>Iran was NOT bombing its neighbours and demanding Hormuz toll before the war. Not even after it was bombed last June.
They were funding and arming proxies that were bombing and destabilizing neighborhoods. Nobody in the region likes Iran, that is precisely why the Gulf States want US bases and a Israeli military pact.
And this is not a reactive policy as it is an explicit proactive policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution and gaining regional hegemony. Which no one wants.
That's only if you continue to assume vulnerable and unfortified critical infrastructure. Did you know the majority of damage from a nuke is more from the aftermath of the blast in fires and crumbling infrastructure than the blast itself. And that can be adequately prepared for one if one needs to.
I find the panic over RAM prices to be overestimated. 32GB DDR5 RAM is around $500 which is comparable to to the 9800x3D. Sure it sucks that it increases by around 4x, but when you factor in the overall price of a top end PC at around 1000-2000, especially for the lion's sum of the GPU, the increase is marginal.
This only effects a very narrow slice of highly budget conscious consumers trying to build high end PCs at razor thin margins.
$500 for 32GB is about $15/GB which is a high we haven't seen since the mid-2000s. This is a big deal, it turns RAM and to some extent storage (especially fast storage) into a massive economic bottleneck.
Adjusted for inflation, the last time prices (/GB) were this high was May 2011; the tail end of the 2009/2010 shortage. Aside from a brief glut in 2008, it wasn't really cheaper before (than it is now) though. Of course RAM is much faster these days, but also in 2011 most people had no more than 4 GB of system memory and 512 MB VRAM.
That was not my point entirely; my point that citing prices from 2000s and comparing with modern ones |(with indexing about 2x times), regardless of underling reason is either a demonstration of lazyness or innumeracy, or even worse - an attempt to manipulate.
It’s not laziness, innumeracy, or manipulation when it can be taken at face value that the cost increase vastly outstrips anything that could be attributed to inflation. You don’t even need to look it up to know that.
> when it can be taken at face value that the cost increase vastly outstrips anything that could be attributed to inflation
But that was not my point _whatsoever_. What I said is - every time you bring the explicit numbers (like in GP "$500 for 32GB is about $15/GB which is a high we haven't seen since the mid-2000s") you _absolutely_ have to adjust for inflation to have a meaningful conversation. This is it.
That was not my point entirely; my point that citing prices from 2000s and comparing with modern ones |(with indexing about 2x times), regardless of underling reason is either a demonstration of lazyness or innumeracy, or even worse - an attempt to manipulate.
Not the point - my point utterly of arithmetical nature - dollar has substantial inflation, and any comparison more that 5 years apart, let alone 20 warrants adjusting of prices, as error is substantial, 2x in the case of 2000s
You demand specific data points but respond with vague handwaving and general statements about the importance of calculating inflation in this discussion as if it represents more than a small fraction of the overall increase in ram cost
> more than a small fraction of the overall increase in ram cost
There is nothing vague about the question if prices were scaled or not (and in this pretty much unvague coefficient of ~2x between usd in 2000 and 2026), otherwise there is point in comparing these numbers, as there is no point in comparing inches and cm's without declaring beforehand which number is which.
You are perfectly capable of looking at the rate of inflation since the mid 2000s and seeing that it only tells a small portion of the story.
You cannot possibly look at the price of ram now compared to six months ago and be so fixated on including inflation. Obviously inflation occurred and obviously after 20 years it has an impact on price. But we are all on HN and all know what inflation is, so forcing people to drill down on its contribution in order to advance the conversation when it clearly only accounts for a small portion and we all know it’s a factor is absolutely ridiculous. You know this, we know this, and yet here we are still talking about it. I may as well explain what ram is if we want to get this elementary about things.
True or false: ram has become substantially more expensive in the last 6mo in a way that cannot be meaningfully explained by inflation.
There is a very clear, very obvious answer here. Inflation or not.
$500 is 5x what it cost less than a year ago, just for context. It turns a $1600 computer build into a $2000 one. That’s a huge difference.
