Posts by codejunky

Re: @pimppetgaeghsr

@localzuk

"The thing with strategic industries, you need some at home. Because your allies are not always your allies."

The UK cannot provide enough food for its citizens. In such bad times that we are no longer friends with either the US nor EU we are in bigger trouble than some chips

Re: @pimppetgaeghsr

@LogicGate

"See.. fixed it for you."

Not really. You mention the Asia part without noticing the redundancy being put in place by the EU and US planning to produce the same products. And the extra expense being covered by their tax payers while we get competitively priced chips and the extra sources should things go wrong in a part of the world.

Re: @pimppetgaeghsr

@localzuk

"Because they are a strategically important resource, which the Ukraine/Russia war has shown."

Which we sourced from Asia. With the US and EU producing it we can buy the products while their tax payers subsidise production.

@pimppetgaeghsr

"So are we asserting that had the UK remained within the European Union, TSMC would have had a very real possibility of building a sub 100nm chip plant within the UK?"

This is just an excuse for them to moan about brexit. Possibly click bait or just sore loser. I dont see how the UK would benefit when as it says in the article-

Initially planned at €7 billion, the costs are expected to balloon to €10 billion and the consortium expects Germany to cough up a solid chunk of that.

Why would we want to blow a load of money to produce chips at a higher price than elsewhere. Especially when the US and EU will throw money at them for us.

Re: Maybe it is the £££££££

@hoola

"In terms of Brexit, this is just making a noise for no reason. If they had listed in the EU then I would have believed it. They have not, it is the US so is Brexit is a complete red herring."

They gotta blame it somehow

Re: We’re doomed

@AC

"But how rewarding will those jobs be, and what will AI and automation leave untouched?"

I know its often the popular thought that automation will be bad, and I guess that is due to the survival instincts of assuming the worst. But automation means we dont spend our daylight hours all toiling in a field to barely grow enough food to survive. We even have the arts as a career instead of pastime. We have far more free time as chores are automated.

"Many programmers are already cut and paste merchants, how long before “programmer” becomes “telling a chat bot what to code”."

It beats punching cards then crying when the pack falls and you dont know the order. The ability to have greater entertainment and the overall benefits of being able to order products from around the globe without leaving your home.

I can understand the fears but also see the upsides of people being more free to do other things or produce even more of what we want.

Re: Why?

@AC

"Those Africans are the white man's burden, Hmmm? Chan level posting. This poster should be ashamed of themselves."

What a racist post. No wonder you are AC.

Re: Why?

@Headley_Grange

"Which "we" are you talking about? I bet those African farmers aren't driving around in Range Rovers and going on Young Farmers' treasure hunts of a weekend."

Those African farmers aint starving to death which would probably be the outcome if they didnt have rich countries to buy the food. So we is both participants of the trade

Re: Why?

@AC

"Guessing you've never been to Taiwan, Hmm?"

To be honest no. And I am not trying to say anything bad about them. But our countries are worlds apart.

Re: Why?

@localzuk

"Average salary in Taiwan is around the same as the UK. Fairly certain you aren't running high-tech chip fabrication with minimum wage workers."

Ok. So the high tech chip fabrication workers may be on better than minimum wage. What about all of the support staff? Everyone down the chain that supports the work which adds to the costs down the line.

"But so is not having any strategic production capability in our own country."

We dont grow enough food to sustain the country. Yet we are all better off, have more choice, better prices and great availability due to importing from the world. Beats standing in a field all day for strategic capability.

Re: Why?

@localzuk

"Why not? What is it that prevents us from doing this? Taiwan has a third of our population, yet manages to produce the majority of the world's semiconductors. Why can't the UK produce some as well?"

We could. We can drop minimum wage to a much smaller amount, We can ditch environmental restrictions which increase the costs. We could make ourself like Taiwan, is that what you would want?

Re: Makes sense

@AC

"That's a big cop-out on your part."

Why is that a cop out? That is the whole point. This is the very simple fact that destroys the idea of a small group trying to decide what is going to succeed and trying to control the billions of trillions of small day to day transactions that makes up every day life. Misunderstand that and you destroy the economy.

"And no, you've introduced a nonexistent term,"

You seem to have seriously misread the thread. I was quoting a previous AC (guessing it wasnt you?). They introduced the term.

Re: Makes sense

@AC

"What other things? Oooh! Is it crypto?"

