• BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That would be a HUGE Conflict of Interest if he was also a Government Official overseeing things like Regulation and Contracts! Intel would be his THIRD or FOURTH or FIFTH company that would rely on Government Funding!

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Imagine being a business willing to risk everything getting involved with this lunatic lol

    If businesses nowadays were people we’d have interventions for them or lock them up for their own sake.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    20 hours ago

    If Leon buys Intel, then I will switch permanently to AMD or the loser is playing with the market.

    • cm0002@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      switch permanently to AMD

      So glad I switched to AM5 on my last main gaming rig rebuild last year lol

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That’s a ally reason to pick a piece of tech IMO. I buy exclusively AMD because they offer great value, especially since they support their sockets for a long time. For their GPUs, they have fantastic drivers on Linux.

      I honestly don’t care who owns them, I care that the quality is good for the price. I don’t find that to be true for Tesla, so I don’t own one. If he buys Intel, that won’t change my opinion of their products, I’ll still avoid them because he value isn’t there.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    20 hours ago

    So he’ll pay again twice the amount of money, then run the company off a bigger cliff than it’s currently falling off already?

    I’ll heat up the popcorn

  • dfi@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 day ago

    This rumor sounds like a crypto pump and dump.

    Please buy Intel stock so we can sell ours!!

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      If Intel didn’t have yield issues for over a decade, wouldn’t they be much further ahead than AMD by now?

      Kinda weird how their production problems conveniently coincide with what will keep them “neck n’ neck” with the competition for as long as possible.

      • dai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Intel made some massive mistakes with their post 14nm nodes, they overextended and fell on their own sword.

        Admittedly what Intel were aiming for with their “10nm” node had higher density than tsmc’s “7nm” (from memory), considering the timeframe that would have been another massive leap for Intel; and if they had pulled it off AMD would be struggling like the bulldozer days.

        22nm to 14nm Intel were on fire, almost seemed untouchable for quite some time. X99 was (in my eyes) the biggest leap in the right direction and probably their best consumer platform ever released. Huge cache, moar cores, pcie lanes for days and a refresh on their latest node (6950x).

    • Nighed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I thought the cross licensing deal between AMD and Intel basically collapses if one gets bought out?

      So intel wouldn’t be able to make 64 bit processors any more?

  • EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    273
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    No responsible board should sell as much as a paper clip to this sociopathic weenis piss baby.

    • breakingcups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Now give me an example of a corporate board at Intel’s scale being responsible when given the choice between being responsible or buttloads of short-term profits.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      What? It worked out for Twitter shareholders though.

      What bothers me about all these political posts is when people act surprised when profit seeking people act purely in their self interest.

      I agree it’s bad, but it’s weird to be constantly mad about things so obvious like parasites acting parasitically.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Responsible to who?
      Of course they will sell if there’s a profit to be made. Companies exist to make profits, if they can make a profit from it, it’s actually their responsibility to the shareholders to do it.

      Maybe you mean responsible in some way that has to do with morals, but if you think morals apart from staying within the law, have any say in this whatsoever, you are being very naive. That’s not at all how the system works.

      That said I don’t see any other way than corruption for Musk to be interested. Musk buys Intel, and Trump doubles the subsidies to Intel and give them extra sweet government contracts. And everybody profit, except the stupid taxpayers including those that voted Trump.

      Only the law helps super capitalist narcissists to stay at least somewhat within moral norms.
      And in USA the law doesn’t even count anymore. So there you go, everything is fucked up, until Americans figure it out. Which means it will be fucked up for a loooong time.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah.

        And there’s a very good chance that Elon spends his waning years in and out of every court, trying to stay out of jail.

        Source: Rockefeller’s biography.

        And that’s actually the optimistic version, from Elon’s perspective. There’s been plenty of rich assholes in history that didn’t have to worry about the courts.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not doing to happen in this political climate. The robber barons has nothing in the tech companies.

        • TheFogan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean really depends whether or not he manages to continue to succesfully own the US government. He made basically statements along the lines of if trump loses the election he could go to jail. I assume he’s betting on either the trump administration killing democracy… or being able to buy the next election too. Or perhaps just often enough that the supreme court never gets fixed.

          • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yeah. Rockefeller pretty much owned the government in his heyday, too.

            And then at some point he didn’t anymore. Money can buy power, but it does run out eventually.

            Rockefeller was a lot smarter than Musk, and got a bit ahead of it with publicity stunt donations, before his influence ran out.

            Musk thinks he can achieve a better outcome by controlling the media or the courts.

            I think it’s objectively true that controlling the media does work, but I also think Musk wildly overestimates his own competence, and is in for a worse time than Rockefeller had.

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      He hasn’t bought it yet, maybe everyone else will stay buying Intel stocks after this news and it’ll get too expensive for him.

    • sepi@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      x86 is already dead yo

      edit: downvoters don’t understand they are using amd64 and not x86 lol wtf

      edit 2: downvoters of this comment are computer-illiterate

      • ralakus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        x86 is the architecture, amd64 is an extention on that architecture so it’s still x86 just with an instruction set extension that allows for native 64 bit computing.

        x86 was designed to be nearly fully backwards compatible back to the i386 or even the 8086 so whatever code that could run on those CPUs would work on modern “amd64” CPUs.

        Pretty much x86 is a snowball rolling down a hill. It keeps picking up new things and growing as time goes on but the core of it will always be the same.