Edit: I don’t get your math. If we’re using a very generous definition of “top end,” even neglecting Nvidia and going AMD - which some would argue makes it not top end - you’re talking conservatively: $600 for a GPU, $500 for 32gb of ram, and $500 for a CPU. $1600 before PSU, case, SSD, fan(s), mobo…there’s no world in which you’re coming in under $2k. The SSD and board will put you over immediately.
You’re talking 3/2025 prices, not 3/2026. A compromise, mid-range computer is $1500 to build now.
A 5080 is 1.5K, A 5090 is even more. 1600 to 2000 is not really a large difference at the price band where you are spending that much money, especially since you would heavily comprising in other components if you want to keep that budget, in which that case you don't need 32gb RAM.
That is to say, if you want a system that keeps up with 32 GB Ram, you'd be already willing to spend alot what with options for noctua fans, water cooling, higher end MOBOs, premium cases, OLEDs etc. If you can't afford that then you won't be buying expensive DDRD5 RAM either.
A 9060 is like $450, an XT is like $550. Depending on what you’re using that computer for it could be more than enough firepower. There are tons of people not paying the Nvidia tax because they have a plenty viable build with AMD.
I built my current PC (9800x3D, 9060, 32gb DDR6) last April for about $1800. It would cost almost $3000 now between storage and ram increases. The economics have completely shifted. Everything is more expensive except basically the PSU and case
We aren’t debating AMD vs. Nvidia and I shouldn’t have gotten distracted with it tbh. I am talking about what it takes to build a computer now.
Ram and storage have ballooned PC costs. That’s the issue. Whether you are buying an AMD GPU or an Nvidia GPU, it is still substantially increasing build costs. Nobody is spending $1500 on an Nvidia GPU and then going “well nothing else matters now.” The ram and storage has gone from $200-$300 to $800-$1000. That’s still a huge portion of the budget. They’ve gone from near-line item status to 1/3rd (or more) of the cost. Affordable builds have become incredibly difficult to achieve
Look at my comment above and see what i said about my build. I was unwilling to pay that for a moderate build that can sustain my computer use. Utilize bundles that can save you $ on RAM or chipset, CPU to skip some of the costs.
You aren't specific in your comment. Where are these bundles? What do you do with all the parts you don't need/end up swapping out? How much are you actually saving?
I went to micro center and they usually have decent priced bundles. RAM was G Skill flare 32gb sticks. Im not being specific in the previous post. because there is many ways to save depending on what your willing to trust. Best Buy open box/new, Micro center open box/new, Walmart has pretty good prices depending what your looking for. Ebay is iffy depending on the product your looking for GPU are expensive at the moment.
Microcenter is not available for the vast majority of us - they don’t ship. The nearest one to me is an almost 8hr drive and I live in a major city. I’m not spending 2 days and $200-$300 on gas/food/lodging to get there and back.
Bestbuy is selling ram and storage at the same cost as everyone else. I imagine Walmart is not much better. I’m also not sure what you do with all the bundle parts that you don’t need. Do you sell them? Where do you sell them?
What deals did you take advantage of? What did everything cost you in the end/when did you build? If you don’t feel like answering that’s fine but it’s valid to remain skeptical given all the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you’re just really good at finding deals but you can look around this thread and see that we are all telling the same story. Building a computer has gone up $600+ for common builds over the last 4-5mo on top of the already inflated GPU prices we’ve been experiencing for years. If you put my exact build I did last April into PC part picker it is an additional $500+ to build now, and that’s with an AMD GPU to keep costs down.
It’s strange times when Mac minis are a budget-friendly computer. Building a half decent PC for less than $1500 is a serious challenge now. Things are so volatile valve still hasn’t released or even set a price for the new Steam machine.
Microcenter is useful if it's near you then your out of luck. Other stores depends on your egion and location same store gives different deals and discounts based on regional selling trends.
I'm not sure what you expecting to hear.
