From what I was able to gather, the onus is on the SBF for misappropriating FTX customers' funds. On the Alameda side it does not seem like a typical scam in the sense of "get money and run with it". "Just" a desperation out of illiquidity due to a credit crunch. Keep in mind that SBF was a 90% owner in Alameda anyway.
I am however positive she should have stayed out of crypto. Everybody in this space becomes at least morally gray at some critical point, even if they started well-intentioned.
But regardless of CE's intentions, you're posing a philosophical question: should we evaluate worldviews for what they are, or by who is possessing them. I lean towards the first one.
Internships? Yeah, nah. TSMC doesn't hand out technology NDAs to interns, which makes them kinda useless.
All in all, the IC design field is a decade or two behind software dev in terms of ergonomics. They're not going to attract a lot of talent, if the tooling remains as kludgy and unreliable as it is. What if GCC or Clang crashed on you once in a while "just because"? That's the reality of IC design flow.
On the flip side, the world at large has just realized the importance of chips, which makes the outlook mildly positive.
Yes, BUT... Each new technology node (excluding shrinks) already disrupts the flow in many breaking ways. Seemingly small changes, new DRC requirements, the need to model more side effects all cooperate to make porting to a new node all but easy.
Rest assured that one of the companies you mentioned has deployed a catalog of reusable software components not long ago. It's already quite populated. But the funny thing is, you need VP approval to submit your modules.
I agree that EDA companies are unnecessarily siloed and dated in many places.
Weren't it for the moat of hundreds of PhD's working on the algorithms, it'd have been disrupted to hell by startups.
Sadly, the "cocktail party test" part is so true. How am I supposed to be proud of my work between that and "this one asshole customer" from Japan? (Tier 1's from USA are demanding, but reasonable).
We are woefully underappreciated industry. While we're B2B vendors, it's no rent-seeking sales-driven crap. It's actual innovation 1-3 years ahead what's in consumers' hands.
However, I think it is slowly beginning to change - with news about "chip sovereignty" initiatives and AI helping design SoC's going mainstream. People now realize how crucial ICs are when car factories close.
Intel did offer foundry services, at least 3 years ago or so, albeit designing stuff for that node required putting everything in separated environment, and simulating in separate compute farms. Even TSMC which was and is far ahead does not demand this level of paranoia, only documentation is put in secure isolated environment, other stuff being managed in the more reasonable way of unix groups, which are, well, good enough.
I am however positive she should have stayed out of crypto. Everybody in this space becomes at least morally gray at some critical point, even if they started well-intentioned.
But regardless of CE's intentions, you're posing a philosophical question: should we evaluate worldviews for what they are, or by who is possessing them. I lean towards the first one.