Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
U.S.-based chip-tech group moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears
A U.S.-based foundation overseeing promising semiconductor technology developed with Pentagon support will soon move to Switzerland after several of the group’s foreign members raised concerns about potential U.S. trade curbs.
The nonprofit RISC-V Foundation (pronounced risk-five) wants to ensure that universities, governments and companies outside the United States can help develop its open-source technology, its Chief Executive Calista Redmond said in an interview with Reuters.
She said the foundation’s global collaboration has faced no restrictions to date but members are “concerned about possible geopolitical disruption.”
“From around the world, we’ve heard that ‘If the incorporation was not in the U.S., we would be a lot more comfortable’,” she said. Redmond said the foundation’s board of directors approved the move unanimously but declined to disclose which members prompted it.
Related Stories
European Processor Initiative Receives First EPAC RISC-V Sample Chips for Testing
European Processor Initiative (EPI) has been working on providing independence for the European Union in the high-performance computing (HPC) field, by developing custom RISC-V-based accelerators. Called the European Processor Accelerator (EPAC) chip, designed for high efficiency and high throughput computation, it has been successfully taped out and is being tested at EPI's labs.
[...] [Today], the project has delivered its promises as the very first batch of chips are being tested in EPI's labs. The RISC-V processors are designs containing multiple special-purpose accelerators, all centered around the RISC-V ISA and its design principles. The processor contains four tiles of Vector Processing Units (VPUs) made up from Avispado RISC-V core designed by SemiDynamics, and vector processing elements design by Barcelona Supercomputing Center and the University of Zagreb. In each tile, there are home nodes and L2 cache for cache systems, which are the contributions of Chalmers and FORTH. For additional acceleration, there are Stencil and Tensor accelerators (STX) engineered by Fraunhofer IIS, ITWM, and ETH Zürich, and the variable precision processor (VRP) deigned by CEA LIST.
Also at The Register.
Related: U.S.-Based Chip-Tech Group Moving to Switzerland Over Trade Curb Fears
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Tuesday November 26 2019, @02:28PM (4 children)
A Great Escape from the Greatness:
https://riscv.org/members-at-a-glance/ [riscv.org]
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:36PM (3 children)
Yeah, this thing is a very many-layered cake, including the layers of lawyers/courts/governments/laws.
Many of these companies are competitors, so who knows what fighting will occur if RISC-V takes off. Everyone play nice? Oh rats, the alarm just went off and woke me up. Back to reality.
No doubt there's much coolness. Collaborative learning usually helps almost everyone.
And I don't really care whose CPU runs my systems, just please fix all the Sceptre / Meltdown / etc. problems.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:52PM (2 children)
"Sceptre"
You mean Spectre. There is a barbara lerner spectre, if you're into murdering your own children and those of your neighbors. She will guide you through the whole process of how to replace locals with outsiders. She is from khazaria, a place that worships Satan, if you're wondering.
As for me, I do prefer that only humans produce the CPU that powers my systems. As for the eternal aliens, they took over human-produced things and called them their own. Khazars only buy and sell but produce nothing. They compromise human-made systems whenever possible to gain more control. Their control is only fake and temporary. The real work is done by humans and we can take back control when we are ready.
Spectre is not going away. Neither is Meltdown. Those things were designed by the khazar vermin.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 27 2019, @12:01AM (1 child)
Sorry for typo- I have a Sceptre monitor. Doesn't take much to get your knickers all bunched up, huh?
I did not mod you, but as usual you deserve the downmod. Please seek help. There are medications that will help you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @12:15AM
There's only one cure, but it only requires a single treatment.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday November 26 2019, @02:40PM (5 children)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/riscv_foundation_moving_from_usa_to_switzerland_because_of_geopolitical_landscape/ [theregister.co.uk]
I see some members who would prefer Switzerland.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:57PM (4 children)
Who wouldn't?