What do i do with parts I'm not gonna use? What are you talking about? Don't get the bundle is you're not going to use what the bundle comes with, simple as that.
Have you not shopped before?
Currently computer components are not cheap and it does not look like it's getting any better.
I currently have two moderately good laptop that either i sell or keep for back up.
I disagree with you. The issue does not only affect a “very narrow slice” of consumers. https://www.techspot.com/news/111472-hp-warns-ram-now-makes-... A major brand is now suggesting that this is a “new normal” and one solution is to just offer systems with less ram. This is an issue when lots of modern software seems to expect an unending supply.
That is an insane amount of money for just 32GB of RAM! That's what we were paying back when it was hard to use more than 32-64GB in a desktop setting. These days with all the electron and node bloatware, containers everywhere and AI - 32GB doesn't get you far.
I wouldn't say he mismanaged but clearly his strategy wasn't working, although I'm not sure if there was a path to a better outcome.
The problem was the lack of hit IPs, and buying a bunch of studios with good histories like Bethesda was on the surface, a logical choice. The problem is that the Western AAA industry was also undergoing through a general decline amidst a larger cultural shift that was anathemic to originality, so no new hits could be made.
Nintendo and Sony in contrast still had a portfolio of more niche legacy studios like Monolith or Atlus or Kojima that could create new things. Obviously the talent for that does exist in the West, from Larian or smaller indie studios, but it is very hard for upper management to discern these kinds of details or be willing to take the risk with them.
To add on this, ethnic heterogeneity (and ethnic enclaves) is one of the shallowest forms of diversity. If you examine the diversity regarding district characteristics and architecture, shopping options, subcultures, etc, many homogenous cities like Tokyo or Hong Kong are far greater and accommodating than London in diversity.
And I would say that one reason for that is the elements I mention is something an individual can take seriously and integrate into their own world, while enclaves stay perpetually from the vantage of exoticism rather than integration.
By "consumers" you mean by people buying top tier gaming PCs (and either without one already or unwilling to wait). That's far less than billions if not even millions than more like thousands.
Besides, if you want to optimize for pure consumerism, you can just look at how roman slavery worked out for roman freemen in the late republic.
> By "consumers" you mean by people buying top tier gaming PCs (and either without one already or unwilling to wait).
Good try. We are talking about a window of X years were the average normal consumer, average people, will not be able to buy tech, and should not buy tech, due the prices will put, has already put, average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology, anything with a memory or disk or CPU ( too expensive, this is an abuse, it is better to wait given the current terms).
This pause were the tech supply is not destined to the average consumer (who is being abused due this) is the perfect window for China to take Taiwan if they plan the strategy well.
And it is not needed even to predict, Chinese government just need to follow/observe the prices and discomfort, and if the pattern follows, it is the moment. The average consumer, the people, even will aim them.
The average normal consumer is buying Macs or some 700 dollar laptop. Even with the high end, you're talking about more like a 20-30% increase in total cost which is marginal at already low relative prices PCs are.
None of this is "unaffordable" as you say as it is just a month's worth of savings.
storage from $40 to $100, memory 16GB DDR4 from $67 to $190, 32GB DDR4 from $72 to $263, in the last six months. I other currencies the amount it from higher to much higher.
Average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology.
You are saying people will buy, and smile without resistance saving months to pay those abusive prices for low-end tech, even knowing this is because four or five companies are hoarding the market. Take for sure people is really tired/sick of this, check the forums.
China, are you reading this? You should study this along the months. Then you can make your own conclusions.
Seems like China is entering every industry. This week they just launched their attempt to take over the ice cream market in the US. Its amazing to see how much overinflated every product in the US has become, everything from cars, to computers to now even freakin coffee or ice cream.
Imagine if China has a foothold in every industry. Sure the US can tariff itself but the rest of the world is not really competing in most of those industries and so consumers will be able to see that they dont have to settle for overpriced junk anymore. What will American/European or even other sian companies do? In America most companies have financialized so much that the underlying product that made the company famous have rotten in quality.
