deltaseventhree

Yes, Obviously there's a lot that goes on in this process, more then "just" silicon. But if you want a summary, then cost expertise and knowhow, eclipses actual process. In a sense it is just "silicon" when measured relative to the ability and knowledge required to transform that material.

The idea that tsmc and Samsung can fab better then the US is unequivocally true.

I am simply stating the truth. It is from the perspective of a tsmc shareholder not a patriotic American who wants to beat china for no other reason then being the best.

As a tsmc shareholder one part of your post is correct. US workers are unfortunately lazier and slower and more expensive. Not necessarily stupider. You characterized this part of my position partially correctly.

As for what the US should or should not do, I never commented on that. Your patriotism and defensiveness specifically injected rivalry into your response. I literally have no opinion on what Taiwan or China or the US should do. I am neutral on that front.

Overall the long term vision is to wrestle some control away from China. That is the long term bet the US and tsmc are ultimately making and what's driving the decision. But economically this is a bad bet.

In the past the US could compete, but that doesn't speak to the status quo.

In the future the US may change but this is unknown. It may very well be the US will never recover. This is a realistic possibility.

Either way the status quo is that the US is currently inferior to Asia in terms of semiconductors.

Interest rates will increase spending will be pulled back to stop inflation. A recession is the tool being used to stop inflation.

The CEO did not ask for money. The money was already given. The CEO was simply stating the status quo. Helping her come to terms realistically with what is truly going on with the Arizona plant. Look it up.

It's not just about intels capabilities. It's about economic wage standards. The cost is just too high in the US.

That being said tsmc workers in Taiwan are by far more capable then Intel this is proven by the 3nm process of which Intel is completely incapable of achieving.

You are definitive about defense spending in a recession. This is wrong. Aspects of the government will begin pulling back. We do not know how this will effect tsmc.

This move from a profitablity standpoint is break even as far as we know. It makes no economic sense.

Btw. This isn't something I'm making up. The CEO of tsmc mark liu stated this to Nancy pelosi during her visit. Also her husband is dumping tsmc stocks for unknown reasons.

Taiwan subsidized tsmc for tech. Once the tech was established the subsidy ended.

Right now the US is subsidizing tsmc for simply switching locations. Once the location is switched the economic output of this plant will be negative so the subsidies have to remain.

The US chip market is not capable of making competitive chips. Not without economic assistance. This is categoric fact.

Your post looks like a rationalization of your own purchasing decisions. If this is a correct observation I would self reflect on your own biases.

The main reason is the looming threat of invasion of Taiwan from China. Such an action is catastrophic for Taiwan and the US. I thought this was obvious. Guess not.

The US is an easier espionage point for the US to steal technology from Taiwan. Most likely it will happen. But simple espionage isn't enough for this technology to fully transfer. The expertise and knowhow is just too challenging.

Do not let your patriotism blind you from the moral grayness that operates within the US as well.

Tsmc is not coming here because it's an economically wise move. They are coming here knowing it's an economically irrational move.

Politics is the reason for this move. It is not a clear cut win.

Your post has the aroma of patriotism. Patriotism blinds us to harsh truths. Why do you love how people were wrong when they said we can't make chips in the US anymore? You shouldn't feel love or hate for any of these statements.

Patriotism is blindness. If you hold no loyalties to even the country you are born in it's easier to see the truth.

If Taiwan stopped making those tools you would be impacted. The world overall... not so much.

The US has more expensive workers who are overall worse at the job and don't have the expertise to be compete with the people in Taiwan.

The subsidies only make this a viable option for political reasons. The decision to create a fab in Arizona is strictly speaking unprofitable and essentially a economically irrational move for the company.

It is ONLY being done because of US demand and political tension from China. For a shareholder this move is not good when looking at it in terms of profit.

I know this is a hard pill to swallow but it's true.

Don't joke about Europe. The best place for tsmc to expand is actually china. But this won't happen for various reasons that we all know about.

Alot of the generic interfaces you design in OOP end up being useless. Never re-used and pointless. You never needed to make these interfaces in the first place

In category theory, you will be able to create and identify interfaces that are universal, general and widely used throughout your code. Category theory allows you to organize your code efficiently via interfaces and thus enable Maximum reuse of logic.

When creating an interface you largely use your gut. Category theory allows you to draw from established interfaces that are more fundamental. Basically class types in haskell.

If you want to see the benefit of category theory, you really need to use haskell. Monads for example are a pattern from category theory.

Also a lot of what people are talking about in this thread is exactly what I'm saying^^. I'm just saying it in less complicated jargon.