I dunno what other things because there are so many different things out there it is impossible for a person or small group to know. That is one of the reasons government command economy doesnt work.

"(And what is "macroelectronics" in this context?)"

Whatever the original poster means it to be. It doesnt affect the discussion.

Re: Makes sense

@AC

""Narrow Focus" - not sure what you mean."

What I mean is the US, Asia and EU are throwing money at fabs and such. They are battling each other in an expensive game of attracting the limited talent to build capital intensive manufacturing which will then battle each other on driving the prices down. A lot of money in to produce something of lower value. Why should the UK compete in what looks to be a losing game when instead the UK can go do other things?

One good argument has been the security of supply, but this is not so much an issue as instead of relying on Asia, we will have the EU and US churning out product too.

The story you wrote is very interesting and could be a series of bad decisions which would lead to the business being out-competed. But why would they be trying to reduce costs so aggressively? Was the business struggling to compete or just bad management? Now imagine either of those two options but the gov hands them free money (from the tax payer, which would be you) to still do the same actions.

When the gov throws money at something it doesnt automagically improve. As a general rule it gets worse. The gov can always steal a few more pennies while investors have to work and earn their money to fund projects. I am sorry to hear about the place you worked though, I have also seen bad management mess previous jobs.

Re: to boost research into chip technologies and workforce education.

@Howard Sway

"Wonder which countries this well educated workforce will move to in order to make use of their knowledge? The ones with the big subsidised chip industries I presume......"

Thats great news then isnt it? Instead of the UK competing to make an expensive welfare system we let the other countries do that and we focus on producing marketable products?

Re: Makes sense

@AC

"Common sense? In what way? Could you expand on what the snippet you quoted means in reality for microelectronics in the UK?"

The world is locked into a competition of pissing money on manufacturing, that being their focus and the money sink. We could join the crowded market and probably be beaten out of it after spending more taxpayers money. Or we dont. What it means for macroelectronics in the UK is we focus on other things instead of the narrow focus others are doing.

Re: How many times?

@Jemma

"Do you not think that bloody Brexit is a mismanagement issue?"

As I said I agree with most of your comment but not necessarily the brexit part. Brexit itself wasnt a mismanagement issue, sucking us as deep as we were into the EU without giving voters a say as promised was mismanagement. The negotiation and attempt to keep us in was mismanagement. But there dont seem many who want to rejoin, a lot of remainers seem to know we wont get back in with all the opt outs and partial participation of the project. Others seem smart enough to see the Euro is a disaster that we really dont want but would be forced on us. And finally others seem to have paid attention to the project and seen leaving was the right thing.

"We are now the Eric Cartman of Europe and when you break the game as badly as Brexit has; you don't get asked to play again. Even if you beg."

I see that as a win. We dont want back into that mess.

Re: How many times?

@AC

"Finally after years of right-wing finger pointing at the EU, Immigrants, Jeremy Corbyn and the BBC they get it. Well done!"

Eh? Just because I attribute the failures to the right source instead of just blaming the gov for everything doesnt mean I dont blame the gov for mismanagement

Re: Joy

@Anonymous Coward

"Clearly your teachers failed to teach oneself where to put an apostrophe. Must be very frustrating going through one's life with such an impediment."

Not frustrating for me but sorry you are afflicted with such a debilitating problem. But I assume you are making a point about the quality of the education system (I actually blame my dyslexia but carry on)

Re: How many times?

@Jemma

Reading your comment and agreeing with most of it I dont see where brexit comes into any of it. I am sorry about your condition and wish you the best, and those issues you mention are true and real, but all of them are UK mismanagement issues.

Re: "...to make up for the inflation which has ravaged their pay packet, according to unions..."

@Steve Button

"And those lockdowns caused a massive drop in productivity / GDP. Which then caused the banks to perform QE. Which then caused the inflation. Some of us said this would happen at the time*"

These are educators (unions). You cant expect them to understand stuff.

@Spamfast

"The UK government (of whichever stripe) talks about the climate but still spends way more of our money on fossil fuel guzzling projects"

Should they follow that councils example and buy electric vehicles then pay for land to store them because they are no use?

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"You can discuss all you like, but my point still stands"

Then takes a step, then falls over. Your theoretical dream which ignores the entirety of reality and what publicly happened puts your point on its ass.

"So now you have a feeling that, as a member, the UK would simply go along with the rest."

