Lead time for new Intel NIC orders is quoted around 52 weeks(pcengines.ch)
pcengines.ch
Lead time for new Intel NIC orders is quoted around 52 weeks
https://pcengines.ch/leadtime.htm
210 コメント
Just in time manufacturing contributes a lot to this shortage. We rely so much on integrated supply chain logistics, the pandemic clearly brought in to focus the "optimizations" of JIT manufacturing. The lack of local supply pools as buffer is so short sighted.
Not using just in time manufacturing might help with short-term disruptions, but we're approaching the two year point on the pandemic and the associated global disruptions and it's just not realistic to keep enough stock in for that long. The current generation of stuff like CPUs and GPUs hasn't even been released and in production for that long...
My understanding is that the 1st order disruption is long-over. The factories and ports are all back online, etc. two years out all that’s left is the ripple effects of the original ~6 month disturbance. It’s just that those ripples are amplified by the way the supply chain operates (just in time).
So we are at the hoarding toilet paper stage of the crisis? Everyone is ordering as much as they can, so effectively no one actually gets their order filled.
[deleted]
The first-order disruption definitely isn't long over - important manufacturing locations like Vietnam and Malaysia were in lockdown until as recently a week or two ago, and I don't think things are back to operating normally there yet Parts of China might still actually be under lockdown right now.
Is lockdown really effecting manufacturing in those places? Because when we had "lockdown" where I live that meant no fun, not no work - but of course everywhere has done it differently
bullwhip effect, this stuff has been known for decades. Our entire global economy depends on ideal conditions to function properly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect
I agree, but if a manufacturer has the means (physical and budgetary) to store a significant supply of components, they can order larger quantities with longer lead times, so they would still be more resilient in extended shortage situations.
Extended shortage situations account for fires/earthquakes/tsunamis/singularities, short events with long-term but predictable downstream effects. Extended shortage planning doesn't account for 2 year-long political-struggles, which requires something more like war-time planning, spending, and the inevitable waste from stockpiling.
This is great for that particular supplier, but an order for a larger quantity will just squeeze the inventory of every other supplier even more.
The problem is that we are trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. Demand exceeds supply, and it takes years to scale supply up. It doesn't matter if we are using JIT or not, the suppliers for the bottlenecks have all been working at 100% since essentially the start of the pandemic.
The problem is that we are trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. Demand exceeds supply, and it takes years to scale supply up. It doesn't matter if we are using JIT or not, the suppliers for the bottlenecks have all been working at 100% since essentially the start of the pandemic.
Well to be fair, it's not 2 years of stock that would be needed, as there was still some production that was happening during theses 2 years.
I keep seeing that argument every single time and keep wondering, isn’t there reason to implement JIT? Something like cost benefits outweigh the resilience risks?
It’s not like people start dying on the streets, simply things are getting expensive and hard to get during disturbances.
Are there calculations demonstrating that JIT the risks of optimization are more harmful than helpful in the long run?
It’s not like people start dying on the streets, simply things are getting expensive and hard to get during disturbances.
Are there calculations demonstrating that JIT the risks of optimization are more harmful than helpful in the long run?
JIT is a boogeyman in some cases. Ultimately it doesn’t make sense to stockpile parts most of the time for financial and other reasons. If Intel had a warehouse of 1Gb chips, they would have a disincentive to invest in 10Gb, for example.
The dysfunction is the accounting games that companies are incentivized to keep stuff off of their books. Every company wants to look like a software company and avoid stuff like inventory. Some of this is absurd - many companies don’t “own” property, for example, they lease through entities that are sometimes only nominally separate.
Sometimes companies will outsource processes and fulfillment to layers of other entities, each of which do the same thing. Disruptions cascade - I had one issue last year where a supplier’s supplier had issues getting boxes, and a two week delay there delayed downstream fulfillment by 6 weeks. All because the people who ship the end product couldn’t deliver, and the “principal” outsourced the actual management of the process to a third party. If the principal controlled it, they would have gotten it done, as they were punished severely by the contract penalties. They bet on everything working out ok and lost.
The dysfunction is the accounting games that companies are incentivized to keep stuff off of their books. Every company wants to look like a software company and avoid stuff like inventory. Some of this is absurd - many companies don’t “own” property, for example, they lease through entities that are sometimes only nominally separate.
Sometimes companies will outsource processes and fulfillment to layers of other entities, each of which do the same thing. Disruptions cascade - I had one issue last year where a supplier’s supplier had issues getting boxes, and a two week delay there delayed downstream fulfillment by 6 weeks. All because the people who ship the end product couldn’t deliver, and the “principal” outsourced the actual management of the process to a third party. If the principal controlled it, they would have gotten it done, as they were punished severely by the contract penalties. They bet on everything working out ok and lost.
Ironically the biggest two IT companies in the world, Apple and Amazon, are ones that go out of their way to control the entire supply chain.
The problem JIT is solving is that raw materials inventory ties up capital (it costs money), and having warehouses of materials is money sitting that could be used for different purposes (capital expenditures, salaries, dividends, etc). Then, if for some reason the raw materials aren't worthwhile anymore (spoilage, tech change, etc), you've wasted money on something that needs to be disposed of. In theory, the goal would be to have no inventory at all.
JIT is a firm level decision, not a society level. It's up to each firm to decide how much of something they are buying.
JIT is a firm level decision, not a society level. It's up to each firm to decide how much of something they are buying.
JIT assumes a steady state, so squeezes all the buffering out of the system. But buffers are useful.
> It’s not like people start dying on the streets
Well, that’s a good example: there was a huge rise in need for masks and other protective gear about 20 months ago and the supply chain couldn’t handle it. That was why people were encouraged to use makeshift cloth masks, to leave the surgical masks and respirators for medical personnel who had the greatest exposure.
Eliminating buffering cuts cost and can lead to lower prices as well. But at best it merely pushes the buffer elsewhere.
Another way of looking at it: leaving seatbelts out of cars would save money and really, most cars are not involved in accidents so are they really needed? Pass the savings on to the customer!
> It’s not like people start dying on the streets
Well, that’s a good example: there was a huge rise in need for masks and other protective gear about 20 months ago and the supply chain couldn’t handle it. That was why people were encouraged to use makeshift cloth masks, to leave the surgical masks and respirators for medical personnel who had the greatest exposure.
Eliminating buffering cuts cost and can lead to lower prices as well. But at best it merely pushes the buffer elsewhere.
Another way of looking at it: leaving seatbelts out of cars would save money and really, most cars are not involved in accidents so are they really needed? Pass the savings on to the customer!
> Well, that’s a good example: there was a huge rise in need for masks and other protective gear about 20 months ago and the supply chain couldn’t handle it.
I'm going to bump you just a little on this because your point is mostly right.
In the US, there were manufacturers ready to add extra shifts for producing masks, but nobody would cut them the check.
The point of JIT is also so that when something goes wrong in inventory you don't get saddled with a bunch of waste. The problem is that means that you need quick, accurate decision making for when the inventory situation does go wrong.
In this instance, all the players who could cut a check for masks were all paralyzed by their systems for various reasons (bidding/disclosure requirements, political ideology, etc.).
I'm going to bump you just a little on this because your point is mostly right.
In the US, there were manufacturers ready to add extra shifts for producing masks, but nobody would cut them the check.
The point of JIT is also so that when something goes wrong in inventory you don't get saddled with a bunch of waste. The problem is that means that you need quick, accurate decision making for when the inventory situation does go wrong.
In this instance, all the players who could cut a check for masks were all paralyzed by their systems for various reasons (bidding/disclosure requirements, political ideology, etc.).
I know the benefits of having a buffer but do we need buffers everywhere? As in your example, wouldn't be much better to have a buffer in the hospitals(or maybe some kind of regional emergency organisations) as a precaution for an outbreak instead of advocating for buffers across the textile industry?
I like the way you put it, JIT simply pushes the buffer elsewhere. However, this seems like a very good thing to have because those who cannot afford running out of something can do a buffer themselves instead of blindly everyone keeps buffering.
I like the way you put it, JIT simply pushes the buffer elsewhere. However, this seems like a very good thing to have because those who cannot afford running out of something can do a buffer themselves instead of blindly everyone keeps buffering.
> I know the benefits of having a buffer but do we need buffers everywhere? As in your example, wouldn't be much better to have a buffer in the hospitals(or maybe some kind of regional emergency organisations) as a precaution for an outbreak instead of advocating for buffers across the textile industry?
The problem with that specific kind of stockpile buffer is that it can become quickly depleted. No mask stockpile would have been sufficient for the COVID pandemic.
From my layman's perspective, you need stockpiles and excess production capacity to weather a supply shock. It's sort of like backup power in a data center: you have UPS batteries (stockpiled power) to fill the gap until the generators (extra production capacity) can come online.
The problem with that specific kind of stockpile buffer is that it can become quickly depleted. No mask stockpile would have been sufficient for the COVID pandemic.
From my layman's perspective, you need stockpiles and excess production capacity to weather a supply shock. It's sort of like backup power in a data center: you have UPS batteries (stockpiled power) to fill the gap until the generators (extra production capacity) can come online.
You also need the ability to raise prices when there are shortages in order to encourage buffering. Unfortunately, the people who like anti-price gouging laws appear to prefer shortages and misallocation of goods.
> You also need the ability to raise prices when there are shortages in order to encourage buffering.
No, but I can see how someone would some to that conclusion by thinking narrowly in terms of pop free market dogma.
> Unfortunately, the people who like anti-price gouging laws appear to prefer shortages and misallocation of goods.