As mentioned elsewhere so much of the news become so much more coherent when you understand the implications of this [wikipedia.org]. The entire world today is driven by economic power. Our relationships, our corporate appeal, even our military might all comes down to little more than our economic might. But we've now hit an inflection point. China not only already has a 30% larger economy than the US, but is increasingly that lead dramatically year by year. This year China had slower than expected growth (owing in large part to the trade wars) of 6%. US growth was higher than expected at 2%. If you don't intuit how big that is consider that that means 40% per decade. Actually due to compounding gains, it's more like 50%.
Each year China is becoming a larger and larger part of the entire world's economy. The US, by contrast, is left engaging in financial voodoo (such as quantitative easing) just to maintain our much more modest growth rates. To say nothing of more nuanced issues like the fate of the already limping petrodollar in a world where there's an increasingly strong push for moving away from fossil fuels. What we're seeing is what we will continue to see. Countries and companies are going to increasingly step away from the US in pursuit of a "global" market and the US trying to reverse this through a mixture of hard and soft power. But it's futile. You're looking at a nation of 1.4 billion vs a nation with 330 million. As other factors start to become less severely different, you just can't overcome a difference of a billion more population.
And one giant monkey wrench in all of this is India. India with it's 1.4 billion people is also projected to begin surpassing the US economy within the next decade or so. Whatever India's decision - to remain neutral or aligned with Chinese or American interests will end up radically restructuring of the world power balance - all within the next 10 years! Such a wildly interesting time to be alive. The birth of the internet, the birth of a permanent entry to space, a mostly organic (as opposed to war/etc) shifting of world power, potential automation, and so much more - all within a single human lifetime!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:04PM
There is one more: World War III. The khazar jew rats have been working on it for quite some time. If it happens, we might not be here. Send them to the bottom of the sea, or the surface of the Sun and then we can have peace.
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 26 2019, @06:44PM (2 children)
you just can't overcome a difference of a billion more population.
Yes they can [pri.org].
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday November 26 2019, @07:59PM (1 child)
Indeed. US foreign policy is already heavily influenced by some old farts who can't let go of their 20th century grudges. Just imagine how much butthurt there will amongst the elite when their empire gets taken away from them (ie. the ones that weren't pragmatic enough to switch teams).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @08:22PM
It'll be Cuba all over again
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:42PM (4 children)
Switzerland has been forced to join the US empire, and the Swiss government will be compelled to enforce US policy against them.
At least in the US they would have had strong US constitutional protections against arbitrary and capricious acts.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:02PM
When switzerland won't house snowden, that is a pretty big sign.
When development of open protocols and cutting edge tech is afraid to operate in the united states, that is a pretty big sign.
They might be saying they are afraid of trade wars and unstability, but I think it is pretty hard to develop with the intention of making something that will not be easy to comprimise, over wires and hotel rooms completely comprimised by the people you are trying to defend against.
Now that due to epstein we know that the wiretapping is not to protect the children, it is pretty certain industrial espionage and the elimination of all privacy outside of mansions and the ministry of truth, is someones actual intention.
Like, you think epstein didn't change anything because CNN ignores it, but among thinking people in the world, it changed a lot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:36PM (2 children)
oh, gosh, I forgot to say why I disagree.
There are no strong constitutional protections in the united states, see my journal.
USA post 2001 is GDR-lite, your rights are a potempkin village of half-truths made irrelevant by technology.
https://archive.is/6uwoN [archive.is]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @06:00PM
Ah, so you modded me down.
That's still more than what Switzerland will give you, once the US leans on them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @07:06PM
USA post 2001 is GDR-lite
Pfft! Try post 1968. No, wait, try post 1912, no, I'm sorry, try post 1860, oh man! no way! Try post 1786 [shays rebellion, in case you don't care to look it up]! Oh fuck it, try post 13 billion BC
We were doomed from the start. Everything that happens is inevitable. You recover, and do it again.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @03:46PM (14 children)
From TFS:
Given the arbitrary and selective nature of the current administration's tariff and tariff exemption actions, I'd be really nervous about being punished economically if my organization didn't swear fealty to the Trump administration too.