I recently was blown away Laifen's P3 Pro electric razor. I always thought I would be a loyal Panasonic customer for life (since I had family work for the company) but here comes this Chinese company from nowhere and they produce such an amazing device at an amazing price. I never thought having a CNC milled pocket razor using some sort of tiny linear motor would be something I would want but now I can't see life without it.
They are doing it to every industry. I always accepted things like 3D printers were gone thanks to Bambu but I now have to consider every industry at risk.
Give them some time. CXMT put some downward pressure on RAM and the recent price spikes is their opportunity. In terms of GPUs, that is something I haven't been following but given every other layer of the stack has a Chinese company, I would be shocked if they aren't cooking something up.
Anybody who can (EU, Yuan) does not want to. Primairly because as export based economies, they want a weak currency in relation to a strong reserve (dollar) so they can make their goods more competitive, and also because surplus naturally appreciates a currency without central bank intervention via buying US treasuries to offset the appreciation. And for China, they're not going to accept the liberalized capital controls neede for it either.
So the answer is if the US dollars fail it would be global economic collapse and then chaos, but contrary to the rhetoric the rest of the world's economic systems are too uniquely vested in the USD to see it fail. As for gold, well we come to the same problem as noted above but worse, and in that situation the US actually holds the highest gold reserves so they still benefit the most out of it.
You do realise it is arthimetically impossible to balance all the desired export surpluses of the EU, China, Japan, etc together without the US as the demand sink right? Whatever adjustment comes is certainly going to require somebody to act in a manner contrary to their current strategies, and it's going to be a painful adjustment.
And which is harder? Bringing back production to satiate domestic demand or increasing domestic demand? Historically, demand deficiency is much harder to restore.
That furthers the imbalance to the detriment of the US and in favor of the holders of whichever currency replaces USD.
Dedollarization means that the US market is far poorer and can't import as much as before, yet the new reserve currency(ies) make holders that much richer, enabling greater demand for either imports or self-consumption.
It will be an adjustment, but there will be many winners, none of which are the US. There may be some losers who do not negotiate trade deals or can't find new markets, but it's unlikely. The supposed US trade war on China has resulted in their GDP growing by a massive 5% last year. Canada, losing its exports to the US, negotiates deals with other countries.
The pain for other countries is more organizational than anything economic. The US will face massive economic disaster in the form of devalued dollars and the need to close the government deficit after decades of being addicted to massive reserve-currency-enabled deficit spending. The US will be plummeted into massive recession by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely trades with whoever are the winners.
If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely massive. Europe may have a harder time signaling to Europeans that they are far wealthier, but make imports cheaper for Europeans, and people who find that they suddenly have a lot more left in their bank account at the end of the month usually find ways to spend at least part of it.
> If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy
This is a fantasy that the CCP leadership will not entertain, because it would mean losing their control as the (export/industrial) king. Their national security descends from having that crown firmly in their hands & making everyone else reliant on their industries, and will do as much as they can to make sure it stays that way.
A strong currency runs counter to what the CCP leadership wants, having seen how it has hollowed out the US' industrial capacity (as a result of strong currency demand leading to comparatively higher labor costs).
The CCP aspires to climb the value chain up to where the US is, which means shifting away from manufacturing to the high profit margin tech, biotech, and other science related industries.
The manufacturing stage is just a stepping stone to getting to where the US already is.
The end goal of the CCP is not to be a middling power, with middling wealth. It's to be the greatest power. That some in the US want to go down the value chain and take China's manufacturing spot just as China zooms ahead of the US, is, well... It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
> The CCP aspires to climb the value chain up to where the US is, which means shifting away from manufacturing to the high profit margin tech, biotech, and other science related industries.
None of that requires a strong currency, only a strong industry.
That's what the CCP has done with their own currency, by deliberately weakening it & funneling the strength into drowning the global market with their industry's products. A strong currency runs counter to that by making their products more expensive as a result.
