> And the US is at a high level of strength, not weakness. Its large corporations hold sway over the globe in a manner the likes of which has never been seen before in modern history. Its military has force projection to nearly every point on the globe, with hundreds of global military bases. Its national wealth is at an all-time high. Its stock markets are at all-time highs. Its median income is at an all-time high. Its median dispoable income is at an all-time high. Its housing wealth is at an all-time high
This is in part because other countries allow American countries to come in and take over markets.
The negative ramifications seem to be better than being invaded by the US or having regional entities invaded by the US, and the ensuing instability as a result.
If its going to be like this the rest of the world might as well cut its losses
You seem to have a very limited view of the world if you think the US doesn't have fans of totalitarian rule and that the "rest of the world" is exclusively against US global strategy. I am going to guess that you actually have no idea what the negative ramifications of the collapse of a currency that underpins the foundations of our world are, because it is something that is near impossible to predict.
I agree that at some point, governments and people will need to step up and fight back, but the idea that the US will somehow fall in a vacuum and everyone else will live happily ever after is laughable.
>Things like TV that took entertainment from a group activity to a single person event.
TV was the visual replacement of radios, and both used to bring families together for tv events… I remember lots of instances of that as a child.
It also brought people together at work. Everyone used to watch nearly the same things, and even up to 15 years ago, there’d at least be groups you could find in your office who was watching the same things you did, and could engage in water cooler talk.
Now theres so many shows on streaming networks, and you can watch whenever, so its all fractured.
> The only complete package integrator that manages to make a relationship work with Nvidia is Nintendo.
And thats probably because Nintendo isn’t adding any pressure to neither TSMC nor Nvidia capacity wise; iirc Nintendo uses something like Maxwell or Pascal on really mature processes for Switch chips/socs.
And also the Switch 1 was just the hardware for a nvidia shield tablet from nVidia’s perspective, without the downside of managing the customer facing side and with the greater volume from Nintendo’s market reach. (Not that it wasn’t more than that for consumers or Nintendo, just talking nvidia here)
I would imagine they could split their orders between different fabricators; they can put in orders for the most cutting edge chips for the latest Macs and iPhones at TSMC and go elsewhere for less cutting edge chips?
presumably they already do that (since non cutting edge chip fab is likely to be more competitive and less expensive) so, given they are already doing that, this problem refers to the cutting edge allocations which are getting scare as exemplified at least by Nvidia's growth
It is stupid to fixate on the specific number $1000.
It's just a placeholder for wharever number makes sense in the clearly expressed context. Either substitute $5000 or $10000, or substitute whatever location or demographic you imagined (since none was specified) for some other location or demographic. You can't start in the US and vacation in Venice for $1000, but you absolutely can vacation somewhere else and/or somehow else.
Or, just pretend they said whatever other number you like, because the specific amount was not material to the point they were expressing.
No it’s not obvious. I was pointing out that it’s not cheap to go on vacation. I think you are the one missing the point. Several points up GP says “1000 to go on vacation?”
The conversation was about the expense of going on vacation. You then said that you went on a business trip (not vacation), and that the cheapest fare plus a cheap hotel was more than $1000. They replied that they went on vacation (more relevant than business travel) for $100. That is, they supplied a counter-data-point to your data point.
Then they pointed out that both your data point and theirs were anecdotes (I guess that's what a single data point is), rather than actual data.
So their point was that they have experience that contradicts yours, and that neither their experience nor yours does anything to advance the conversation, because they're both just anecdotes.
As I said, I thought that was very obvious from their post.
So, we're back at Jensson's post from a day ago, with both you and IAmBroom having supplied contradictory anecdotes, and neither having supplied any data. So, do you want to add some data?
Actually, the conversation was more generally about the mentality of chronically broke people, but as often happens on HN, one reply fixated on a single word (or number in this case), lost the forest for the trees, and derailed the whole topic.
I get that anecdotes aren’t data, but the way it was phrased came off a bit snarky. I’m happy to share my experience without turning this into a debate.
This is in part because other countries allow American countries to come in and take over markets.
reply