So you are a UK supremacist? The UK is better run than the EU and EU members and so wouldnt show solidarity with the EU? Even after pressure is applied? I notice you missed out the whole of reality that if the UK is better run that the EU's actions show it would have stolen vaccines from us if we were a member under the supreme rule of the EU.

"Who said I didn't consider the motives and potential pecuniary benefits for anyone on the remain side?"

You only mentioned a couple of leave politicians as though they were so bad that it would sway your opinion. If you were so balanced over motives you would also be repulsed by remainer politicians.

"You tried to used these additional votes to demonstrate that I'm wrong"

So you took my comment about all the various votes which confirm the support for brexit, pick one you think you can refute, claim I place a great importance on it and then subsequently demonstrate you were wrong.

"On the basis of those numbers and your own criterion of simple numerical majority, you are wrong"

Nope. As my response made clear, you just proved I was right again.

"but this thread of discussion started because I effectively questioned whether a majority of the UK electorate in 2016 really wanted to leave the EU."

It started because you said the greater number is not necessarily the majority (a>b= a is the majority) and tried and failed to abuse the non-voters as if they had voiced their opinion in the vote. Your actual factual mathematical error being this-

No, it isn't necessarily a majority. Correcting for turnout, the result was

Remain: 34.7%

The majority is there in your figures. The rest of this discussion is you trying to use mental gymnastics to support your error and move goalposts.

"That's effectively what I did, and the numbers add up to 48% for the leave parties, 52% for the rest."

Yes. So 52% which is split over the rest of varying options but not a majority.

"Now you've switched back to "majority", but that's in parliamentary seats."

You do understand that how the UK works? You seem confused.

"The Conservatives took about 43.6% of the vote in 2019; adding the votes for Brexit/UKIP plus various Ulster Unionists takes the total to about 48%"

Again you dislike the result so wish to mental gymnastics to a new result. You want to tell me that black is white because with enough changes you can make black into white. Just because you can perform all kinds of changes to the result to get a completely different result does not change that black is black not white.

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"Perhaps you'd care to explain: what was it about membership of the EU that would have prevented the UK from doing what it did in 2020? But my point still stands: the claim was debunked; nothing was done by the UK that could not have been done while the UK was an EU member state."

This is a discussion I have had many times. Feel free to go through my post history if you wish but at no point has it ever been debunked. Unless you believe the UK is better run that every member of the EU and the EU gov then there is no conceivable belief that the UK would do the absolute opposite of every member. Even Germany abandoned their ready made plan to show solidarity. Then assuming you are right that the UK is better run the EU and all its members, with how the EU acted in panic and desperation raiding manufacturing plants, stealing vaccine and trying to make a hard border in Ireland to stop the UK getting its contracted orders why do you think the EU would behave any better if we were a member?

"I consider the professional lives (outside of politics but undoubtedly entangled) of the persons I mentioned to be substantial and pertinent."

But not those of the remain side? You cannot complain about the persons on one side without considering those on the other side. So XFactor voting on the people isnt a good way for policy decisions.

"OK, perhaps you'd like to consider what you said more carefully about that most recent ballot in 2019 —one that you appear to value greatly to backup the 2016 referendum"

Why do you say I value greatly? I point out that leave has won the referendum, GE's and MEP election. Its you who still wont accept reality.

"Go away and add-up the votes for the parties that committed to leave versus those that committed to remain and/or offer a second referendum. You might be unpleasantly surprised."

Erm, so you need to add together parties committed to remain AND those who wanted a second referendum? Why not just say you compare leave vs 'everyone else'? And yet the leave party had the majority and made the government.

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"I suspect that many of the "whining nationalists" (as you call them) would be happy to pay their share of the national debt while leaving — so long as they get their share of past oil revenues."

Ahh, so they would want to be bribed off with past revenue but have been running a deficit pretty much their existence. Didnt Scotland join England when it racked up huge debts England paid for? I expect the rosy picture of the UK owing Scotland is on shaky ground.

"But I think we agree that it's possible for the regions of the UK to do better as part of a bigger union."

Scotland being better off as part of the UK yes. This is one of the amusing delusions of Scotland joining the EU, the EU would be taking on another liability with the only benefit being to irritate the UK yet cause political problems internally. And considering the Scots like to complain so much about being run from a distant government they are over represented in they would probably cry quickly about the EU.

