I can think of two possibilities:
1. Hardware accelerated custom crypto algorithms.
2. Specialized co-processor. You could implement an exotic processing architecture on the FPGA to off-load computations to, like a complex number processor with 52-bit words in a custom floating point format for a specific application.
Nope. Reconfiguration takes milliseconds. Also, Arria 10 supports partial reconfiguration which means that the FPGA can keep operating while some of the logic is reconfigured via bitstream.
Combine this sort of thing with China's increasingly aggressive military stance, and in the long term, maybe medium or short term, world trade is going to be completely reshaped.
Reliance on other countries now looks risky. If you manufacture in China, you're crazy if you don't have a backup plan for your operations being shut down as an outcome of government action on one side or the other.
No, they were repeatedly warned to not violate sanctions but kept ignoring those warnings. If you break the law you have to deal with the consequences.
As released by the the Department of Commerce, ZTE has a document detailing:
1. how they evaded the sanction against Iran (destroying documents, re-export through a third country, deliberately removing logos from cargos, etc)
2. rewarding, rather than disciplining, staff involved in the evasion of sanction, an outright violation of the agreement they signed with Doc for a probationary punishment instead of a full-blown one
3. the resumption of sanction-evasive behaviors, while fully aware they are under active investigation
Did I mention ZTE had prepared another document detailing exactly how their competitor Huiwei does the same?
You really must be extremely naive to think that this has pure to do with not following the rules after all the different arguments Americans/British have produced why companies like Huwaei/ZTE/... (because America is so trustworthy) are bad. I have the feeling that they just found a stick to beat the dog.
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" - Óscar R. Benavides
Trade agreements limit the size of import tariffs that can be imposed and this bypasses those limits nicely. (Not that ZTE weren't stupid to do this in the first place).
On the other hand if it suits the right company they can do what they want. For example massive amounts of vanadium were shipped from the Congo to the US during sanctions for use by the US aircraft industry.
The only solution is open, factual, non emotional discussion about the situation, backed up with both attending a marriage counsellor. I'm not kidding.
Discuss issues with the behaviors, not of the person.
And I presume of course that your shareholders contract defines how this situation will be handled in nthe event that the conflict cannot be resolved?
I've not thought of that, but it's something I'd be willing to try.
Our contract does not define how things will be resolved in a conflict. Basically we end up deadlocked and nothing happens until one capitulates. This has resulted in absurd scenarios that I would be too embarrassed to admit.
If we manage to survive this crisis I there is a lot of work to do in order to fix things. There is a lot of built up damage.
I wish I done that with my ex-partners. Sometimes an objective and impartial third party is exactly what you need. People can get dug into their points of view and be quite honestly unable to see it any other way - until a third party points out the elephant in the room.
>> the main investors/advisors (from the 220k friends/family/fools round) pretty much feel like it's time to pull the plug
Given your statement above, there's really no question beyond this point. You promised riches and success to family and friends and it is not currently looking like you will do that, and their message is "stop please before its all gone". Do so.
If you still have money and it is from family and friends then stop right now - on Monday (tomorrow) and give back all that you can. If you burn the rest of that cash then for the rest of your life those relationships will exist for you only in the light of that money. It would be different if the money you had was from an angel or VC who are taking calculated risks.
Your family and friends relationships are worth infinitely more than any startup.
You should instantly kill all business costs, go get a job, and continue marketing what you have built on the side.
Did he promise "riches and success" to family and friends? When I read that part I immediately put myself mentally into those shoes and thought the only honest way to raise money from loved ones is to say "I believe in this project, I want it to succeed, I calculate a reasonable probability of success in which case your investment has the potential to be worth $XYZ. HOWEVER, you should be aware that ALL startups are a total crapshoot, and it's also a very reasonable possibility that you will lose all your money so please do not invest anything that you cannot afford to lose."
We don't know whether OP pitched it this way to friends and family, but I sincerely hope he did.
Yeah, the "fools" line is an indicator that you are burned out and have lost your belief in the mission. You'd be lying to yourself and others if you continued.
I didn't read the Forbes reference because ad block, but I'm willing to bet that is a pretty common expression among _observers_ of the tech startup/financing scene. Coming from a founder who's been cashing the "fools" checks... well I can only hope it's a lot less common.
Yes but times have changed and I think, depending on where you live in the world perhaps, that there is a growing expectation that you should be allowed to delete your digital tracks.
There's a certain level of hubris to an attitude in which a given site that feels it's needs are more important than users.
Saying you can't delete all your posts/account is the same as saying "you do not have the right to control your own posts here".
I think it should be OK on HN to delete all your comments on your account if you want. I appreciate that this would degrade the quality of impacted historical comment threads but hey that's the price for giving people back control over their digital lives.
It happens on Reddit and whilst every now and then I encounter a reddit thread with deleted items, in general it has not destroyed reddit, and I respect the right of those users to have deleted their digital comments.
I rate respect for user wishes over the importance of maintaining historical threads integrity on HN.
How is deleting your digital tracks possible? What about crawlers and archives? Getting them all to delete stuff at anyone's whim seems an undue burden to me.
Who signed up for the account, typed out the post, and clicked Publish?
What do you think about people in real life who will never forget something that you said or did, even after you no longer like it.
Right, and the flipside is that not being able to delete comments makes people think a bit more carefully before posting, which improves the quality of the comments and the site.