As Paul Krugman pointed out [nytimes.com] today:
Is that the only reason for RISC-V to leave the US, or even the most important one? I don't know. But it certainly raises questions for which no real answers seem to be forthcoming.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:02PM (2 children)
Like if Ukraine is so rife with extortion and bribery, why do some segments of government and the MSM want us to keep pumping money into there?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday November 26 2019, @07:15PM (1 child)
why do some segments of government and the MSM want us to keep pumping money into there?
The most common reason is for a piece of the action. That's why corrupt politicians win reelection for 30 years or more, everybody wants some of that pie. There's nothing particularly complex about it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @12:03AM
And because the democrats profiting there are political rivals (or in their clan) of Trump, that makes it uninvestigatable for the Trump administration -- even impeachable, according to 2019 democrat party doctrine.
Americans sitting at home and watching the evening news take a step back and think: Just what of they are telling you is right and wrong is right and wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:38PM (1 child)
I find it amusing you'd be quoting Krugman when he predicted the stock market would impload with Trump. Perhaps he meant sometime in Trump's second term?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:44PM
Do you dispute the facts in the quote?
Or are you just foaming at the mouth because he's not falling in line behind you to suck Trump's cock?
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:59PM (8 children)
Be wary of NYTimes "opinion" pieces. Read that piece for the facts presented, without the wordsmithing. And you get this:
- Trump wants Tariffs because he thinks they're good for American labor
- Apple wants exceptions because obvious
- Trump tours an Apple factor and starts rambling off about politics
- Apple CEO doesn't get into an argument with Trump over politics
- Omg! Quid quo pro! Advertsus solem ne loquitor! Scandal scandal scandal!!!
The New York Times and other publishers have made sure to ensure that there is a special carve out from fact checking and other validation for "opinion" pieces. It gives them carte blanche to run genuinely fake news as real news with plausible deniability if/when it can be proven to be fake: "That was just the author's opinion, as was clearly labeled at the top of the article, the categorization of the piece, and even in the page title. We in no way hid the fact that this piece was little more than an opinion piece."
In this case it's even worse since the author is the same person who, among other gems, authored this [nytimes.com] evergreen piece:
And Krugman's probably better at economic forecasting than he is at telling the truth!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @06:56PM (3 children)
That's generally what opinion means, yes, so there is no need to put it in quotes. It's what at least 75% (maybe closer to 90%) of what all 24-hour TV "news" sources do, and what many other sources like Breitbart and OANN do. (See, I put news in quotes there because they are devilishly good at making you think you are watching news when you are watching opinions about the news). But for newspapers, if the piece says "OPINION" across the top of it, as this one does.... well you can pretty well assume that there are going to be conclusions drawn beyond the facts themselves. Those might be debatable. See how that works?
Your factual analysis of the situation is pretty lacking. Here's the facts being presented:
- Trump visited Apple and told several falsehoods both there and on Twitter ("Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America.")
- Neither the CEO nor the company corrected the President's lies, but instead kept silent about them.
- Deprikasa was relieved of aluminum tarriff sanctions, in a move the administration claims was an error.
- The JEDI contract went to Microsoft instead of Amazon, which was a complete surprise to most of the industry with an opinion about it.
The opinion being drawn from these examples is that Trump engages in crony capitalism, and the litmus test for these is personal support of Donald Trump. Seems right to me.
That this is plausible is very simple. Trump is pathologically narcissistic. That is an opinion but rooted in enough factual occurrences that I'm not going to belabor proving it to you - if you can't see it already you won't anyway. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Donald Trump supports them who support him personally and those who do not will be punished in any way that Trump is able to. He has proven again, and again, and again that he only supports those who support him, where his Oath of Office requires him to uphold the principles of the Constitution which are to support all people in America, those who like him and those who hate him both. He fails to support members of his own party who do not show the deference to which he feels is his due. It would be more surprising if he weren't a crony capitalist. But I digress.
Then you conclude by arguing the messenger instead of the message.
So you have no command of what opinion is. You do not understand the facts. You have incorrect concepts about the subject. And you try to shoot the messenger.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @07:53PM (2 children)
The article is even more fake than you're assuming. Trump was referencing the new Austin campus (with around 15,000 new employees) that Apple announced immediately after his Tweet:
Apple Announcement (per local news) [kxan.com]
Trump Tweet [twitter.com].