In the past women, NEEDED men to survive. For women it was a choice about survival. It was always men who went out to hunt for food, farm for food, make the money and build the house. All the technology, all the machinery, all the science you see around you today, most of it was built, designed and envisioned by men.

In general human civilization and societies functioned in a way where men and women worked together but make no doubt about it. For the majority of human history (99%) men did built and maintained the infrastructure for survival. Men worked in partnership with women for betterment and higher productivity; women however worked with men because they needed to survive. A woman without a man in the past had few options to support herself.

This is no longer the case, so we'll see how it plays out, but modern society is at odds with the biology millions of years of evolution has designed us for. Likely there will be a culling. A natural selection process where a huge portion of the genetic pool will fail to reproduce.

To be frank I think a lot of men will just end up being lonely and single until they're dead. Polygamy will become more and more normalized and women will have a lot more power over society and societal norms in general.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/whpxuw/datin... This study had an unrelated purpose but nevertheless extracted the same data.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/the-m...

Everything I'm saying is common knowledge if you are an average (key word) man on dating apps OR if you're well versed in academic anthropology or evolutionary psychology (NOT gender studies). As an average male, we live this life anecdotally. The imbalance of power in the dating market invades every facet of what we feel and see. It is part of our logical reality. If you are not an average single man, it is very likely this reality is completely foreign to you; and when presented with this new angle you will likely not accept it.

Our culture paints a picture of inequality. The equation speaks to one side of of the story. The story of female empowerment; The rise of of the underdog. The other side of the equation, the male side, is invisible, especially if you are not a male.

The evidence extends beyond dating app statistics (which all categorically point to the same conclusion) to biology and anthropology:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dn... The genetic diversity of female genes is greater than male genes.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/are-humans-monogamous-o... In anthropology Monogamy is considered to be a mating strategy that guarantee a single mate for all men. It is advantageous to men and in many societies it is artificially enforced. Polygamy is more advantageous to females and the likely natural outcome when females are more empowered in society. It guarantees the best mate for females.

Of course women would prefer to be in a monogamous relationship with an alpha male. But given the choice between monogamy with a beta male or polygamy with an alpha they choose the later.

More on that here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a38dwj/monogamy-may-be-even-...

Given anthropological studies of human culture and genetic studies of female genetic diversity, the conclusion is inescapable:

Hookup culture is the natural outcome of human behavior. Dating apps only magnify this behavior and allow us to collect data on it.

It's not a card. I don't even care to reveal it. I revealed it ONLY because someone decided to use identity politics against me for no goddamn reason.

And here you are turning it around again. Let's just stop with this vile nonsense.

>No, the problem with doing something illegal (that you can't explicitly put in the job description even) AND douchey is that it's illegal and douchey.

Do not fucking insult me. Calling me douchey is fucking rude and against the rules here. Either speak to me respectfully or don't speak here at all.

The women are desperately searching for a relationship. The few men involved with hook up culture have too many options are unwilling to commit due to overwhelming supply.

There are two reasons for why it's like this. The first reason is dating apps. Dating apps make it very easy for women to be even more selective then they already are.

The second reason is technology. The rise of technology including tampons and birth control has allowed women to fight for additional rights and come onto equal standing with men. For most of human history women depended on men for financial well being and survival in general. This is no longer the case.

Thus when being in a LT relationship isn't a survival requirement, women upgrade their selectivity.

The experience for the majority of men really just ends up being a lack of matches. The experience for women is a lack of men willing to commit. And for a few men (you most likely) hooking up is just "comfortable."

I'm not making this up. There is very real data about this.

It is very reasonable to put forth in the requirement:

    We are looking for a candidate who can get along with the team. The team likes to party and drink and they all tend to be very young. They do a lot of extracurricular activities together after work. Please only apply if you feel you can fit in well. 

No, it's not. The above job description is honest and fair game. Let's not take this into other tangents that have to do with racism or sexual harassment. Be reasonable.

No, team is a name for a concept that exist outside of just an idea. Animals display team like behavior in things we term as "herds" or "flocks". Team is simply a name for cooperation or group behavior.

It is a biological concept for two reasons. First it exists in animals. Animals tend not to have culture or learned behavior. Most animals form social groups (aka teams) naturally with minimal culture indicating that a "team" is not an idea but that it is hard wired behavior within their brains.

The second reason is that humans are heavily influenced by cultures and ideas. A huge portion of our behavior across continents and peoples is divergent and different indicating that the behavior is "learned" or "created" out of ideas. The thing with teams is that it is a quality that is universal across cultures and peoples. There is no divergence. There is no culture that doesn't understand the concept of cooperation or teams. This makes it highly highly likely that the concept of a "team" is biological. It is behavior hardwired into our brain in the same way that pain or hunger is hardwired into our brains. All humans form teams, all humans get hungry.