Price gouging is actually a worse misallocation of goods. It's still a shortage, but it just doesn't hit rich people as hard. If you have food stockpiles to barely feed everyone through winter, it's not a proper allocation to let the market price food so richer people can feast and some poor people starve to death.
Price gouging introduces a lot of (especially short term) inefficiencies as greedy parasites make profit-seeking decisions based on their greed and not social need.
Markets work very well in some contexts, but it's a mistake to think they work best in all contexts. Crisis shortages are not one of the contexts where they work well.
No, but I can see how someone would some to that conclusion by thinking narrowly in terms of pop free market dogma.
> Unfortunately, the people who like anti-price gouging laws appear to prefer shortages and misallocation of goods.
Price gouging is actually a worse misallocation of goods. It's still a shortage, but it just doesn't hit rich people as hard. If you have food stockpiles to barely feed everyone through winter, it's not a proper allocation to let the market price food so richer people can feast and some poor people starve to death.
Price gouging introduces a lot of (especially short term) inefficiencies as greedy parasites make profit-seeking decisions based on their greed and not social need.
Markets work very well in some contexts, but it's a mistake to think they work best in all contexts. Crisis shortages are not one of the contexts where they work well.
> It's still a shortage, but it just doesn't hit rich people as hard.
It sounds like you're assuming that increases in price don't increase quantity supplied. While this may be true in some contexts (e.g. completely unexpected global crisis), there are many cases in which it does:
- In a local crisis, an increase in price encourages shipping in goods from areas not in crisis. Why would someone take the risk of shipping for the same price they can get elsewhere?
- As the GP mentioned, the ability to raise prices provides an incentive for stockpiling goods. Why would someone incur the expense of maintaining a stockpile in exchange for no benefit in a case where the stockpile is needed?
I'd also argue that it's very unlikely for price increases to render all basic necessities impossible to afford, even for poor people. Consider water - even for someone living in poverty what percent of their budget would you guess is allocated to water? Maybe 5%? So even a doubling of the price of water (for context, price gouging laws typically restrict price increases to around 10%) would only increase that to 10%, leaving plenty of room for them to reallocate not-as-essential parts of their budget. For food perhaps the original percent is higher, but there's much more opportunity to substitute cheaper foods in a crisis situation.
It sounds like you're assuming that increases in price don't increase quantity supplied. While this may be true in some contexts (e.g. completely unexpected global crisis), there are many cases in which it does:
- In a local crisis, an increase in price encourages shipping in goods from areas not in crisis. Why would someone take the risk of shipping for the same price they can get elsewhere?
- As the GP mentioned, the ability to raise prices provides an incentive for stockpiling goods. Why would someone incur the expense of maintaining a stockpile in exchange for no benefit in a case where the stockpile is needed?
I'd also argue that it's very unlikely for price increases to render all basic necessities impossible to afford, even for poor people. Consider water - even for someone living in poverty what percent of their budget would you guess is allocated to water? Maybe 5%? So even a doubling of the price of water (for context, price gouging laws typically restrict price increases to around 10%) would only increase that to 10%, leaving plenty of room for them to reallocate not-as-essential parts of their budget. For food perhaps the original percent is higher, but there's much more opportunity to substitute cheaper foods in a crisis situation.
> - In a local crisis, an increase in price encourages shipping in goods from areas not in crisis. Why would someone take the risk of shipping for the same price they can get elsewhere?
One reason is that people don't operate exclusively in the market paradigm, but free market economics makes the (false) simplifying assumption that they do.
> - As the GP mentioned, the ability to raise prices provides an incentive for stockpiling goods. Why would someone incur the expense of maintaining a stockpile in exchange for no benefit in a case where the stockpile is needed?
If you think about that actual scenario, that makes no sense as a business decision. People aren't going to pay the costs of stockpiling something in the off chance they can benefit from price gouging during an unpredictable crisis.
What really happens is parasites try to drain the supply chain so they can flip the goods at a price-gouging markup. You saw this during the pandemic: dudes driving around buying all the hand sanitizers and masks they could, then keeping them in their garage away from where they were needed, hoping to make a big personal profit. All they did was exacerbate the shortages.
One reason is that people don't operate exclusively in the market paradigm, but free market economics makes the (false) simplifying assumption that they do.
> - As the GP mentioned, the ability to raise prices provides an incentive for stockpiling goods. Why would someone incur the expense of maintaining a stockpile in exchange for no benefit in a case where the stockpile is needed?
If you think about that actual scenario, that makes no sense as a business decision. People aren't going to pay the costs of stockpiling something in the off chance they can benefit from price gouging during an unpredictable crisis.
What really happens is parasites try to drain the supply chain so they can flip the goods at a price-gouging markup. You saw this during the pandemic: dudes driving around buying all the hand sanitizers and masks they could, then keeping them in their garage away from where they were needed, hoping to make a big personal profit. All they did was exacerbate the shortages.
You're arguing both that people respond to price signals and that they don't. Regardless of your dismissals, it is perfectly obvious that higher prices provide an incentive to supply more.
Anyway, what better way are you proposing to distribute goods?
Anyway, what better way are you proposing to distribute goods?
> You're arguing both that people respond to price signals and that they don't.
Actually, I'm arguing that classical free market economics doesn't lead to the best (or even good) results over all scales. IMHO, advocacy for price gouging is sort of like insisting on using classical mechanics to model quantum-scale phenomena. Price gouging is properly understood as a market failure, in that some people respond to the price signals by doing socially counterproductive stuff (and the supposed socially productive stuff is mostly a chimera in that context).
> Anyway, what better way are you proposing to distribute goods?
Your question assumes I'd give one answer, when my point is it depends on context. In some cases that's dogmatic free market economics, in other cases it's literal central planning, but in most cases it's something in between. One thing is clear, though: crisis shortages are not the place for dogmatic free market economics.
Actually, I'm arguing that classical free market economics doesn't lead to the best (or even good) results over all scales. IMHO, advocacy for price gouging is sort of like insisting on using classical mechanics to model quantum-scale phenomena. Price gouging is properly understood as a market failure, in that some people respond to the price signals by doing socially counterproductive stuff (and the supposed socially productive stuff is mostly a chimera in that context).
> Anyway, what better way are you proposing to distribute goods?
Your question assumes I'd give one answer, when my point is it depends on context. In some cases that's dogmatic free market economics, in other cases it's literal central planning, but in most cases it's something in between. One thing is clear, though: crisis shortages are not the place for dogmatic free market economics.
I don't think anybody actually did the math on this though. It's more like "I get a fat bonus if I decrease inventory without a significant effect to sales over the next 3 quarters" so as long as the near-term risk is worth it, it gets done.
[edit]
There's also the "If I don't implement JIT, I'll get replaced with someone who will" effect in a lot of cases too.
[edit]
There's also the "If I don't implement JIT, I'll get replaced with someone who will" effect in a lot of cases too.
That’s the impression I get, not so much JIT but rather limiting supply budgets as much as possible. A lot of companies tout Toyota as the pinnacle of manufacturing without realizing that they are not Toyota and there was more to Toyota’s success than JIT.
Well only a decade ago Moore's law ensured that keeping any amount of stock on CPUs/GPU/memory would cost you a lot of money, as that would depreciate fast. JIT was a good idea until it wasn't
The Moore's law argument does not apply to low performance embedded chips which are whatever the engineers want them to be, but must be exactly what the engineers wanted them to be. The chips themselves were often the same between different models of the product, but even though demand for them was a very predictable function of the number of products made, and stable over time (pursuant to the stability of demand for the product), everyone's inventory consisted of whatever was in the box that was being carried from the loading dock to the pick and place machine.
[deleted]
> Well only a decade ago Moore's law ensured that keeping any amount of stock on CPUs/GPU/memory would cost you a lot of money, as that would depreciate fast.
This clearly holded for PC components, but rather not for, say, microcontrollers for conservatively developed products with a much longer service life and/or duration of sell.
Consider, for example, a stock of microcontrollers for an industrial machinery that
* will be used for 20 years by the customers,
* will be sold for the next 10 years,
* after these 10 years, for the remaining lifetime of the machine, the customer will still be able to buy spare parts.
This clearly holded for PC components, but rather not for, say, microcontrollers for conservatively developed products with a much longer service life and/or duration of sell.
Consider, for example, a stock of microcontrollers for an industrial machinery that
* will be used for 20 years by the customers,
* will be sold for the next 10 years,
* after these 10 years, for the remaining lifetime of the machine, the customer will still be able to buy spare parts.
> I keep seeing that argument every single time and keep wondering, isn’t there reason to implement JIT? Something like cost benefits outweigh the resilience risks?
Just think about evolution: species specialize for short(er) term benefits, but then conditions change and a lot of those specialists go extinct.
JIT is specializing for an extremely reliable and undisrupted supply chain.
Just think about evolution: species specialize for short(er) term benefits, but then conditions change and a lot of those specialists go extinct.
JIT is specializing for an extremely reliable and undisrupted supply chain.
It's a value judgement. You can optimize for the normal case at the cost of disruptions when the unusual happens, or you can optimize for the unusual case at the cost of inefficiency when things are normal. But you can't do both.
If computer network technology had been built on the same shortsighted business logic we would never have had the internet..
Imagine a link-layer protocol without any buffers, no retransmissions or any kind of resilience, built on the most optimistic estimates; that’s essentially what the “business world” has built with their irrational philosophy based around “the market”..