Check the dates. I'm sure that was just yet another 'woopsie' on Krugman's part.
The New York Times continues to fall to impressive new lows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @09:40PM (1 child)
Except, Trump's tweet said he "opened" a new manufacturing plant. According to the article *you* linked, Apple has just begin construction and will not have any actual Apple business activities until 2022.
So. Trump *lied* about the plant he was standing inside (which was *opened* in 2013), as he couldn't be talking about "opening" a facility that won't finish construction for two years or so.
So I suggest that *you*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @05:11AM
I'm going to assume you have a limited command of the English language. I can help!
Krugman, however, has no such excuse. Nor do the New York Times editors. It's simply more literally fake news from the NYT guarded by a classification as "opinion".
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 26 2019, @07:51PM (3 children)
That bit alone should be modded + 1 Funny.
He has spent most of his life refusing to pay for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @05:32AM (2 children)
What people campaign for politically and what they do in their own private life are often quite different. Because what benefits you as an individual and what benefits a nation are often in distinct conflict. For instance Warren Buffet remains one of the most vocal proponents for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Suffice to say until such laws pass, he's continuing to do absolutely everything and exploiting every loophole that exists to minimize his tax bill.
Or going well back into the past, Jefferson was one of the most vocal advocates for trying to end slavery in the US. His phrasing in the constitution "All men are created equal." was not accidental. It was an abbreviated version of a rather lengthy rant against slavery he had initially included, but one that other signatories refused to accept. Yet of course he would go on to inherit more than 100 slaves himself whom he did not simply choose to immediately liberate (though that is more nuanced and outside the scope of the point here - he did liberate a number of the most skilled who he felt would be capable of comfortably making it on their own).
In general so long as something provides a personal benefit (such as tax avoidance) there will be enough people that that will not stop exploiting it that you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by refusing to also 'indulge.' You could stop it to virtue signal, but when the gains you see from such things are genuinely significant - that often has a much higher personal value than the value of virtue signaling. If I gave you a $50 would you become a raving hateful racist online for a year? Probably not. For $1 billion? You wouldn't even hesitate. Your minimum value is somewhere in between. We all have our price, but it's only the very wealthy and/or powerful than generally reach a point that such price might be ever actually be paid. Hence the quote, "Adversity is sometimes hard upon a man; but for one man who can stand prosperity, there are a hundred that will stand adversity."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:37AM
As an example of this in the other direction, after primarily US bankers nearly destroyed the world economy during the previous administration Obama chose not only to not hold anybody accountable, but to give them hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to bail them out. Following the end of his presidency these same groups, among others, are paying him tens of millions of dollars in "speaking fees." That is in your face corruption that we've completely normalized. Imagine now, for a moment, that Obama had been a billionaire. Might he have reacted differently to these bankers' behaviors during his presidency?
We can only speak in hypotheticals so there's no clear answer, but this question and concern is one reason why if I do choose to vote democrat again (which I have not since 2008), it would likely only be for a man of extensive independent means such as Bloomberg. I rather disagree with his positions, but whatever his price is going to be - it's probably more than some millions to low tens of millions of dollars. It's the same reason that though I tend to disagree with many of Trump's positions, and especially his behavior online, I will probably vote for him in 2020, excepting the possibility of a Bloomberg/Schultz/etc winning the DNC nomination which would make things more difficult. Because while I may disagree with Trump I think he is engaging in behavior that he genuinely thinks is good for America. By contrast, I do not think that Obama's decision to give the bankers a massive payday, to try to shovel through the TPP in the most undemocratic fashion, etc were things that he felt were good for America. Those are things that I think he felt were good for himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @10:38AM
Yeah I would, but I'd probably outsource it out to an Indian for $10.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Tuesday November 26 2019, @04:36PM
It's not until you have to relocate offshore around national sanctions that you can truly call yourself a disruptive design at the global scale.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:30AM
So "Foundation" is silent? Must be Hungarian or Czech...