chip's total density but can increase performance.
One of my criticisms of AMD's GPU designs (post-Fiji), especially Radeon VII, is that the company pursued smaller chip size and increased the clock well beyond the optimal performance per watt range. That seemed to be nakedly a margin-pursuing move rather than one that benefits customers. A more balanced design featuring a larger chip and a lower clock would have offered better performance. AMD also used loud cheap cooling for cards like Radeon VII. Part of the blame rests on consumers, as many rejected AMD's use of an AIO with Fury X. However, the majority of the blame rests on AMD for not making Fury X competitive enough against Nvidia's GPU.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
(Foundries not Foundaries.)Blastdoor - Sunday, August 4, 2024 - link
Aren’t the trade offs you’re describing at the process or even design level, not the fab level? Is there some reason low power and high power chips can’t be made in the same building?I’m not an expert, but my read of descriptions of the 18A process is that it can be used either for high density, low power designs or high power less dense designs. Just because the word “power” appears in “backside power delivery” doesn’t mean that it can’t be low power.
eloyard - Saturday, August 3, 2024 - link
According to report by GN Intel's Customer Support is not really granting the RMA for the issues.It means that Intel's "defaults" are on the same level as "AMD RAM overclocking" which Anandtech multiple time deemed unacceptable in benchmarks, making essentially all Intel affected processors benchmarks by Anandtech garbgage...
All other benchmarks for Intel are garbage too, but other publications didn't have that silly "AMD RAM overclocking" rule.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
AMD is trying to have its cake and eat it. They rate the 9700X for DDR5 5600 and tell reviewers that the 'sweet spot' is 6000.AMD should rate the chips for 6000 if it expects reviewers to use 6000 for the sweetness of the spot.
puplan - Wednesday, August 7, 2024 - link
Poor Intel. Perhaps they shouldn't have spent over $30G over the last 5 years on stock buybacks, see https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/stock_buyback.twtech - Friday, August 9, 2024 - link
I don't know if it's considered appropriate to say here, but I anticipated this coming years ago when Intel "went woke", even though they were still on top at the time. You just can't prioritize both having the most skilled/competent possible workforce, and something else, at the same time.Oxford Guy - Sunday, August 11, 2024 - link
My understanding is that research demonstrates that workplace diversity improves corporate performance. That is the opposite of the dominant narrative of current ‘conservative’ populism.The quality of sociological research is questionable, according to some researchers who say, for instance, that peer review is both broken and inadequate to fulfill the general oversight role most seem to think it occupies and should. They also cite failure to adequately replicate, due to newness bias.
My anecdotal experience and observation has suggested that it is a mixed bag. Bringing women into the workforce beyond the old third-tier roles, though, unquestionably improves the quality of the labor pool. It is irrefutable that one gains more talent to choose from when 50% of a population is added to the game. That works out well for corporations/business but how well it works out in the big picture is arguable. Productivity has increased far beyond wages so what women gained in independence they arguably lost in time to live life (for the majority who, contrary to corporate mythology, don’t have the opportunity to find a job that they would rather do versus having more of their life for ‘hobbies’ — work they self-direct and thus prefer to do, as it seems more fulfilling). Giving women the choice to become higher-ranking wage slaves, therefore, is a mixed bag. Personally, I would choose to have more life rather than more work under duress but the system we live in is overwhelmingly duress-based. Women, in general, were not given enough agency/latitude to fully live life in a system in which they didn’t have the full ability to participate in the forced labor game. Watch Mr. Skeffington for a refresher on that.
I have an unconventional moderate approach. I think owner-operator business should be able to grow a bit more (in terms of size), via more legal stability/protection. For those businesses, I think the owners should be able to hire and retain the employees they prefer to have work there, regardless of how homogeneous the owner prefers the employees to be. For corporations and public entities, though, DEI measures should be mandatory.
I think this approach is more balanced. Few expect to see ugly, unkempt, awkward, and old runway models of either sex. Similarly, some smaller businesses should have the ability to have more specific employee types, even if that means discriminating on the basis of ‘protected’ attributes such as sex and age. Why should beautyism, ableism, and ageism be allowed in the modeling industry but other forms of discrimination not? It is arbitrary. It is also arbitrary to favor female-owned businesses, particularly when public entities are doing that, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong to have a male-only small business. Freedom of association should, in my view, encompass small business, in terms of employees. In terms of serving the public, however, I do not agree with barring customers for bigoted reasons.
Blaming poor corporate performance on DEI is so common lately that it seems to be reflexive and robotic — even meme-grade. I think it’s far more likely that the vastly disproportionate compensation model of corporations is the first real problem that should be remedied. Invest more into more employees and see better returns.
GeoffreyA - Monday, August 12, 2024 - link
I agree with some points. As for the problem, it goes deeper, and there is no simple answer.Complaints about diversity and "wokeness" are not, as one might think, about economics. It is about something older and more primitive, and the shifts we are seeing across the world, going backwards, such as the rise of the RN in France, the UK riots, or MAGA, are a symptom of it. Today's post-WW2 world is not as progressive, fair, or rational as one would like to think, but is built on the rotten foundations of the 19th century and the past. Most of the time, this is hidden, but recent events, such as present wars, have brought the double standards into daylight for all to see. We realise that what politicians, governments, and corporations say is talk, but when it comes down to it, owing to peculiar circumstances, they tend to show where they stand. Also, many countries claim democracy, but are oligarchies or despotisms in disguise; the "world country" as a whole---West and Global South---is unequal and undemocratic. How can it be fixed? I don't know: the foundations are worse than Windows ME or Bulldozer, and there is no XP or Zen forthcoming.
