[HN Gopher] A Texas semiconductor boom on the horizon?
___________________________________________________________________
A Texas semiconductor boom on the horizon?
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 39 points
Date : 2023-09-10 09:54 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.utexas.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.utexas.edu)
| hooverd wrote:
| Faster calculators incoming?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| I have a student who uses a TI-84. She's a high schooler taking
| university courses. Hers has a backlight and a USB-rechargeable
| battery, but it's basically the same machine otherwise.
|
| The downstream costs of how we do standardized tests are
| _bonkers_.
| dehrmann wrote:
| We're probably better off _doing away_ with calculators for
| standardized tests.
|
| There's a nice profit margin on those calculators, but
| there's also a floor price for electronics at play because at
| some point, making outdated chips, LCDs, PCBs, etc. doesn't
| actually get cheaper. So graphing calculators will always
| cost $30-$100.
|
| While they're wildly outdated, it doesn't make sense to arm
| kids going into standardized tests with Chat GPT, or even
| Wolfram Alpha.
|
| Standardized test math is pretty simple. Either design the
| test so a scientific calculator is enough, or better, keep
| the numbers small enough that it doesn't matter and have
| answers as simplified expressions, e.g. 6*sqrt(2).
| User23 wrote:
| > have answers as simplified expressions, e.g. 6*sqrt(2)
|
| This is obviously the right way to do applied math. Then
| whatever engineer is building whatever the thing is that
| depends on the math can compute to whatever precision is
| necessary to keep the bridge from falling down or whatever.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Calculators with
| CAS are extremely useful.
| mlyle wrote:
| A lot of tests do a little of both-- no calculators and
| questions that are simple numerically... and then functions
| that are pretty intractable and require effective use of
| the calculator for a little bit (but a good understanding
| of what you're manipulating/trying to find).
| saghm wrote:
| In my freshman E&M physics course, there was no calculus
| prerequisite, so when we had to answer a question on a quiz
| or test that would be solved with an integral, the
| professor said we could just put the integral without
| needing to evaluate it and he'd mark it as correct. I think
| this approach makes a lot of sense; understanding the
| concept of "summing" the value of an expression across a
| range by using an integral is much more important than
| being able to do the actual calculation.
| corethree wrote:
| I think in Asia though it's expected of highschool
| students to evaluate the integral without a calculator.
| Education in the US should at least match what they do in
| Asia to stay competitive.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There is a lot of rote in Asia, and an over emphasis on
| classic geometric proofs that have little relevance in
| today's world. Yes, we should try as hard as Asia in
| math, but blindly copying Indian or Chinese education
| practices isn't the right way forward.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| The goal of learning should be mastery, not memorization
| of specific cases.
|
| With geometry, the style I was taught emphasized
| explanation of complex problems using proofs but building
| from first principles.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| You are almost guaranteed never to have to another
| Euclidean geometric proof again after you take the
| gaokao. It's like the LeetCode for chinese college
| admissions.
| corethree wrote:
| Well, with the current state of mathematics in the US
| education system... blindly following Asia is a step up.
|
| I do agree with you that in theory we can do better than
| asia, but that is too high of a milestone given that we
| are basically currently significantly worse than Asia on
| all fronts.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| NCLB was as disastrous as throwing away phonics.
|
| Adopting elements of the Finnish model would probably be
| an improvement.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| That's ridiculous. When I took the entire undergrad
| physics series for scientists and engineers, it
| absolutely required calculus, vector math, and diff eqs.
| koolala wrote:
| VR Slide Rulers
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Wow, they still make TI-84's?
|
| _Covets my vintage HP 48GX._
| mcpackieh wrote:
| New models of the "TI-84" have an ARM coprocessor, so that's
| something at least.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| With LLMs being able to run locally on consumer hardware, I
| think we're headed back to hand written tests pretty soon.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yeah, even before LLMs, the more advanced TI calcs like the
| TI-nspire can have Calc and Physics apps loaded on them
| that make tests trivial to cheat on.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > Underscoring this momentum, Samsung and UT announced a plan to
| formalize a years-long partnership between the two organizations
| to support a semiconductor manufacturing talent development
| pipeline.