Had the RMB continued its original trajectory (2003-2015), it would've wound up at approximately 1EUR ~= 5RMB. Instead, the CCP made the decision to weaken the RMB to maintain industrial capability, and further expand into technological ventures without abandoning the other industries they've captured before.
> That some in the US want to go down the value chain and take China's manufacturing spot just as China zooms ahead of the US, is, well... It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
1) China is able to "zoom ahead" because they have a strong industry within their own borders, buffered from the political decisions of other countries.
2) The value of the lower parts of the chain is not obligated to be lower than the upper parts of the chain.
>The supposed US trade war on China has resulted in their GDP growing by a massive 5% last year.
I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. China is known to play with the numbers to hit goals when they feel that they need to.
>The US will be plummeted into massive recession by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely trades with whoever are the winners.
The massive devaluation in the dollar would mean that the country would become incredibly attractive for manufacturing exports, which would prevent a massive recession.
>If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely massive.
If you think that China is going to shut down the majority of its factories, move them to other countries, and let their currency float freely (well, freer than it is today), you're delusional.
> the country would become incredibly attractive for manufacturing exports
First, the US will not be attractive in any way for investment because it is run by a madman that has ridiculous tariff policies that make starting manufacturing supply chains nearly impossible.
Second, even if the US could transition its economy back to manufacturing, that's a massive slide down the value chain to far less profitable industries than our current tech, biotech, and service driven economies. The idea as presented is a serious downgrade in quality of life compared to today.
> If you think that China is going to shut down the majority of its factories, move them to other countries, and let their currency float freely (well, freer than it is today), you're delusional.
China wants to transition its economy up the value chain to the high tech industry that the US currently has. It has the educational system and the brain power, and the biggest impediment, brain drain to the US, has now been shut off.
If climbing the value chain, out of manufacturing, requires China to shut down factories or open up currency somehow, they are far more likely to do that than to abandon their ambition of economic growth.
> balance all the desired export surpluses of the EU, China, Japan, etc together without the US as the demand sink
in 2022 China, Russia exported around 630 billion USD, US imported around 950 billion USD. maybe the world will not end if these three just go and play in a separate sandbox;)
> it's going to be a painful adjustment.
even if demand falls a bit it's not the end of the world if it becomes more sustainable afterwards (less overproduction, consumer waste, gassing the environment)
Think one step further. When a different currency becomes the reserve currency, the currency rises in value, the holders become far wealthier, get their imports for cheaper, and suddenly they can even subsidize their local industries that rely on exports to the point that it's a smooth transition to more of a consumer economy.
> subsidize their local industries that rely on exports to the point that it's a smooth transition to more of a consumer economy.
There's an implication here that the country *wants* to become a consumer economy, and not remain an export economy.
Furthermore, it relies on the leadership wanting to wind down that production, and not use that subsidy to further bolster their industrial capacity & crush global prices, in an attempt to wash out the others & only have their country be the sole remaining place capable of meeting demand at that subsidized point.
Why would a country want to remain a manufactured-good export economy, rather than having the stronger position of a consumer economy that lives off the wealth of the rest of the world?
Why grind away relentlessly in industries with tiny profit margins, when there are high-margin innovation-driven industries that your economy can advance to?
Why stick with producing clothing, when you can move on to cars? Why stick with cars, when you can move on to chips? Why stay with chips, when you can move on to the next new technology that the entire world wants, but which only your economy can produce because it grew the industry from scratch and everybody is playing catch up?
Dictators love autarky because it gives them complete control of the population. Populations should not love autarky, because it makes them poor and robs them of wealth and opportunity.
> Why would a country want to remain a manufactured-good export economy, rather than having the stronger position of a consumer economy that lives off the wealth of the rest of the world?
1) A consumer economy is not required to extract wealth from other countries.
2) A consumer economy is metastable by design:
(2a) It inherently requires the buy-in of other nations to want to export to you in the first place, which is not guaranteed.