Imagine a link-layer protocol without any buffers, no retransmissions or any kind of resilience, built on the most optimistic estimates; that’s essentially what the “business world” has built with their irrational philosophy based around “the market”..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol would like a word
UDP is almost always used with buffers, error correction codes, and other measures to deal with imperfection
Yes, but I think UDP is still a good counter example for this analogy. Buffers can be detrimental to udp traffic for real-time use cases (eg VOIP). Here your trade off is quality (in voice this is jitter) versus latency. Typically you want to make this choice of buffer size at the receiving end only, and keep buffers elsewhere as small as possible - routers which store and forward, network card buffers,OS buffers etc, can add up to lots of bloat.
So for VOIP "JIT" is a good thing and your "Inventory" levels need to be tuned at the receiver.
So for VOIP "JIT" is a good thing and your "Inventory" levels need to be tuned at the receiver.
Ouch, thanks for the pushback!
But isn’t it called tcp/ip for a reason?
But isn’t it called tcp/ip for a reason?
Do you use a VPN to connect your corporate laptop to your employer’s network from home? Do you use Wireguard, or its easier-to-use derivative, Tailescale, to connect any of your devices? Do you use any form of VOIP (Voice over IP)?
(Edited because I forgot the big one) Have you ever used a name and not an IP address to connect to something on the internet?
Congratulations! You’re a UDP user!
(Edited because I forgot the big one) Have you ever used a name and not an IP address to connect to something on the internet?
Congratulations! You’re a UDP user!
Yes! I absolutely use UDP!
I once built a prototype network stack on top of a udp library that simulated a physical network layer..
Doesn’t change the fact that tcp/ip was the network stack that enabled the internet.
But I was trying to sidestep that tangent by mentioning link layer protocols in my second paragraph.
I once built a prototype network stack on top of a udp library that simulated a physical network layer..
Doesn’t change the fact that tcp/ip was the network stack that enabled the internet.
But I was trying to sidestep that tangent by mentioning link layer protocols in my second paragraph.
While there are users for UDP, I would guess that TCP accounts for more traffic by choice. Of course there are sometimes problems associated with too much buffer too.
It’s not clear to me that any of the proposed causes are singly driving the shortages. The closest analogy in my mind is that our global production and logistics system is suffering from multiple shifting bottlenecks with secondary induced inefficiencies. Those new inefficiencies include JIT buffer exhaustion, related slowdowns, capacity reduction, priority inversions and resource contention.
I don't know much about how supply chains function so I am wondering how is just in time manufacturing still to blame when the chip shortage has been ongoing for over a year? Wouldn't everyone have burned through their inventory at this point?
The idea is not that they should have had a stock for multiple years of demand. Rather, if you have a warehouse and are able to build a bit of stock, you can ramp up much faster.
The actual closings due to lockdown were only a couple of weeks in most industries. What really hurt imho was that orders were cancelled, production capability was scaled back, but demand came back faster than expected.
The actual closings due to lockdown were only a couple of weeks in most industries. What really hurt imho was that orders were cancelled, production capability was scaled back, but demand came back faster than expected.
It makes sense why it would ease the initial shock from shutdowns, but how would it help with the cancelled orders and scaled back production? It seems like it would just stretch out the shock over a longer period of time. Would that actually stop the disruptions because it seems like they would eventually burn through all the inventory eventually because of that?
[deleted]
It takes two years to ramp up more fab capacity.
Currently working on a new design for a client, it's quite a pain. Lots of things, even mundane things like connectors and such are out of stock / low stock and usually quite a bit more expensive.
Yep, similarly. We work with PLCs where the manufacturer normally has fairly deep stocks of all the PLC CPUs, expansion cards, etc - guaranteed part availability is one of the big selling points of using PLCs. Some things are still available but others are completely out, to the point where we're considering completely redesigning some of our smaller experimental projects around e.g. Raspberry Pis.
What we do when RPis stop being available is yet to be seen...
What we do when RPis stop being available is yet to be seen...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/20/raspberry_pi_supply_e...
rpi4 are already getting hard to find.
rpi4 are already getting hard to find.
Repurposeable QuadCore ARM SOCs are fairly easy to find in the form of previous-gen Android TV Boxes, for fractions of the price of the RPI4. Some are weaker, some are slightly stronger, but in many embedded situation these do well enough.
I think that's already started to happen. I had to buy the Essentials kit this week because a standalone Pi was not available from any distributor, with lead times of up to a year.
I was looking to buy parallel EEPROMs (DIP) a couple days ago and found they were pretty expensive and mostly unavailable. I was wondering if that's because this type of IC is rather niche these days, or whether it's due to what's called the "chip shortage".
If anyone knows or has an educated opinion, please let me know...
If anyone knows or has an educated opinion, please let me know...
It's a niche part and you shouldn't be surprised if it's discontinued soon. Think about migrating your design.
I'm starting to see end-of-life notices for a lot of parts that I wouldn't normally see at their age, but if they're low runners that would totally make sense.
If you see lead times longer than a year, that's your early warning.
I'm starting to see end-of-life notices for a lot of parts that I wouldn't normally see at their age, but if they're low runners that would totally make sense.
If you see lead times longer than a year, that's your early warning.
I imagine one end result of this supply squeeze is that a lot of bespoke or legacy parts will be finally removed from designs that have up until now been "good enough". To cite the most common example, vehicle manufacturers' most common supply pain-point is ICs built on a ~200nm process, which was state of the art between 1996-2000.
I understand it makes sense to move slower for chips embedded in long-life devices, and they need additional validation; however, at some point if lead times are long enough and prices stay high it becomes reasonable to start that extended validation process on newer chips.
This would hopefully mean consumers start seeing infotainment with much better performance in the second half of 2022, and this lines up with industry expectations of when the squeeze will lift.
I understand it makes sense to move slower for chips embedded in long-life devices, and they need additional validation; however, at some point if lead times are long enough and prices stay high it becomes reasonable to start that extended validation process on newer chips.
This would hopefully mean consumers start seeing infotainment with much better performance in the second half of 2022, and this lines up with industry expectations of when the squeeze will lift.
There are one to two multimedia SoCs in a car. There are hundreds to thousands of mixed-signal and power ASICs in a car. Those are on large nodes, not because they're outdated, but because that's what you use for power and mixed signal. TSMC N7 is great for that 2 GHz ARM quad-core SoC, but garbage when you need to drive a piezo fuel valve.
> To cite the most common example, vehicle manufacturers' most common supply pain-point is ICs built on a ~200nm process, which was state of the art between 1996-2000.
I'm a total layman, but that might be misunderstanding "state of the art." Larger feature sizes may be better for their applications if they allow the parts to be more reliable.
I'm a total layman, but that might be misunderstanding "state of the art." Larger feature sizes may be better for their applications if they allow the parts to be more reliable.
I meant the node itself was state of the art. The application reliability is important, but in practice will be balanced against cost of goods -- just like how consumer PCs use non-ECC memory and try to handle it in software (or just decide occasional crashes are acceptable), there would likely be additional failure compensation added in other areas to adjust for otherwise cheaper parts on a smaller process node.
And if you think a car company wouldn't use a less-reliable part because of safety concerns, look at the Pinto: Ford knew it had a tendency to, erm, explode, but calculated paying off lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing the problem. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost%E2%80%93benefi...
And if you think a car company wouldn't use a less-reliable part because of safety concerns, look at the Pinto: Ford knew it had a tendency to, erm, explode, but calculated paying off lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing the problem. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost%E2%80%93benefi...
[deleted]
Infotainment systems have multiple-year lead times and validating a PCB change can run just as long. Unless you're Tesla.
In DIP packages? I purchased a few EEPROMS and Flash parts from Digikey recently to fix a old industrial laser. I spent like $5 on the EEproms and something like $2.50 for the equivalent flash parts. I was trying to see if I could migrate the machine to flash as the parts were pin compatible and the laser uses battery backed SRAM for storage. Worked perfectly.
Probably because such ICs are rather niche indeed. Any way of re-architecting your system to use an SPI flash chip? If anything else fails, you could go the extreme route and get a microcontroller to "translate"...
Price gouging in most cases, supported by difficulties in transportation and customs. I work in manufacturing (not IT products) and this is what we see. Chip shortage is real, but not every single type of chip.
Had few surplus STM32 reels. Ebayed them for a few thousand bucks.
I can only imagined how much money did the people who envisaged the shortage early enough got from hoarding chips.
I can only imagined how much money did the people who envisaged the shortage early enough got from hoarding chips.
How are non-ICs in short-supply? Did I miss a whole story about supply chain problems or is it literally that overall demand has maxed out overall supply and most people don't have the means to increase production?
If you look at the various ports, the ships are waiting to enter so that they can offload.
There's a lack of shipping options available to get items to the US in the first place, that means that various bits and bobs necessary to manufacture a widget aren't available because they are stuck in a shipping container somewhere around the world and there is no available space to put it on a ship.
There's a lack of shipping options available to get items to the US in the first place, that means that various bits and bobs necessary to manufacture a widget aren't available because they are stuck in a shipping container somewhere around the world and there is no available space to put it on a ship.
Yep outside of a few industries that have specific supply constraints (like semiconductors) the broad shortages are mostly due to the ports. They have zero room to absorb the additional demand thanks to the longshoreman unions having blocked all opportunities for automation and efficiency improvements over the past couple decades, so a record number of ships are waiting at anchor for many days if not weeks outside of major US ports.
Blaming failures on unions and employees' rights is a traditional excuse for US companies it seems.
We had parts shortages for a couple years now.
https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/capaci...
covid exacerbated the problem
https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/capaci...
covid exacerbated the problem
Work laptop was quoted today as delivery in "up to" 24 weeks (with well-informed people saying it might well take that long).