As for the brainwashing that makes people work themselves to death, with the boss as worshipped monarch, it is part of the system, making all "higher-ranking wage slaves," as you pointed out. We work our whole lives for a broken system, retire, and then die shortly afterwards. Don't mistake me; I believe everyone should work or contribute, and labour is excellent for our mental and physical health; but we are being misused, usually for the benefit of billionaires, and half the world's wealth is held by a small percentage of people. As for the modelling and beauty industry: we shouldn't look for fairness there; it is a manipulative industry, draining purses, and the harm it does to women is massive, regarding false standards and body image.
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wrote a lengthy one but these posts have already veered from the expected lane of this site. I will only make a few very brief notes. 1) I wasn't suggesting that modeling is an overall good thing. However, society currently agrees that business discrimination based on type is necessary, given the existence of modeling and other businesses that do so. 2) Totalitarianism has been marked by the notion of the melting pot/assimilation. There is a debate about the value of culture/subculture and maintaining subculture requires discrimination. The early Soviets had peasants live with the intelligentsia (although not the leaders, of course) and Merkel told Germans to open their homes to immigrants but when a reporter finally asked her when she was going to have them live with her she said 'I can't imagine it.' 3) It's hard to separate economics from most everything in human life, as greed is so foundational. 4) I agree that people should contribute to the welfare of one another and the perpetuation of the species of flora/fauna that were here before we were. However, a large portion of that work could be voluntary (intrinsic motivation not extrinsic) instead of supplied via the cudgel. Automation should be used to reduce the yoke but instead it's used to further extract/destroy life from ordinary people and the biosphere. 5) Since people are forced to spend the majority of their time at work, it would be nice, I think, for people to be able to associate with those who share their values enough for compatibility. Research shows that the 'opposites attract' belief is unfounded, that people select mates primarily based on similarity. Similarly, forcing people together who don't respect one another does not sound like a recipe for happiness. This is why I am inclined to believe that small business should have much greater latitude when it comes to freedom of association, versus corporations. However, the line must be drawn at customer service. Business owners should not discriminate against customers for any reason related to prejudice. I think the difference should be that smaller businesses are less lucrative and that is the tradeoff for having more latitude when it comes to those one works with. Want the big bucks? Then, go into corporate and have DEI. I think DEI is important to combat unfairness is employment but I don't think it should apply to small business. I, for instance, don't want to hire someone who won't shake hands with female clients because his religion tells him he can't. I don't want to be the slave of someone's organized irrationality. That's not freedom in my view; it's insanity. (I am not a supporter of religious oppression, which means the oppression of rational people by religions.) Not all employment discrimination is based on irrationality, therefore.GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 18, 2024 - link
Thanks for your thoughts. I have quite a few things to say, but will do so when I get a moment.GeoffreyA - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
For now, let me tackle number five. While people have the right to associate with whom they want, I reject that businesses, small or big, should be allowed to hire based on external characteristics. The world is riddled with this sort of discrimination at all scales. It should be merit- and character-based (though of course, meritocracies also lead to unfairness because not everyone has equal talent). Indeed, if such a thing were possible, hiring should be "blind," such as when testing lossy compression, not knowing whether a file is the MP3 or reference. I don't agree with quotas; but when it comes to hiring, one standard should apply to all, regardless of the size of the business. Simply put, one should not get a job, or fail to do so, because of outward, accidental characteristics.Touching on the example of shaking hands. That, too, is an accident of custom, not necessarily tied to religion, and varying from country to country. In some places, such as here in South Africa and not owing to religion in the least, people aren't fond of shaking hands and it's got worse since Covid. So, if we were to take someone from a place where shaking hands is not customary and make them shake hands on the job, it might be uncomfortable. The solution: during the interview, they should be asked, "You will shake hands with clients, women as well as men. Is that all right?" The custom of the French to kiss as greeting brings this point out well. To them, it is similar to shaking hands, with no funny connotation at all, but others may find it too close for comfort. Should an American in France be discriminated against for a job because they find kissing as greeting odd? Perhaps! So, it is a matter of recognising what is customary in one place may not be a universal standard; indeed, it may be positively odd elsewhere. Therefore, tolerance is key, solving a host of problems.
Unrelated, but on the point about opposites not attracting, I agree that those with similar lives and interests tend to come together. However, the key factor is actually "attachment," and it is overwhelmingly seen that those with opposite attachment styles end up in relationships. The anxious is drawn to the avoidant and vice versa. Both are diametrically opposed in their attachment dynamics, leading to endless problems and the eventual dissolution of the relationship or marriage. The anxious is rarely attracted to the anxious, nor avoidant to avoidant.
(I agree that religion is often irrational. But belief in a creator, or something else, is a different thing and can exist quite independently from the circus of religion. For my part, I believe in a creator, but don't go by religion, being fed up with the lies and delusions. For a contemporary example, take a look at different groups' views on the Gaza War. Also, irrational people exist everywhere, religion or no religion. But when people try to force their ideas onto others, that is the problem and the spirit of fascism. Anyway, this is another topic in itself.)
GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
Concerning number four, I agree it would be ideal if work were voluntary. Indeed, if one looks at "Star Trek," it is a world without money where work seems to be voluntary. There, technology was used to defeat scarcity. Here, it is used to cut jobs and make the few rich.