        • DSTGU@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          To me x86 is currently in similar position to internal combustion engine cars. We are already almost certain some of the alternatives available right now are better.

          The reason ICE/x86 seem better is that they have the benefit of being greatly optimised due to years of market dominance pulling billions if not trillions of dollars into research. Some company has to sacrifice a lot of money to get the ball rolling on new tech as it is very difficult for an emerging technology to break old tech dominance. However considering Apple seems to be pulling similar numbers on a way less developed architecture I d say we might be close.

          • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t know enough about the subjects to go into details, but I know enough to say that that is reductive. ARM/alternatives are not inherently better, at least not universally. And, especially because of the inertia, I do not expect x86 to be fully replaced on the desktop any time soon. The motivations behind companies such as Apple using ARM likely have more to do with licensing than anything else

            It’s probably more useful to think of x86 and ARM as slightly different tools that are slightly better suited to different tasks. Desktop, server (and possibly high-performance) computing are x86’s specialty, and I do not expect it to be replaced

            All-in-all, from what I know, the practical differences between ARM and x86 are nowhere near large enough to be compared to something like the electric vs internal combustion engine. It’s probably closer to a difference of, say, a typical train and a subway

            But, please read up on this yourself. I am not an expert in hardware, this is just what i casually picked up as a layperson

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              Here is the way I understand it:

              Microsoft got to be as big as it is because they were the ones sitting at the table when IBM made the biggest whoopsie in all of business. They negotiated a non-exclusive license to MS-DOS for the Intel Reference Design PC they were slapping together. The only thing that was proprietary to IBM about the 5150 PC was the BIOS. Well other companies like Compaq engineered a non-infringing BIOS and were able to bring a 100% compatible competitor to the market. That, plus Intel being required to license the x86 architecture to AMD so that there could be second party suppliers if when Intel shit the bucket, made the PC a mostly open platform. Many companies made or make PCs, lots of companies publish software for Windows (or DOS before it).

              I will continue to call even modern PCs “x86”, mostly to hurt sepi’s feelings at this point.

              Apple, meanwhile, maintains a death grip on their vertically integrated empire. Only they sell the hardware, only they distribute the operating system, they either make the software in-house or vendors must work closely with them to publish software on their stores.

              Then you’ve got Linux, who showed up and used whatever hardware was available.

              Windows on x86 PCs is a closed source, open ecosystem. You can cobble the hardware together from a number of vendors, and software is usually distributed as closed source pre-compiled binaries–compiled for x86 or later, sometimes with in-line handwritten assembly. An anti-competitive streak plus the complacency that comes with being a big successful business has made Microsoft unable to realistically make a platform switch. They used the difficulty of decompiling compiled binaries as a method of copy protection for too long, and now important people NEED very old software to work on new hardware and all the loose standards are so ugly that no it’s really not plausible to make Windows for ARM without breaking a lot of legacy applications. Just in gaming. Think of how many games are out there that the publishers are either defunct or just moved on from their old games. The source code is gone or they were made in an old version of Unity that requires features that don’t work anymore so even if you have the old project files it’s difficult if not impossible to work on anymore, so how many games would Microsoft orphan if they said “Oops all ARM now?” And then it’s not just gaming, it’s all the MRI machines and city transit systems and airport systems and banks and credit cards that were built for some old version of Windows and are still in use as they were…they just…can’t abandon the x86 architecture.

              Apple is a closed source closed ecosystem. It has such a firm grip on both the hardware itself and the APIs that third party software developers may use that they can accomplish “We’re switching from Motorola PowerPC to Intel x86 now” or “We’re switching from Intel x86 to AppleSilicon ARM now.” They can make the same toolchains output to different architectures or write working translation layers like Rosetta to get those transitions made relatively seamlessly for end users. It does mean you’re locked into one hardware vendor and pretty much one software source.

              Linux is an open source, open ecosystem. The second a new architecture is added to GCC, Linux will be compiled for it. Debian Linux for RISC-V was available before there was silicon to run it on. Because most software for Linux is open source, anyone who wants to can compile it for different architectures. Most of Desktop End User Linux is de facto on x86 PCs designed for Windows is because that’s the hardware that’s widely commercially available. There is the problem that things like Wine and Proton don’t bridge the gap between architectures so people playing Windows games on Linux will have the same issue that Windows does on ARM hardware, but the open source ecosystem itself can just slide around.

            • sepi@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              x86 is dead. Has been for years. You’ve been using amd64. I am not referring to ARM

          • john89@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            This is how capitalism shoots itself in the foot. It’s not actually the best system for progressing as quickly as possible.

        • sepi@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          x86 has been dead for years. y’all are using amd64. Or do y’all not know the difference?

      • 4grams@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        good point. It still makes me smile how that one went down. imagine if we were all on f’ing itanium instead.

        • sepi@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          What are you smoking? x86 has been gone for years. Y’all are using amd64.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            It’s always amusing when someone thinks they know something, then aggressively tells others, only to be wrong.

            amd64, also known as x86_64 is an extension to x86. It’s still x86 in the same way a car is still a car even if you bolt a trailer onto it.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Yep. Citizens’ United guaranteed that by allowing corporations to funnel an unlimited amount of money into campaigns.

        Just a heads up, if spending wasting egregious amounts of money didn’t influence the outcome of elections, why would people do it?