I would think HP or Dell could buy this but given what they did it would require to much. The company should die and the employees that contributed to this should be in jail..
> On Thursday, the Justice Department announced it had indicted 71-year-old co-founder Wally Liaw, along with a Supermicro sales manager in Taiwan, Ruei-Tsang "Steven" Chang, and a contractor Ting-Wei "Willy" Sun for conspiring to smuggle the GPUs starting in 2024.
> Prosecutors allege that Mr Liaw used brokers to order servers containing advanced Nvidia chips on behalf of a “pass-through” entity in South-East Asia; many were assembled in America and shipped to that entity, then repackaged in unmarked boxes and sent on to China. To fool customs inspectors, those involved allegedly created thousands of “dummy” servers to sit in the warehouses where the buyer claimed to store the equipment.
It's not at all a similar analogy, and you know it. China is a threat. I assume you personally don't care about it, but it is in our interests that it does not dominate the AI industry.
China is a threat, if you live in Taiwan. They lack the ability to project force any further than that. You pin down IR guys on this issue they eventually relent and suggest actually the biggest issue with China is that their claimed zone of control includes a lot of ocean trade routes. But honestly, Xi has been better for international trade than any US admin in the last 15 years, I don't see them doing anything but protecting it. They are like 100 times less threatening than the USA, and that was before president tantrum, who has acted (quite recently) to destabilize global trade.
Unless you think there is some reason why those running that same federal government are free to commit any type of federal crimes they wish with no repercussions...
Your assertion is that we should stop enforcing all laws?
Or only this specific crime? Why this crime, and not others? If it's because you don't "like" this law, then aren't you Mr Double Standards, not I? Aren't I saying "it's a law, enforce it" and aren't you saying "We need a separate standard for laws I personally don't like"?
Are you traveling around the country, uttering this at all court actions? Or do you just lambast random people on the internet, for random laws?
I'm not interested in your country's weird left/right, team player, inane politics. Injecting politics into every conversation is literally what's wrong with your country.
No, laws should be imposed top to bottom. If those at the top who are making the laws can do absolutely anything with no repercussions while everyone else is punished that severely decreases the trust anyone has in the system and weakens it long-term.
Also an extreme misallocation of resources, maybe you should not prioritize the people who are.
> then aren't you Mr Double Standards, not I? Aren't I saying "it's a law, enforce it" and aren't you saying
Nope, rather just not impose it arbitrarily and only punish the people who haven't paid off the right set of politicians.
The Chinese already have a 125e Small Modular PWR that would be excellent for small islands like those of the Caribbean. It is the Linglong-1 [0]. I believe the first one cost 800 million dollars. It will be interesting to see the price reductions as it goes into serial ptoduction.
I'd be willing to bet that Canada takes in more than enough tax payer dollars to cover the expense of this critical service. I'd even be willing to bet that there's more than enough tax payer money just in waste and fraud to cover the expense if somebody cared to dig into the finances and government contracts to track it down. The idea of cutting this service as a cost savings measure is laughable.
Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:
- Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends.
- Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
> take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out
This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else.
There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest:
- Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.)
- Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security.
- This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections.
Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
I know a lot of Americans who remember 1979 and don't care if they are ever friends again. I agree, I also don't think this is a coherent national security strategy.
The countries in middle east want Iran to be weak, not to fall.
I think that from the point of the neighbouring countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both beneficial for its adversaries.
If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run, the chance of a more better government, which could make the country stronger than it is.
reply