The one difference here is that hunger forms a somewhat distinct sensation separate from consciousness in our brains so we can easily tell that "hunger" is distinct. Team building and forming is however woven directly into our consciousness so it's harder to see the separation between "learned" and "inborn". The outside evidence, however, points to biology as the origin. All cultures form teams and cooperate. All cultures get hungry.

>So it is a requirement?

No it's not a requirement.

>I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.

For THAT specific comment I am saying that team bonding activities exist for a reason. A purpose. That is VALID supporting evidence for my point.

You are conflating that point with Morality which is completely separate. For example there's plenty of examples of wars and conflicts between people who didn't bond well. People have died because of failure of team bonding. Therefore team bonding should be a requirement. Is that valid? No. The truth is much more complex.

That being said Team bonding has it's place. There is reasoning for why it exists and conflating it with slavery is really taking it too far. We both know the importance of team bonding. If you're not bonding with your team at work, then you're focusing your time on a different team outside of work. You value team bonding. Likely it is your family. Should I conflate this with slavery? Is that a reasonable tangent? No.

>Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?

I would say we didn't. We have no idea whether it's team 2.0 or a regression. You have no evidence for this either way. I would say that the current configuration of "professional teams" just fits your current work style and life. It works for you, so you like to think it's "team 2.0" when really we need data to know either way.

>I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?

This is taking it too far. Let me reword this in a way that makes more sense and still conveys your point without being ludicrous. The restaurant Hooters exclusively hires employees based off the tradition of breast size and lacking a penis. Do I advocate that?

Yes I do. Each team has different requirements, short of child sacrifice I think a requirement like being similar to the team and enjoying team bonding activities is NOT unreasonable.

IMO that is a valid metric to hire someone.

No, I think you're misinterpreting. Let me elucidate my position in more detail.

It is fair game for the employer to be upfront about all of this stuff BEFORE the employee is hired. It needs to be in the job description. The employer wants someone who can bond and party with the team, and it is within his right to look for such a person.

It is not right for the employer to find a person who is not this person then force him to conform.

That is my stance. Looking for employees who like to drink, party and socialize with the entire team is fair game.

Obviously the man in the article was hired because the employers THOUGHT he was that person. The fact that he wasn't was miscommunication likely from both parties. Regardless of the law he doesn't fit in with the team at all. Getting fired is bound to happen.

Let me put it this way. If the job description expects it to be out of office and YOU chose to work for THAT job, then it's fair game to fire you should you choose not to live up to the spirit of the description.

But it shouldn't be forced upon you if it's not part of the job description.

Overall though I don't think it's much of a problem. Most companies are, like you said, they leave the participation to be optional and everyone is cool with it.

Why not? I want my employee to fit in with the team. If they drink then I want someone who drinks. This is reasonable. There are subtle performance effects on the ENTIRE team when hiring someone too divergent.

As an employer I want my employees to all be friends. If I make this request in the job description I think that's perfectly fair. If I spring this request unknowingly onto someone who just got hired then it's unfair.

There's a concept of common sense. With common sense we can easily rule out jumping off of planes and into fires without getting pedantic or technical. Let's use some of this sense when talking so things don't get overly technical.

>haha, yeah thats the part that I want everyone to focus on in this debate.

Do we let laws define what's right and wrong? Or do we use common sense? Obviously it's common sense. Because laws can have loopholes and what else is it but common sense that is used to identify these loop holes? In the end that is the basis for our judgement. Law is simply a way to codify our fuzzy sense of morality into an exact logic. The problem, however, is that it is often wrong (with loop holes and tax laws and such) and we have to fall back to a fuzzy sense of what is right or wrong. AKA common sense.

Haha yeah, let's stick with common sense arguments rather then strict interpretations of the word of the law which is obviously flawed.

Should men be hired as wet nurses and midwives? I think the answer is No. At certain times it's not appropriate.

But that's besides the point. Let's not get into this because it's a flamewar topic.

>Most people don't have multiple job offers lined up, which is why it's important that employees have some protection.

I agree. Put it this way. I think it's fair game for the employee to HAVE this protection if he didn't know it's part of job.

But if he knew, and he's taking advantage of this protection then it's not fair game.

>And it's usually for the best of everyone. Even if you enjoy the social activities of your job, at some point you might decide not to go drinking every week, and you shouldn't be fired for that.

I think it's quite obvious if you read between the lines that he's not fired for not drinking. He's fired because he didn't fit in and doesn't get along with the team.

Nobody fires someone just because they didn't drink but is a cool guy to get along with. Basically what's going on now is a lot of people don't like him, and people are forced to work with him.