And I cannot find anyone with Raspberry Pi CM3+ compute modules with delivery before April 2022.
And I cannot find anyone with Raspberry Pi CM3+ compute modules with delivery before April 2022.
Honest question: How can everyone be short of chips? I understand that e.g. car makers reduced their orders and their capacity was given to other manufacturers so they are kind of screwed but surely since the overall capacity got increased (albeit by a relatively small amount) then some manufacturers should have stuff.
As far as I can see, pretty much everyone who uses electronics seems to be not just "a bit short" but royally screwed at the moment.
As far as I can see, pretty much everyone who uses electronics seems to be not just "a bit short" but royally screwed at the moment.
In the abstract, it's sort of like asking "How can there still be traffic jams on road XYZ, when there's an open lane that was added recently?" The problem isn't the number of lanes, it's that fundamentally that mode of traffic (mass individiual transit) has capacity limitations, which when exceeded cause it to go into a "bad" state, after which recovery is difficult and arduous. Furthermore, just because you stop letting cars on the specific road doesn't mean the jam resolves instantly; you actually have to significantly reduce pressure over time before that can happen. And that jam causes cars to overflow into other roads, causing other problems. Just removing the "trigger" (too many oncoming cars) that caused the problem is not enough to recover from either the initial problems, or the side effects.
People here are using all kinds of networking/hardware analogies and while generally I'm loathe to use those (they often reek of "All I have is a hammer"-syndrome), you do see these problems a lot in such designs. A good example is when something like a database goes down due to having too much load. Recovering from this failure often isn't just a matter of going from "too much load" to "enough load to handle", you actually have to shed significantly more load than that to recover the system, because that initial failure might cause a cascade of failures that prevents that. This often manifests as a kind of ritual where a system admin pulls a big number of levers in the engine room all labeled "Do Not Touch" in just the right order to shed load and reboot things correctly. Real world supply chains are doing the same thing, but their actions are priced in and done months in advance. Logistics is a hell of a thing.
I realize this is not a concrete answer about electronic supply chains (someone else can handle that) but rather a more abstract classification, but I think the general idea applies here.
People here are using all kinds of networking/hardware analogies and while generally I'm loathe to use those (they often reek of "All I have is a hammer"-syndrome), you do see these problems a lot in such designs. A good example is when something like a database goes down due to having too much load. Recovering from this failure often isn't just a matter of going from "too much load" to "enough load to handle", you actually have to shed significantly more load than that to recover the system, because that initial failure might cause a cascade of failures that prevents that. This often manifests as a kind of ritual where a system admin pulls a big number of levers in the engine room all labeled "Do Not Touch" in just the right order to shed load and reboot things correctly. Real world supply chains are doing the same thing, but their actions are priced in and done months in advance. Logistics is a hell of a thing.
I realize this is not a concrete answer about electronic supply chains (someone else can handle that) but rather a more abstract classification, but I think the general idea applies here.
Well, bear in mind that you're only hearing about the people who're complaining and those will tend to be large manufacturers with significant production volumes. The little shops all over the place that bought a year's inventory are fine now but still anxiously wondering what will happen when inventory runs out.
I just left my last job (engineering services) a couple months ago, but we were already warning new customers that they should be prepared to buy whatever inventory we could find if they wanted to be able to ship product by Christmas.
I just left my last job (engineering services) a couple months ago, but we were already warning new customers that they should be prepared to buy whatever inventory we could find if they wanted to be able to ship product by Christmas.
Same reason we had issues with toilet paper last year. Real shortages can fuel panic induced purchasing which have massive ripple effects.
People aren’t buying what they need for the next month, they are trying to get a year or 18 months of supply.
People aren’t buying what they need for the next month, they are trying to get a year or 18 months of supply.
indeed, I'm shopping for a laptop and Hp firefly 14 g8 has est. delivery mid march
I ordered an HP ProBook in April 2021 and I'm still waiting. The original delivery was scheduled for July, and that's been pushed back twice now.
A few weeks ago they emailed me saying the AX200 is unavailable and my choice was Realtek WiFi, or cancel my order.
I'm seriously wondering if they'll ever deliver. I might cancel my order if Ryzen 6000 is released before they manage to ship.
A few weeks ago they emailed me saying the AX200 is unavailable and my choice was Realtek WiFi, or cancel my order.
I'm seriously wondering if they'll ever deliver. I might cancel my order if Ryzen 6000 is released before they manage to ship.
I have 2 lenovos here to try them out. Carbon with ax201 and p14s with realtek. The realtek is about twive slower with my wifi
Some people I talk to have started repurposing cheap previous-gen Android TV QuadCore ARM SBCs for the embedded (mostly headless) projects they previously used NUCs and PIs in. They are available at moderate quantity with short delay at under 25€ a pop.
Any truth to the rumour that semi truck drive train linkages are unavailable North America wide right now? That could exasperate things quickly.
For what it's worth, my brother in law who drives semis had not heard of that. I think it might be a tall-tale.
Modern trucks contain quite a lot of semiconductors though, so I expect they'll be affected in some way.
[deleted]
Do you mean U-joints? Or the major components themselves such as transmission, driveshaft, axle, differential, brake chambers, etc?
I think he means general availability of trucks and drivers. Not drivetrain components specifically.
No drivetrain components are becoming unavailable.
https://www.jittruckparts.com/blog/post/3-takeaways-from-the... https://www.ccjdigital.com/maintenance/article/15066337/truc...
https://www.jittruckparts.com/blog/post/3-takeaways-from-the... https://www.ccjdigital.com/maintenance/article/15066337/truc...
Yeah u joints
No.
Whatever your opinion is about the lockdowns, there is one thing everyone should be able to agree on; they destabilize just about everything. I'm worried about people going hungry or not being able to heat their home this winter from the ripple effects.
Weird to blame the lockdowns when the real cause was the pandemic. It's not like everyone was going to continually working normally in crowded spaces with people dropping like flies in the hospitals. China especially was hit so incredibly badly in that first wave; it was always gonna go pear-shaped no matter what.
It's true - China's numbers, unsurprisingly, really don't give light to how badly they were impacted. I remember reading about how they were building brand new hospitals to cope. Literally building a brand new hospital.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/pictures-china-builds-two-ho...
Looking back on that, it's interesting to think about how that should have been a major warning sign of things to come for the rest of the world.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/pictures-china-builds-two-ho...
Looking back on that, it's interesting to think about how that should have been a major warning sign of things to come for the rest of the world.
> Literally building a brand new hospital.
We built multiple temporary hospitals in the UK too. And albeit not so widely reported, temporary morgues.
To be honest I assumed a whole bunch of countries were doing this...
We built multiple temporary hospitals in the UK too. And albeit not so widely reported, temporary morgues.
To be honest I assumed a whole bunch of countries were doing this...
The reporting on this has been very weird. UK news had massive coverage of deaths in Italy, then when it started hitting the UK hard, it went invisible.
I'm not sure the UK emergency Nightingale hospitals were actually _used_, since (obviously) you can repurpose a building but you can't just find a few thousand healthcare staff at short notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56327214
I'm not sure the UK emergency Nightingale hospitals were actually _used_, since (obviously) you can repurpose a building but you can't just find a few thousand healthcare staff at short notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56327214
I don't think the Nightingales were used much, but that was mostly because the existing hospitals managed to free up more beds than originally anticipated and all the available staff ended up there. Naturally, the government got endless flack for this, as is often the case when a government puts measures into place for a contingency that doesn't come to pass. (Also, relying on freeing up beds may not have been a good decision in hindsight - one of the ways this was achieved was by aggressively kicking people with potential hospital-acquired Covid infections out into care homes full of people at high risk of dying if they caught Covid, with ugly consequences.)
> Naturally, the government got endless flack for this, as is often the case when a government puts measures into place for a contingency that doesn't come to pass.
I’m not one to show much support for the current government but the negative (media) reaction to these hospitals not actually being needed was pretty short sighted.
We should be thankful that the hospitals were there and even more thankful that they weren’t needed.
There were more obvious things for which to hold the government to account.
I’m not one to show much support for the current government but the negative (media) reaction to these hospitals not actually being needed was pretty short sighted.
We should be thankful that the hospitals were there and even more thankful that they weren’t needed.
There were more obvious things for which to hold the government to account.
Yeah, NYC saw "temporary morgues" as well, in the form of refrigerated shipping containers. One of the more resonant memories of the pandemic from last year to me.
This happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic as well. Rather, the overflow of casualties happened - not refrigerated shipping containers.
Samples of sick people were recovered for researching that strain of influenza by locating large graves which had been created where it remained cold enough to preserve the bodies. Until I'd heard that and lived through last year, the gravity of it all totally eluded me. It takes a lot before people start burying the dead in trenches; it's perhaps second to the worst case in which we can't even manage that. A scenario common to war but nothing else I can think of.
I've been so isolated from these kinds of circumstances for all of the pandemic, but I try to remind myself that it's exactly why lock downs and masks and all the hassle are actually completely reasonable. The alternative is incredibly dark, evidently.
Samples of sick people were recovered for researching that strain of influenza by locating large graves which had been created where it remained cold enough to preserve the bodies. Until I'd heard that and lived through last year, the gravity of it all totally eluded me. It takes a lot before people start burying the dead in trenches; it's perhaps second to the worst case in which we can't even manage that. A scenario common to war but nothing else I can think of.
I've been so isolated from these kinds of circumstances for all of the pandemic, but I try to remind myself that it's exactly why lock downs and masks and all the hassle are actually completely reasonable. The alternative is incredibly dark, evidently.