(2b) The wealth of the consumer economy is primarily derived from salesmanship and not the product itself, which is also metastable.
3) Knowledge work is not barred to an export economy, and can similarly be performed there without having to become a consumer economy.
> Why grind away relentlessly in industries with tiny profit margins, when there are high-margin innovation-driven industries that your economy can advance to?
(Previous point (3) similarly applies here)
> Why stick with producing clothing, when you can move on to cars? Why stick with cars, when you can move on to chips? Why stay with chips, when you can move on to the next new technology that the entire world wants, but which only your economy can produce because it grew the industry from scratch and everybody is playing catch up?
1) None of these decisions are mutually exclusive. Why throw away the $10 you picked up just because you saw $100?
2) Establishment of a new industry is not assured. Failure can still occur, even when billions are thrown. (see Abu Dhabi & GlobalFoundries semiconductor fab venture)
2b) Not very new industrial move needs to be made. Tech leapfrogging can occur at a later date.
3) The demand for those """lower end""" products do not evaporate. Unless a sensible smartphone-like revolution comes for clothing / cars (i.e. The unification of multiple former products under a new product), the industry's products & demand will rarely change. The tastes will shift, but the fundamentals of the product & the industry will remain.
4-IMPORTANT) Margins are not obligated to trend towards zero, and can in fact increase as more people make the same mental conclusions as described and abandon their own industries, eventually leading to an oligopoly / monopoly scenario that is harder to retake back.
> Dictators love autarky because it gives them complete control of the population. Populations should not love autarky, because it makes them poor and robs them of wealth and opportunity.
Wealth does not inherently manifest from (the ether / nothing), and neither does opportunity. Even in the EU, wealth is derived from the decisions of the State to create / retain wealth.
> no armies, can’t defend itself, can’t make energy.
Look I love dumping on the Europoors as much as anyone, but even I can see that this is a bit extreme. "Decadence?" What does that even mean here? That people are happy and secure and have good qualities of life, without worrying about everything falling apart?
The US is not fine, and is falling apart. The US is living decadently on its reserve currency status, which enable things like ridiculously wasteful and unproductive military spending. Even its military spending on things like the, say, F35, require external customers in order for it to make any sense at all. But all that decadence is at risk. Decadence is good, I want it, I don't want austerity. Give me this awesome US decadence or I'll have to settle for the fake European "decadence" which is mere economic and health security without all the extra spending that US consumers get to make.
We've asked you before not to break the guidelines. Political/ideological flamebait is not what HN is for and destroys what it is for. You can discuss these themes in curious ways, rather than inflammatory ways; indeed, you must, if you want your comments to avoid being killed by flags. Eventually we have to ban accounts that continually flout the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN is a community that exists for a specific purpose and that purpose is curious conversation. The guidelines are designed to keep activity aligned with that purpose, and HN is a place where people want to participate because enough people make the effort to follow the guidelines and raise the standards rather than drag them down.
What is acceptable in your circles is not relevant here. What matters here is preserving HN as a good place for curious conversations.
We don't need mini-sermons or defiant strutting. Just respect for the community and the groundrules that make this a place people care about preserving. The guidelines are simple, and have been in place and stable for nearly two decades. If we didn't uphold them, this site wouldn't exist for you to denigrate like this.
That idea has been so destroyed by current events that I can only imagine that you are trolling or have been living in a cave for a few weeks. Check the news!
To be fair, has it? The EU is talking about activating its anti-coercion thing, which would anyway only kick off a year-long consultation and voting process before anything happened. To my knowledge, there have been no consequences to America annexing Greenland put forward that would hit before the midterms.
They were funding and arming proxies that were bombing and destabilizing neighborhoods. Nobody in the region likes Iran, that is precisely why the Gulf States want US bases and a Israeli military pact.
And this is not a reactive policy as it is an explicit proactive policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution and gaining regional hegemony. Which no one wants.
reply