|
| I think this is a fantastic plan. Having an actual employer who
| will more-or-less take you _by default_ is a much better value
| proposition for college than some other paths...
|
| The proximity of the university campus to the existing A2/S2
| lines should allow for quality field trip opportunities. I know
| how Samsung's management feels about strangers up on the catwalk,
| but that was the #1 thing that inspired me - Seeing the actual
| starship with my own eyes.
| kurthr wrote:
| Reliable water and electricity, as well as geology, are really
| important too. It's worth checking into those first two, but
| it's probably fine for the next 10-20 years.
| foota wrote:
| In Texas? The state currently dealing with a power crisis and
| looking to restrict the ability to build renewable energy?
| shrubble wrote:
| They just had a big power crisis (summer AC, maximum GWh
| usage) and survived.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Wasn't this the same claim made back when officials were hyping
| up SEMATECH, formed in 1987? SEMATECH just kind of fizzled, moved
| to NY and became part of SUNY Polytechnic in 2015. I wouldn't say
| that was much of a 'boom'.
| delfinom wrote:
| It's debatable if it'll be much of a boom anywhere in the US.
|
| Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly made
| overseas for bottom dollar.
|
| Second after that is actual serious uses for cars, not $1
| electronics and more. And once you get into that category you
| have a finite market that is pretty much mature in terms of
| consumer reach. For all intensive purposes, the "EV demand surge"
| is over and existing semiconductors have caught up.
|
| There's also a real fear that US sanctions have caused China and
| other countries to intensify investment in their own
| semiconductor manufacturing (the EU definitely is), which will
| ultimately hamper the demand for US fabs.
| edgyquant wrote:
| It may be debatable but the idea the chip surge is "basically
| over" is laughable. By your logic no nation should ever try to
| do anything economically because the economy is already done
| forming, the end of history is here.
| baz00 wrote:
| Yup the chip surge isn't anywhere over due to geopolitics and
| demand, both of which are serious driving forces now.
| User23 wrote:
| That was the ruling ethos of the United States Government
| from the fall of the Berlin wall on. Look how that worked out
| for us.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The primary motive is to have redundant fabs for defense
| critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to Chinese attack.
| That's why Micron is being gifted a new fab for DRAM
| production on the other side of the country in the midst of
| ongoing layoffs. Boosting production isn't the goal and CHIPS
| act will be a net money loser.
| corethree wrote:
| History has plenty of examples of nations and economies
| completely ending. In fact it's so consistent that it's
| basically a guarantee that the current economy you're living
| in will be "done" eventually. Therefore it's not a laughable
| conclusion but a valid possibility. We've seen two major
| economies descend into this "done" zone with no hope for
| recovery: Russia and Japan.
|
| Additionally no one is saying to "not to do anything". Try
| all you want he is simply predicting the outcome of trying.
| EricE wrote:
| Hey - no poking holes in this line of reasoning allowed. It's
| a major tent pole of the global boiling religion - pesky
| human innovation blows too many holes on the "we are doomed -
| sacrifice your rights to fix it" narratives.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| I'm not really sure how these are related at all. Technical
| innovations for electric vehicles are totally different
| than the technical innovations required for fighting
| climate change. We can be poised to make progress in one
| sector and skeptical about progress in another. Blindly
| hoping that some breakthrough will happen to fix all our
| problems and just barreling along carelessly is worse than
| what you're describing.
| nwiswell wrote:
| > Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly
| made overseas for bottom dollar
|
| I don't understand your point. While true, those chips are made
| at historical process nodes using antiquated equipment. The
| plan isn't to buy antiquated equipment and try to compete.
| Friendly nations with low cost of labor _and low geopolitical
| risk_ (ie., other than Taiwan) are perfectly capable of meeting
| our demands for old chips, given sufficient ramp time.