Temporary hospitals were a thing here in India as well. Marriage halls, schools and unis were repurposed to have lots of beds for covid patients.
Yes, the important bit was they where the canary in the coal mine for the pandemic.
However, it’s really difficult to be proactive here as avoiding an issues means people assume it isn’t a problem. Shutdowns likely saved millions of lives in America but as people are only aware of the downsides they see not the horrors that where avoided.
However, it’s really difficult to be proactive here as avoiding an issues means people assume it isn’t a problem. Shutdowns likely saved millions of lives in America but as people are only aware of the downsides they see not the horrors that where avoided.
We had the Navy hospital boat and transformed the Javitz center (where Comic Con happens) to be hospitals.
Both went virtually unused.
[In NYC]
Both went virtually unused.
[In NYC]
Not because we didn't need them, though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-u...
> On top of its strict rules preventing people infected with the virus from coming on board, the Navy is also refusing to treat a host of other conditions. Guidelines disseminated to hospitals included a list of 49 medical conditions that would exclude a patient from admittance to the ship.
> Ambulances cannot take patients directly to the Comfort; they must first deliver patients to a city hospital for a lengthy evaluation — including a test for the virus — and then pick them up again for transport to the ship.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nycs-largest-emergency-h...
> But much to the frustration of healthcare workers, since that announcement, Javits has taken in nowhere near its capacity. As of April 7, the convention center had admitted only 66 patients. This was due in large part to the strict admission requirements. At first, a patient could only be transferred to Javits if they were convalescing, or in the recovery period. The fear was that Javits didn't have the ICU beds, operating rooms, or equipment necessary to handle patients who might relapse or need surgery because of an underlying condition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-u...
> On top of its strict rules preventing people infected with the virus from coming on board, the Navy is also refusing to treat a host of other conditions. Guidelines disseminated to hospitals included a list of 49 medical conditions that would exclude a patient from admittance to the ship.
> Ambulances cannot take patients directly to the Comfort; they must first deliver patients to a city hospital for a lengthy evaluation — including a test for the virus — and then pick them up again for transport to the ship.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nycs-largest-emergency-h...
> But much to the frustration of healthcare workers, since that announcement, Javits has taken in nowhere near its capacity. As of April 7, the convention center had admitted only 66 patients. This was due in large part to the strict admission requirements. At first, a patient could only be transferred to Javits if they were convalescing, or in the recovery period. The fear was that Javits didn't have the ICU beds, operating rooms, or equipment necessary to handle patients who might relapse or need surgery because of an underlying condition.
They also released vidoes of people literally dropping in the street "with Covid".
Or scenes where a white van stops and couple of folks in Hazmat suits jumps out and then proceed to drag infected people away.
Not quite "dragged", but this happened to a friend of mine.
Her country was on the safe (no isolation) list when her plane landed in China, and she then boarded a long distance, overnight train.
Her country then announced their first positive case.
When she left the train, two men with hazmat suits and a van were on the platform to meet her. They took her to an isolation hotel room with an alarmed door. (Not an actual lock, as I understand, so she could leave if there were a fire. But an alarmed door.)
Her country was on the safe (no isolation) list when her plane landed in China, and she then boarded a long distance, overnight train.
Her country then announced their first positive case.
When she left the train, two men with hazmat suits and a van were on the platform to meet her. They took her to an isolation hotel room with an alarmed door. (Not an actual lock, as I understand, so she could leave if there were a fire. But an alarmed door.)
When I saw the time lapsed footage of a emergency hospital being built in Wuhan in only 10 days I turned to the wife and said there is some big $hit coming.
Three weeks later we had 4 cases from Italian tourists - it all went pear shaped from there - 2.91M infected and 87,819 deaths.
Three weeks later we had 4 cases from Italian tourists - it all went pear shaped from there - 2.91M infected and 87,819 deaths.
China was also welding people in their homes, I don’t think they should be used as a barometer of how serious something is
“Welding people into their homes” sure doesn’t sound like something you do if you don’t think things are super fucking serious if you ask me.
Entire city of Wuhan (11 million) and later the province of Hubei was placed on lockdown - that is 58 million people - it was very serious.
I don't understand this comment. If you think it's not useful evidence of anything, then are you saying that welding people into their homes was equally likely if nothing was happening and it's just coincidence that they did it when they did?
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure the hardcore red states in the US would have simply soaked up the 0.7% IFR and moved on. That might not have helped with semiconductors, but there would probably still be meat and potatoes.
Sure they'd have soaked up the loss but I strongly doubt a collapsing healthcare system would have resulted in not much "moved on". Delta isn't 0.7 IFR. But even a high IFR doesn't calculate how many hospital/ICU beds are used by infected but not (yet) dead.
The IFR for covid is also heavily stratified by age. The latest best estimate from the CDC put it at 0.6% IFR for the general population, but at 0.05% for the 18-49 years group.
I am still not completely convinced that the choice of blanket lockdowns instead of focused protection of risky groups didn't make things worse by prolonging the pandemic, a.k.a. "flattening the curve".
Old people are not very mobile by nature, and had we kept the economy working, but with government assistance, we would probably be able to improve the social distancing of the elder and the obese for as much as we needed. The rest of the population could live their life as usual, with minimal consequence, and the virus would peter out when it find it difficult to find new host without immunity.
Instead we lockdown indiscriminately, and opened up indiscriminately and probably sooner then the ideal, because you simply can't keep thing lockdown for the whole society for long: Your resources are going to exhaust some day.
I am still not completely convinced that the choice of blanket lockdowns instead of focused protection of risky groups didn't make things worse by prolonging the pandemic, a.k.a. "flattening the curve".
Old people are not very mobile by nature, and had we kept the economy working, but with government assistance, we would probably be able to improve the social distancing of the elder and the obese for as much as we needed. The rest of the population could live their life as usual, with minimal consequence, and the virus would peter out when it find it difficult to find new host without immunity.
Instead we lockdown indiscriminately, and opened up indiscriminately and probably sooner then the ideal, because you simply can't keep thing lockdown for the whole society for long: Your resources are going to exhaust some day.
Before the official lockdown happened in NYC, the city was basically already deserted. Virtually no one on trains that didn't have to be, and restaurants/bars nearly empty. It was going to happen regardless of government intervention.
> when the real cause was the pandemic.
No, the lockdowns were the cause not the pandemic. We didn't have to do lockdowns--they weren't on anybody's pandemic plans until March of 2020. Lockdowns and our reaction to Covid was entirely upon humans.
> It's not like everyone was going to continually working normally in crowded spaces with people dropping like flies in the hospitals. China especially was hit so incredibly badly in that first wave
Were they really though? Or was the hysteria in March off the charts?
No, the lockdowns were the cause not the pandemic. We didn't have to do lockdowns--they weren't on anybody's pandemic plans until March of 2020. Lockdowns and our reaction to Covid was entirely upon humans.
> It's not like everyone was going to continually working normally in crowded spaces with people dropping like flies in the hospitals. China especially was hit so incredibly badly in that first wave
Were they really though? Or was the hysteria in March off the charts?
> Weird to blame the lockdowns when the real cause was the pandemic.
The lockdowns were the actual proximate cause for most business disruptions.
> It's not like everyone was going to continually working normally in crowded spaces with people dropping like flies in the hospitals.
People who are employed are usually younger than 65 and therefore were never at significant demographic health risk from coronavirus.
The lockdowns were the actual proximate cause for most business disruptions.
> It's not like everyone was going to continually working normally in crowded spaces with people dropping like flies in the hospitals.
People who are employed are usually younger than 65 and therefore were never at significant demographic health risk from coronavirus.
[deleted]
You've got that mixed up. The reason that supply chains are in disarray are because of the enormous disruption caused by Covid restrictions and lockdowns, not because people were literally dying of Covid on the job.
You could infer that if we hadn't acted the way we did, then what I described would have actually happened and things would be a lot worse. You could also infer that long-term and large-scale control of an airbourne respiratory virus through social means is ineffectual, and things would have been about the same anyway (from a death and disease standpoint).
You could infer that if we hadn't acted the way we did, then what I described would have actually happened and things would be a lot worse. You could also infer that long-term and large-scale control of an airbourne respiratory virus through social means is ineffectual, and things would have been about the same anyway (from a death and disease standpoint).
I think the parent was more making the point that however we chose to deal with the pandemic, it was difficult to avoid disruption to the supply chain.
I guess the potential nuance is, blaming it on "lock downs" gets vaguely political whereas blaming it on the root cause, the pandemic, puts emphasis on the wider point that any actual pandemic of this magnitude is of course going to disrupt the worlds supply chain one way or another.
I guess the potential nuance is, blaming it on "lock downs" gets vaguely political whereas blaming it on the root cause, the pandemic, puts emphasis on the wider point that any actual pandemic of this magnitude is of course going to disrupt the worlds supply chain one way or another.
> I guess the potential nuance is, blaming it on "lock downs" gets vaguely political whereas blaming it on the root cause, the pandemic, puts emphasis on the wider point that any actual pandemic of this magnitude is of course going to disrupt the worlds supply chain one way or another.
Thank you for phrasing so perfectly the exact point I was making. It feels disingenuous when people solely blame the reactions to a worldwide pandemic while ignoring that the worldwide pandemic was still gonna be happening regardless.
Thank you for phrasing so perfectly the exact point I was making. It feels disingenuous when people solely blame the reactions to a worldwide pandemic while ignoring that the worldwide pandemic was still gonna be happening regardless.
