Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday November 26 2019, @02:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-business dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @05:32AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @05:32AM (#925266)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:37AM (#925298)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @10:38AM (#925301)

    If I gave you a $50 would you become a raving hateful racist online for a year?

    Yeah I would, but I'd probably outsource it out to an Indian for $10.