It could also be argued that comment quality could be improved by allowing people to delete comments at any time, not just for 2 hours after creation of that comment.
People should be allowed to look back on a discussion and say "hmmm.... seems an ill considered and negative comment, I'm going to delete it".
As it stands, an ill considered comment is set in stone after 2 hours.
> It could also be argued that comment quality could be improved by allowing people to delete comments at any time
Ok, but what's the argument? What specific incentive for good comments or disincentive for bad comments is there with such a system? If anything, there's no disincentive for ill considered comments because you can always come back at any time to clean up your bad behaviour, but in the moment of commenting, there's nothing holding you back. Compare that with:
> As it stands, an ill considered comment is set in stone after 2 hours.
Which is a clear disincentive for making ill considered comments. Having such a system in place certainly makes me consider my comments more carefully before posting.
I don't think you say you contact over some HTTP or HTTPS protocol, you just say that you contact over twitter or fb or some other product that is built on top of this :3 In the same way scuttlebutt is just the name of the protocol not the product.
I don't agree that because the primary supplier is a monopoly is justification for doing something as distracting and risky as designing your own chips.
So they need a second supplier? Do what the government do, and demand that there be a second source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_source or you won't buy their product, or give money to some other company or companies for whom that is a core competency.
>> so it's critically important that one or both of them break the monopoly by becoming a fabless chip designer
You say this with great certainty, that almost got me on board, but saying something with certainty does not make it right. It's not critically important - what's the worst that can happen in the short term - they pay a bit more because of the monopoly? You make it sound like if the chip monopoly isn't broken then doom will befall them all. Piffle. If there is such great demand for these chips then there are plenty of other silicon companies who can be attracted by the smell of demand.
What would make sense is for Facebook to claim to be making their own to strengthen their negotiating position with the supplier, but with no real plan to design their own chip.
> ...doing something as distracting and risky as designing your own chips.
This is what you do when your company is a cash cow, you earn so much money that even reinvesting it in the core business doesn't impact your always growing revenue and profits. Also, it is refreshing that new companies are entering the classical semiconductors market, lots of positive externalities.
Apple designed its own ARM chips and they design some pretty damn good ones. More competition and choice in the semiconductor space is universally a good thing.
Can you actually purchase an Apple ARM SOC or make your own SOC with their processor for product development? If not, then I wouldn't classify them has a competitor since they only allow for internal usage.
It turns out cutting is one of the hardest things for people to do. Just look at how many obese people there are who cannot reduce their intake despite the immediate inconvenience and discomfort of being fat, not to mention the risk to their health. If so many can't even do it for themselves or their children, there's not much hope of them doing it for others.
It also leaves me utterly convinced that nobody really believes in god or an afterlife. People constantly demonstrate that the only thing that matters to them is that today is at least as convenient as yesterday.
No change will ever happen from the bottom up. And while our "leaders" continue to be people with already massively inflated lifestyles, nothing will happen from the top down either.
IMO main the problems are poverty and old traditions (e.g. animal products) and general confusion of priorities.
The bad media sells the latest news or problem as the most important news or problem.
People elect or at least accept the politicians.
People pay for or at least accept the bad greedy business practices of small and big companies in the name of holy competition and individual struggle for life.
Too many people have faith that god (notably in the USA) and the traditional conservative political parties do what should be done.
There is a lack of motivation and desire for life changing real science and technology as national priority to end poverty, to bring wealth to all, to prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs.
Science and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and still look like models and be perfectly healthy.
Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent progress of science and technology.
Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and technology.
But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen. There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuels. In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.
> But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen.
IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical revolutions within the next decade.
One of the worst misbeliefs is that the end of poverty (at least world hunger) and the end of large-scale wars (e.g. Middle East) is just futurist idiocy while it is actually achievable within a year with existing technology. But political priorities prevent it.
Anyway, my point is that effort is required to advance science and technology. To call it a dream and to do nothing to realize it is the wrong way. It only wastes time because the efforts and investments must be made anyway (by future generations).
> There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuels.
True. But again: There was and is not enough effort to create the technological alternatives.
Besides, a lot of energy (and burned forests) could be saved by simply not eating animal products any more.
> In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.
Humanity is always at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities for one reason or another. Science and technology lead to creation of resources (e.g. use of steel, use of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more efficient use of resources like e.g. man power (e.g. by better program languages, better programs, better computers, better cars, better houses) and less religious societies and less wars and lower birth rates.
"Science and technology lead to creation of resources..."
No, they lead to finding and digging up of resources.
"and more efficient use of resources"
Efficiency doesn't make anything better, it just increases the amount of the resources that we create--oops---use.
"and less religious societies and less wars"
Okay, it's clear you have a story in your mind that ultimately leads to jetpacks among the stars.
"and lower birth rates."
This doesn't mean much. We went from 3.5 to 7.5 billion in 45 years. We had plenty of science and technology during that time, all doing their thing with the uranium and the fossil fuel and the steel.
> IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical revolutions within the next decade.
That's not an opinion, it's a belief.
In any case, we're both talking about people cutting their lifestyles which is the correct thing to do. It is an extreme error to simply hope for technology to save us. Most people, especially those that decided to breed, have their heads in the sand and are implicitly hoping technology will make their children's lives OK.