Does blaming the declining mental and physical state of previously healthy people on "lockdowns" also get vaguely political? My wife and I did not come near to breakdowns as we tried to care for our young family through the lockdowns and restrictions because of Covid itself, I can tell you that much.
In my opinion, blaming it on the pandemic is misleading, and hides the true cause of our problems. As I said, supply chains are disrupted because everyone was confined to their houses and completely changed their consumer and business spending habits. Referring to the title of this article, Intel NIC orders are not disrupted because all of the factory workers are dead of Covid. They are disrupted because supply and demand of all goods has radically changed, and our modern way of life depends on a very fragile balance of the flow of goods being maintained.
As I also pointed out, we will also never know how much good we actually did. You can tell me it's "obvious" that it did, but there's no evidence to back that up.
As I also pointed out, we will also never know how much good we actually did. You can tell me it's "obvious" that it did, but there's no evidence to back that up.
Even if the factory workers didn't die (some would, but most of them wouldn't have) there would still have been significant disruption if large parts of the workforce were off sick for several weeks.
Periods of excess supply, and periods of shortage have characterized the semiconductor industry since the 1970s.
[deleted]
How much this was due to organic behaviour changes in the population and how much was due to government regulations isn't clear to me at this point, only that it was both. Sweden and Denmark have ended all covid state restrictions afaik - anyone has data on how that affected productivity?
It was the damn lockdowns, the idiotic response to the pandemic, and most importantly the time it went on for. Masks and distancing would've been enough after the first half a year ffs. But to be fair, we deserve it for running such a fragile system.
And they should've just made vaccines mandatory, none of this bullshit soft encouragement while people can't cross borders.
People weren't "dropping like flies", either, especially not those of working age. Less than 0.1% dead worldwide, the vast majority of which were over 65.
Reminds me of that Reddit thread on psychosomatic death where people were sad their relatives suddenly died. Their 80-90 year old relatives. I mean, fuck me, that's a good life lived right there. Another year or two doesn't make much of a difference. But that's unrelated to Covid, it's just the same type of weird fearful thinking.
And they should've just made vaccines mandatory, none of this bullshit soft encouragement while people can't cross borders.
People weren't "dropping like flies", either, especially not those of working age. Less than 0.1% dead worldwide, the vast majority of which were over 65.
Reminds me of that Reddit thread on psychosomatic death where people were sad their relatives suddenly died. Their 80-90 year old relatives. I mean, fuck me, that's a good life lived right there. Another year or two doesn't make much of a difference. But that's unrelated to Covid, it's just the same type of weird fearful thinking.
Life continued as normal in Sweden, Russia, Belarus... the pandemic 'response' was driven by the media and politicians. If there is surge of deaths in nursing homes (typically 50% of COVID deaths), it has no impact on the rest of the economy.
Many of those same politicians later benefitted to tune of millions of dollars from advance knowledge of federal bank intervention in markets. If there was no lockdown, this opportunity would not have occurred. There was a clear conflict of interest.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-vice-chair-traded-stocks-1527...
Its the same for individuals who bought into MRNA startups eg. BioNTech in 2019 - there's a clear financial motivation to promote disruptive lockdown, in order to position vaccines as the cure.
https://trialsitenews.com/gates-earns-10x-on-biontech-in-jus...
Its likely that lockdowns worsen COVID, because of the reduction in health from lower Vitamin D (staying inside), poorer diets, increased stress, and reduction of exposure of younger people (school cancellations, nightclub closures etc.) who usually form the bulk of the herd immunity population for seasonal respiratory viruses.
Many of those same politicians later benefitted to tune of millions of dollars from advance knowledge of federal bank intervention in markets. If there was no lockdown, this opportunity would not have occurred. There was a clear conflict of interest.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-vice-chair-traded-stocks-1527...
Its the same for individuals who bought into MRNA startups eg. BioNTech in 2019 - there's a clear financial motivation to promote disruptive lockdown, in order to position vaccines as the cure.
https://trialsitenews.com/gates-earns-10x-on-biontech-in-jus...
Its likely that lockdowns worsen COVID, because of the reduction in health from lower Vitamin D (staying inside), poorer diets, increased stress, and reduction of exposure of younger people (school cancellations, nightclub closures etc.) who usually form the bulk of the herd immunity population for seasonal respiratory viruses.
Your last paragraph demonstrates a number of profound and fundamental misunderstandings.
First, herd immunity does not benefit from more bodies per se. You are portraying it as some sort of wall, where taking members out of the wall reduces the effectiveness. It is not like that at all. The proportion of previously exposed individuals required for herd immunity effects goes down as the frequency of potential spreading interactions goes down.
Second, there is no correlation between lockdown and lower vitamin D.
Third, we have clear data showing a profound reduction in the spread of other respiratory viruses (RSV, rhino, influenza). So, we have had many fewer deaths during lockdown that in previous years. A win, and yet you characterize it as a loss. Odd.
First, herd immunity does not benefit from more bodies per se. You are portraying it as some sort of wall, where taking members out of the wall reduces the effectiveness. It is not like that at all. The proportion of previously exposed individuals required for herd immunity effects goes down as the frequency of potential spreading interactions goes down.
Second, there is no correlation between lockdown and lower vitamin D.
Third, we have clear data showing a profound reduction in the spread of other respiratory viruses (RSV, rhino, influenza). So, we have had many fewer deaths during lockdown that in previous years. A win, and yet you characterize it as a loss. Odd.
Clear data? How many people get tested for influenza? How many people which had influenza got tested for covid and got a positive result? If I went to my doctor last winter, told him I have strong fever and cough, he'll either send me to get a PCR test for covid, or no test, just tell me it's probably covid and I should stay home and monitor symptoms. In such case most flu cases would just be assumed covid, and that's where the reduction is coming from.
More profound misunderstanding. Influenza tests exists and are deployed at scale. In the US, I assure you that anyone in the hospital with a high fever of unknown origin is tested for several influenza variants. No one just "assumes" covid. That is total and complete nonsense. We have clear data on influenza hospitalizations (edit: and deaths) and the numbers are way way down.
> No one just "assumes" covid.
There were many months where PCR tests were not available to hospitals and the CARES act gave hospitals extra money for covid cases, so hospitals obviously set the policy of “anyone with some covid symptoms is to be considered a covid case”.
There were many months where PCR tests were not available to hospitals and the CARES act gave hospitals extra money for covid cases, so hospitals obviously set the policy of “anyone with some covid symptoms is to be considered a covid case”.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-...
> The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”
What else were they supposed to do in that scenario?
> The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”
What else were they supposed to do in that scenario?
We've been testing for flu all along.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/01/11/amid-c...
> The drop occurred despite a sixfold increase in testing at public health labs, most of which checked for influenza A and B along with the coronavirus.
> Clinical lab testing was slightly lower during the last quarter of 2020 as physicians ordered fewer flu tests because less of the illness was circulating.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/01/11/amid-c...
> The drop occurred despite a sixfold increase in testing at public health labs, most of which checked for influenza A and B along with the coronavirus.
> Clinical lab testing was slightly lower during the last quarter of 2020 as physicians ordered fewer flu tests because less of the illness was circulating.
You are just taking your assumptions and forming opinions based on them.
>Life continued as normal in Sweden...
Sweden had less formal lockdowns, but recommendations that was largely followed . Also limited opening hours for restaurants and closed events with live audience. Most workers stayed at home, traveling went down A LOT and people could not visit care homes etc. If you compare the effect on society it was largely the same as the rest of Scandinavia that did have slightly more formal lockdowns.
Lots of companies (restaurants, cultural events like concerts, theatre etc.) had real economical issues and a lot of people became unemployed. Could be worse, but still it is misleading to say life continued as normal. A quick google show that unemployment in Sweden doubled during the pandemic and that is largely attributed to the measures that took place as a response to the pandemic.
Sweden had less formal lockdowns, but recommendations that was largely followed . Also limited opening hours for restaurants and closed events with live audience. Most workers stayed at home, traveling went down A LOT and people could not visit care homes etc. If you compare the effect on society it was largely the same as the rest of Scandinavia that did have slightly more formal lockdowns.
Lots of companies (restaurants, cultural events like concerts, theatre etc.) had real economical issues and a lot of people became unemployed. Could be worse, but still it is misleading to say life continued as normal. A quick google show that unemployment in Sweden doubled during the pandemic and that is largely attributed to the measures that took place as a response to the pandemic.
> live audience
Exactly. Last year I watched (over the internet) Sanna Nielsen sing Stockholm in my heart to an empty field where there should have been an audience of thousands. Useful to have a bit of an awareness of foreign media to see what's actually happening, not what's reported by delusionists on the internet.
It was never true that there were no restrictions in Sweden, just less restrictions.
Exactly. Last year I watched (over the internet) Sanna Nielsen sing Stockholm in my heart to an empty field where there should have been an audience of thousands. Useful to have a bit of an awareness of foreign media to see what's actually happening, not what's reported by delusionists on the internet.
It was never true that there were no restrictions in Sweden, just less restrictions.
That’s the utility of high social trust; rules can be self enforced by suggestion, rather than by force.
Sweden assumed their population is composed of adults. When you treat people like adults, they usually are far more likely to act as adults.
I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to point out how extreme your claims in the last paragraph are and that you've provided nothing to back that up even. As even the weakest rebuttal, I'd lke point out that by all metrics I've seen standard influenza infections and deaths were also down due to lockdown/COVID prevention methods which I think is a helpful indicator.
Edit: by the time I clicked submit, multiple people had also responded to this, which makes me feel better about HN today.
Edit: by the time I clicked submit, multiple people had also responded to this, which makes me feel better about HN today.