|
| The lion's share of the _value_ in semiconductors is at the
| leading edge. These are the chips that are used in phones,
| laptops, PCs, servers, GPUs, et cetera. The United States has
| never been interested in competing on volume.
|
| We already are the world leader in producing (including
| manufacturing!) the cutting edge _equipment_ that makes leading
| edge chips -- that is what we have denied China access to. The
| open question is whether we can "onshore" the actual
| manufacturing of leading edge chips again.
|
| Strictly speaking, Intel has always kept their most cutting
| edge manufacturing onshore (Oregon), but I understand that has
| more to do with IP and cycle time reasons than cost.
|
| An additional note: it is not necessary that a leading edge fab
| built today becomes a trailing edge fab in 5 or 10 years. There
| is a lively secondary market for used equipment specifically
| because of demand for the commodity chips you mentioned, so
| given that US labor costs are high, the old equipment would
| likely be sold and shipped to a low cost nation, and the US
| fabs repopulated with new equipment.
| corethree wrote:
| You realize the top of the line chips are coming from Asia
| right now? The US right now does not have the ability to fab
| top of the line chips. Only Asia does.
|
| I mention this because it's basically one of the biggest
| hurdles for a boom other than cost which you didn't mention.
| The US has to exceed Asia in terms of cost AND raw
| technological prowess if it wants a boom because it is
| currently behind by a huge margin.
| adamc wrote:
| Just an idiom note: It's "intents and purposes" not "intensive
| purposes". Easy to mis-hear, but something you want to remember
| before it makes you look ill-educated in a work memo.
| retSava wrote:
| It's also exactly the kind of humor I love. Intentional
| misuse of idioms, homonyms, intentional dangling modifiers,
| and the like. It's ok if people think I'm stupid, I can
| always prove them right!
| robmsmt wrote:
| reminds me when a friend said "escape goat" rather than
| "scapegoat"
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| This really jives with me.
| justrealist wrote:
| The point is economic industrial independence for the US once
| Taiwan lights up. You're kind of missing the point.
| bsaul wrote:
| not sure why you got downvoted, that seemed like a pretty
| reasonable thing to consider.
| User23 wrote:
| I can assure you that the Chinese strategists are. Wang
| Huning is way to smart not to have and he's just one that's
| somehow famous enough to be known in the West. I'm sure
| there are many more strategists of if not equal at least
| similar caliber working on furthering China's (hopefully)
| peaceful rise.
| corethree wrote:
| It's too chaotic. There are many who want peace but there
| are many who want war and there are many who will flip
| their opinion and this is on both sides of the line, the
| US and China. Anything can occur.
| justrealist wrote:
| What we saw in Ukraine is that arguments about
| geopolitics, economy, military readiness etc can be
| completely negated by the person in charge acting on a
| strategic or emotional whim.
|
| Like all the experts in the world can concur that China
| is better off with peace in the Pacific, but if Xi wants
| a war, he's getting a war.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| "Boom on the horizon" is oddly pessimistic imagery for the
| message they're trying to convey.
| User23 wrote:
| Not really, hysteresis is definitely a thing for hugely
| expertise and capital intensive projects like ramping up
| bleeding edge semiconductor fabrication.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| I get "[economic] boom on the horizon [near future]". But the
| phrase "boom on the horizon" invokes imagery of mushroom
| clouds.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Disclaimer: Austinite here unrelated to UT.
|
| UT needs a wider incubation, financing, and entrepreneurial
| (undergrad/grad-student/community) ecosystem like Stanford.
| Critical mass of players brings with it more interested parties,
| and with it, that elusive "innovation". It should be okay to make
| money, okay to turn a PhD thesis into a startup, okay to launch
| side projects, and cool to fail and learn lessons. Not all paths
| must lead to a "corporate career".
| mistymountains wrote:
| Is this your diagnosis? That things are more corporate in terms
| of outcome? Genuinely curious, as a Bay Area native, why
| UT/Texas can't begin to compete given how many issues face SF
| currently.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| Austin's native industry is oil and gas, not internet. The
| software tech sector is relatively new.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-10 23:01 UTC)