Life didn't continue in Sweden for about 14,000 people that died to COVID due to the lack of proper response, or hundreds of thousands with long COVID.
Sweden had the best requisites to come out of the pandemic largely unscathed, like its neighbour Norway. Instead they decided to just let people get sick and die.
edit: The nonsense about Vitamin D at the end is almost hilarious. We're talking about Sweden, right? The country on the Arctic Circle?
Sweden had the best requisites to come out of the pandemic largely unscathed, like its neighbour Norway. Instead they decided to just let people get sick and die.
edit: The nonsense about Vitamin D at the end is almost hilarious. We're talking about Sweden, right? The country on the Arctic Circle?
Vitamin D supplementation is common in Sweden. There is only a weak correlation between latitude and vitamin D levels. Hypovitaminosis D is a serious risk factor for COVID-19.
https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/
https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/
> Its likely that lockdowns worsen COVID
Please stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. It is literally killing people.
Please stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. It is literally killing people.
In all fairness he presented this as "it's likely".
Your own statement "conspiracy theories are killing people" is also a bit of a non fact.
While the result of believing in conspiracy theories have no doubt lead to someones death, somewhere; presenting it as a serious problem whose root effect is "Death" is incredibly silly.
Your own statement "conspiracy theories are killing people" is also a bit of a non fact.
While the result of believing in conspiracy theories have no doubt lead to someones death, somewhere; presenting it as a serious problem whose root effect is "Death" is incredibly silly.
The vast majority (95%+ afaik?) of deaths at this point is among the unvaccinated. Any reason to not get the vaccine is a 'conspiracy theory' unless you were literally directed not to by your doctor. You can literally measure the amount of people dying per day as a result of vaccine related conspiracy theories.
Indeed. Lockdowns were ineffective at reducing covid deaths; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... found that "Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.".
Moreover Stats Canada found that in 2020 lockdowns led to more excess deaths in under 65s than covid, largely due to increased substance abuse: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210712/dq210.... "Based on the newly updated provisional dataset released today from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, from the end of March 2020 to the beginning of April 2021, an estimated 62,203 deaths were reported among Canadians aged 0 to 64. This represents 5,535 more deaths than expected were there no pandemic, after accounting for changes in the population such as aging. Over the same period, 1,380 COVID-19 deaths have been attributed to the same age group (those younger than 65), suggesting that the excess mortality is, in large part, related to other factors such as increases in the number deaths attributed to causes associated with substance use and misuse, including unintentional (accidental) poisonings and diseases and conditions related to alcohol consumption."
Similarly, England saw 4635 non-covid excess deaths since July 2nd (compared to 4981 covid deaths): https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi....
Moreover Stats Canada found that in 2020 lockdowns led to more excess deaths in under 65s than covid, largely due to increased substance abuse: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210712/dq210.... "Based on the newly updated provisional dataset released today from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, from the end of March 2020 to the beginning of April 2021, an estimated 62,203 deaths were reported among Canadians aged 0 to 64. This represents 5,535 more deaths than expected were there no pandemic, after accounting for changes in the population such as aging. Over the same period, 1,380 COVID-19 deaths have been attributed to the same age group (those younger than 65), suggesting that the excess mortality is, in large part, related to other factors such as increases in the number deaths attributed to causes associated with substance use and misuse, including unintentional (accidental) poisonings and diseases and conditions related to alcohol consumption."
Similarly, England saw 4635 non-covid excess deaths since July 2nd (compared to 4981 covid deaths): https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dyi....
> If there was no lockdown, this opportunity would not have occurred. There was a clear conflict of interest.
Your cited example is from before the WHO even declared a pandemic, and 1 day after the first case of community spread was reported in the US.
> Life continued as normal in Sweden, Russia, Belarus... If there is surge of deaths in nursing homes (typically 50% of COVID deaths), it has no impact on the rest of the economy.
Sweden GDP: -8.6% Q2 2020. Russia: -9.6 Q2 2020. Those are massive shifts to say "no impact".
Lastly: lockdowns have mostly exempted industrial production like Intel and only required operational changes.
Your cited example is from before the WHO even declared a pandemic, and 1 day after the first case of community spread was reported in the US.
> Life continued as normal in Sweden, Russia, Belarus... If there is surge of deaths in nursing homes (typically 50% of COVID deaths), it has no impact on the rest of the economy.
Sweden GDP: -8.6% Q2 2020. Russia: -9.6 Q2 2020. Those are massive shifts to say "no impact".
Lastly: lockdowns have mostly exempted industrial production like Intel and only required operational changes.
[deleted]
Why is blatant misinformation and conspiracy theory allowed on HN?
HN used to attract people who value personal freedom and freedom of speech. Seems like not anymore, like other online societies it fell victim to 'curb liberties for greater good' philosophy. Unfortunately for them, almost every single authoritarian or even totalitarian system uses the same excuse.
> HN used to attract people who value personal freedom and freedom of speech
It also used to attract far fewer idiots. Unfortunately, those days are long past. Now that HN actually has some (small) measureable influence in the industry we get brigading sock puppets, politically motivated nuts, and the dumpster-fire that is "weekend HN". Just consider the fact that a discussion that should be around the current nature of the supply chain and sourcing components is primarily composed of people arguing over lockdown.
It also used to attract far fewer idiots. Unfortunately, those days are long past. Now that HN actually has some (small) measureable influence in the industry we get brigading sock puppets, politically motivated nuts, and the dumpster-fire that is "weekend HN". Just consider the fact that a discussion that should be around the current nature of the supply chain and sourcing components is primarily composed of people arguing over lockdown.
Really? Been here long? Because HN has been a shit show the entire time. Like the valley itself, HN has always been a political battleground between the ancaps and the demsocs.
Informed people care about freedoms as much as you do. But all the conspiracy theory junk about ivermectin, lizard people, and microchipping in the vaccine is the modern day equivalent of yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater.
Blaming lockdowns isn’t the full story. Demand for electronics is way, way up. Everything from people being bored at home to extra stimulus dollars has put extra demand on everything electronic.
The effect is amplified as companies are panic-buying every part they might possibly need for the next few years.
The effect is amplified as companies are panic-buying every part they might possibly need for the next few years.
> Demand for electronics is way, way up. Everything from people being bored at home to extra stimulus dollars has put extra demand on everything electronic.
Yep this is a really good point, and not so widely understood. A compounding effect of increased demand and extremely limited supply...
Yep this is a really good point, and not so widely understood. A compounding effect of increased demand and extremely limited supply...
Demand for electronics being up is directly correlated to lockdowns. PCs had been a declining sector for years before covid lockdowns.
Demand for GPUs at least is probably just as much if not more due to the crypto bull run that took place.
Demand for cars is way up, too, which isn’t expected in lockdown conditions.
Really? With governments saying avoid public transport and encouraging people to work remotely which caused a huge number of people to move to the countryside where public transport is largely non existent therefore requiring cars.
Plus, with airplanes and international travel being off limits, the number of people going on road trips for their vacations has no doubt greatly increased.
Sure it is, you couldn’t (or still can’t) safely carpool or take public transit so you need a personal vehicle. Simultaneously people are ordering record amounts of food delivery causing a surge in car based employment greater than was seen with Uber and Lyft of yore.
> The effect is amplified as companies are panic-buying every part they might possibly need for the next few years.
I wonder how much commodities speculation are screwing up the availability...
I wonder how much commodities speculation are screwing up the availability...
We were running an over-optimized system on fumes. Such is the nature of long periods of high stability with no oversight governance enforcing robustness. Any disruption would have had self amplifying and propagating consequences.
The energy situation in Europe and Asia is already ugly. The Indians only have about 4 days of coal at their powerplants, China has already had blackouts, and in Europe the price of natural gas is the equivalent of oil at $200 a barrel.
People would have locked themselves down. My work group bailed a week before the lockdowns began. Of course some people would have locked down by dying. It was really a choice of an organized lockdown or a disorganized one.
Manufacturers were anticipating lower demand due to COVID effects, not lockdowns per se.
It is not like life would have continued uninterrupted without lockdowns.
It is not like life would have continued uninterrupted without lockdowns.
This. And then when people started buy more cars instead of less, the automotive industry squeezed out all silicon for themselves with their contracts and power. Here we are from other industries without a single chip, while the car manufacturers probably are sitting on 2 years of supplies now.
Every economic forecast I read in April 2020 assumed things would be open by q3/q4 last year.
Sounds like that forecast was wrong then. Also, you should've been looking at the forecasts from epidemiologists, not economists. Viruses don't care about what economists want.
Unfortunately - and as we can continue to see - there is nothing stopping scientists from being political mouth pieces. "Trust the science" comes with a huge asterisk: only the science of the approved scientific speaker by the approved political party and only of the approved narrative.
The scientists that spoke out against this were quickly shunned, the wagons circled, and when evidence became to crushing to hold the narrative, history was simply re-written via gaslighting.
With economists at least we know they will regularly be wrong and that you will openly see differing schools of thought on even the most foundational of issues.
The scientists that spoke out against this were quickly shunned, the wagons circled, and when evidence became to crushing to hold the narrative, history was simply re-written via gaslighting.
With economists at least we know they will regularly be wrong and that you will openly see differing schools of thought on even the most foundational of issues.
Which was pretty stupid given that public health professionals (and indeed people here on HN) were forecasting the pandemic lasting a minimum of 18 months from around that time when it became clear that it wasn't going to be contained to China.
They were using the model forecasts from the health community. We all knew it would become endemic but it was hard to forecast lockdowns would continue for so long.
I disagree, the system has been unstable for years, this was just the first Black Swan that happened to land and sent it crashing to the ground. This was always going to happen. Taleb et al have been warning about the fragility of our systems for decades now and that JIT and long supply chains have made things even worse.
You're taking the wrong lesson from lockdowns.
You're taking the wrong lesson from lockdowns.
It may well be that this was the pandemic we needed - really bad, but not so bad as to be catastrophic. When the next pandemic comes along, we'll be a lot better at fast vaccine production and lab testing, more prepared for how to lock down early and effectively, and understand better how to keep an economy running in lockdown. And the supply chain, when it eventually recovers and has time to breath again, will realize the value of building in more slack, shorter supply chains, etc. In the end though, while a lot could have been done much better, society generally has survived this disruption surprisingly well so far. Will it survive a worse future pandemic or larger disruption? I guess that depends on how well the lessons from this one are learned.
Lockdowns are not the whole story, just a major contributing factor. Other factors:
- China energy shortages forcing rolling blackouts.
- Long standing under investment in older chip fab manufacturing (eg. auto industry).
- Long standing under investment in US port infrastructure, causing unprecedented shipping backlogs.
- Copper foil shortage due to over reliance on Chinese sources.
- Covid negative impact on childcare, both informal and formal, requiring formerly working parents to now opt for unemployment or lower incomes.
- China energy shortages forcing rolling blackouts.
- Long standing under investment in older chip fab manufacturing (eg. auto industry).
- Long standing under investment in US port infrastructure, causing unprecedented shipping backlogs.
- Copper foil shortage due to over reliance on Chinese sources.
- Covid negative impact on childcare, both informal and formal, requiring formerly working parents to now opt for unemployment or lower incomes.
From the beginning it was known this would push 130 million people nearly to starvation
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/africa/coronavirus-famine...
What was the old lead time? I guess it was less than a year but the article doesn’t mention it.
Parts have been going from no lead time to simply not available. The large lead times are probably a guess, as many parts are going on hard allocation and you have no idea who is going to squeeze in before you. Some IC manufacturers are saying things like "consider other parts for your design" due to these circumstances.
[deleted]
I bought one last year. They had hundreds in stock of several models. It shipped in a day or two.
Smart business people will take this as a lesson about the dangers of zero-inventory manufacturing. Unscrupulous business people will continue running the business at high risk, knowing that they will probably be gone by the time a problem arises. Very smart leaders will use this as an opportunity to think about how to stop their companies from forgetting someone's involvement with a project or process during internal transfers or promotions; the leading route through which unscrupulous business people escape responsibility from secret risk.
This is also driven by investor expectations. Not "business people".
A lot of this goes on inside departments where investors don't have any substantial insight.
They do once a company gets additional funding and or when a company is bought. Investors tend to sit on the boards and yield significant power. You're not wrong, but I don't agree :)
I could be wrong but I don't imagine most of the manufacturing economy as being operated by companies that have due diligence done on them very often. Acquisitions happen but once a decade would be considered very often. Depending on the size of the company boards are often completely clueless about ground level details; I can hardly imagine someone on the board of P&G knowing a single thing about the supply chain risk of an individual SKU.
> Smart business people will take this as a lesson about the dangers of zero-inventory manufacturing
I disagree. Something entirely different is going on. Before the pandemic, onshoring of basic components started picking up (Trump's erratic behavior made planning really challenging) but the pandemic kicked it into overdrive (and Biden's policy plans will only increase it).
I know people that are "Tier 3" manufactures - suppliers to the suppliers of the suppliers. They have more business than they can handle and are no longer willing to take on risk from sh*tty customers.
JiT/0-inventory doesn't truly exist - somewhere you have to build enough stock to ensure smooth delivery during line changeovers, shift changes, machine repairs, and all the other completely normal minor "disruptions". It's invisible at the high levels of manufacturing because it's not on your loading dock.
Smart business people will realize that supplier relationships are more important than ever. You have to screw them over less than the other guys or things get really choppy really fast.
I disagree. Something entirely different is going on. Before the pandemic, onshoring of basic components started picking up (Trump's erratic behavior made planning really challenging) but the pandemic kicked it into overdrive (and Biden's policy plans will only increase it).
I know people that are "Tier 3" manufactures - suppliers to the suppliers of the suppliers. They have more business than they can handle and are no longer willing to take on risk from sh*tty customers.
JiT/0-inventory doesn't truly exist - somewhere you have to build enough stock to ensure smooth delivery during line changeovers, shift changes, machine repairs, and all the other completely normal minor "disruptions". It's invisible at the high levels of manufacturing because it's not on your loading dock.
Smart business people will realize that supplier relationships are more important than ever. You have to screw them over less than the other guys or things get really choppy really fast.
> Unscrupulous business people will continue running the business at high risk, knowing that they will probably be gone by the time a problem arises.
Or they can just price gouge. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Or they can just price gouge. Heads I win, tails you lose.
“Price gouging” is precisely the behavior that makes it economical to keep around extra stock in case of supply shocks. Negative public reaction to, and laws against, “price gouging” is the reason almost no business chooses to absorb the cost of keeping around an extra reserve.
> “Price gouging” is precisely the behavior that makes it economical to keep around extra stock in case of supply shocks.
That idea doesn't hold a drop of water. If price gouging were legal, are you going to stockpile masks and sanitizer for a hundred years, so you're ready for the next gobal pandemic? Of course not: it's a dumb idea and you'd bankrupt yourself in storage fees and spoilage. Even an actual distributor wouldn't do that, given how short business time horizons are.
What a smart price gouger would actually do is 1) make what they would have made otherwise, except collect higher profits, or 2) watch the news closely and rush out to try to buy up as much as they can before the general public acts, then sit outside the store they bought them from and scalp the goods at an exorbitant markup. Then they can satisfy their greed without wasting money on long term storage fees.
That idea doesn't hold a drop of water. If price gouging were legal, are you going to stockpile masks and sanitizer for a hundred years, so you're ready for the next gobal pandemic? Of course not: it's a dumb idea and you'd bankrupt yourself in storage fees and spoilage. Even an actual distributor wouldn't do that, given how short business time horizons are.
What a smart price gouger would actually do is 1) make what they would have made otherwise, except collect higher profits, or 2) watch the news closely and rush out to try to buy up as much as they can before the general public acts, then sit outside the store they bought them from and scalp the goods at an exorbitant markup. Then they can satisfy their greed without wasting money on long term storage fees.
> If price gouging were legal, are you going to stockpile masks and sanitizer for a hundred years, so you're ready for the next gobal pandemic?
You’re not understanding the play here. All you need to do slightly increase the amount you keep in stock and reduce JIT delivery dependence. This increases your capital expenses a few percent and only pays off if you can occasionally make big money by drawing on your extra stock.
You also seem to misunderstand the law - it’s not illegal anywhere in the US (afaik) for random people to stockpile and resell goods. It doesn’t matter, because that’s not really a viable distribution strategy. It is illegal in many states for stores to suddenly raise prices, and stores are the institutions who would actually be equipped to absorb demand shocks.
You’re not understanding the play here. All you need to do slightly increase the amount you keep in stock and reduce JIT delivery dependence. This increases your capital expenses a few percent and only pays off if you can occasionally make big money by drawing on your extra stock.
You also seem to misunderstand the law - it’s not illegal anywhere in the US (afaik) for random people to stockpile and resell goods. It doesn’t matter, because that’s not really a viable distribution strategy. It is illegal in many states for stores to suddenly raise prices, and stores are the institutions who would actually be equipped to absorb demand shocks.
how much of this is due to the monopolization of manufacturing to a the few most efficient players? concentrated efficiency and concentrated risk?
somewhat related, but can anyone tell me why PCEngines specifically use Intel nics in their ALIX systems? surely realtek and other players have caught up to them by now for the performance envelope of the board.
Afaik, the Intel Network cards are more like dedicated CPUs, that can run various "programs", one of which is "standard, fully-transparent network card".
If signed with the right key, some can run entire stacks, such as iSCSI, FCoE and others. The Multiport ones can do switching, filtering, and some basic routing in hardware. The "other" operating system is totally unencumbered by this.
This is routinely used by e.g. Intel AMT/ME, which programs the network card to reroute some destination ports to (in this case internal) recipients (the ME-processor).
That feature is what makes out-of-band management possible for people having added the right keys to ME, or knowing one of the preinstalled ones.
And as a HW-Vendor you never know; maybe your client might one day want to use these "offloading" features. Maybe he just doesn't know it yet...
So when the good offer from Intel comes in, you go for it.
If signed with the right key, some can run entire stacks, such as iSCSI, FCoE and others. The Multiport ones can do switching, filtering, and some basic routing in hardware. The "other" operating system is totally unencumbered by this.
This is routinely used by e.g. Intel AMT/ME, which programs the network card to reroute some destination ports to (in this case internal) recipients (the ME-processor).
That feature is what makes out-of-band management possible for people having added the right keys to ME, or knowing one of the preinstalled ones.
And as a HW-Vendor you never know; maybe your client might one day want to use these "offloading" features. Maybe he just doesn't know it yet...
So when the good offer from Intel comes in, you go for it.
Try using a realtek NIC on a BSD system and see how many days before your networking softlocks.
Also some distros just don't include the drivers. I had to build the realtek 2.5gbe drivers from source, on an unnetworked system, last month! Latest ubuntu distro.
Also some distros just don't include the drivers. I had to build the realtek 2.5gbe drivers from source, on an unnetworked system, last month! Latest ubuntu distro.
Driver support and stability.