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"I merely referred to a mathematical inequality in the set of Natural numbers whereas you are talking about a belief based on that inequality."

Justify how you wish the comments are there to be read.

"You can beat down random errors with more measurements, but the systematics remain"

So how would we meet your criteria of asking if people wanted to be in or out of the EU? The system we used in a democracy is asking the electorate.

"Furthermore, the additional ballots that you talk about weren't confined exclusively to the narrow question of EU membership, and so other confounding effects (such as Corbyn's leadership to name but one) were added."

So our membership of the EU wasnt so important on peoples minds? Not only did people willingly vote a majority to leave in a directly asked referendum, but then we has the MEP elections of participation in the EU system where people overwhelmingly supported leave while rejecting the directly opposing remain party. Then in the General Elections the parties (not just the Corbyn repulsion effect) offering remain were rejected and the party offering brexit supported strongly.

"The claim about Covid vaccines —that they were available more quickly in the UK because it was no longer an EU member state— was debunked long ago."

Erm, no it hasnt. In fact even the priests of the EU publicly stated the shame that brexit britain was better organised than the EU. The only ones who believe it debunked are delusional fools who have never managed to explain how.

"This is one of those systematic factors I’ve been talking about; you admit it’s there and neither of us can quantify its effect on the outcome. This illustrates why a narrow numerical inequality cannot be relied upon to infer what a majority of people actually wanted in respect of EU membership. You seem to have arrived at an understanding of one of the fundamental flaws in the referendum."

The referendum, General elections and MEP elections. Aka if we should ignore the people then we should just brexit or we listen to the people and we brexit. The flaw of not letting the people a choice was to cause great support for a referendum and back the governments into a corner.

"I made no such explicit statement about “personalities”; I referred to persons not personalities. I considered only their attributes that were pertinent to a decision about EU membership, not the "style" of those persons — whatever you mean by that."

I am not sure why the persons would matter if not for their personalities in public, what attributes do you mean? I am sure you dont mean height, age, etc? Maybe their views and methods? Aka personality?

And again if its the person not the argument that pushes you over then you are basing it on image instead of the substance of the argument, and you ignored the distasteful people supporting remain. As I said there are people on both sides we can dislike, that is why its the policy action that matters and that is all I based my views on, not the people.

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"But you don't want to let them have another independence referendum; even given that the circumstances have changed —somewhat drastically— and they clearly want to be part of the EU."

I dont? Thanks for claiming bull but I can speak for myself thanks. The scot indi referendum was garbage and I disagreed with it. Because it wasnt independence they wanted but for the UK to be on the hook for them to go screw around but demand all the benefits of the UK. As I point out that if they really want to leave they should also give the UK a vote as the whining nationalists would be sent packing with their portion of the debt and none of the benefits of the UK. But the scot indi referendum was all about leaving but with all the benefits of remain (sound familiar?) and on the amusing lie that they could remain in the EU.

I dont think they should be having a neverendum just as I dont want that for brexit.

Re: Would you ignore the referendum?

@DaveLS

"Your response illustrates my point: you argue that a single numerical inequality provides some kind of absolute truth as a basis for a major long-term policy"

Not at all. I just made the point that you were absolutely wrong by the absolute standard that maths does not care about your opinion. You claimed "No, it isn't necessarily a majority." which is factually incorrect and you just admitted you were factually incorrect as there was a larger number which was the majority. Thats the end of the factual discussion regardless of your opinions. You keep then moving the goal posts complaining about policy based on that one vote but that is a different discussion. Your incorrect statement was incorrect factually. No matter how you wish otherwise.

Now for the sting- we didnt leave based on 1 referendum. We also subsequently had general elections and an MEP election where leave won consistently. Even against parties offering to abandon the referendum result completely and instantly the electorate supported leave.

"In any field of measurement we frequently find different numerical values for different measurements of the same thing, due to random and systematic factors."

Aka something other than the blatant and factually mistaken comment you made that I responded to. Thats all it was that spurred this entire conversation. And I am willing to discuss this too if you like. If we should have multiple measurements for such a major policy decision such as our membership of a foreign project then leaving corrects for that lack of measuring from the common market referendum (not even a choice concerning our EU membership). While leave took a number of votes due to anti-democratic groups trying to subvert brexit. So we meet your measurement criteria?

"there is considerable disagreement over the meaning of the question and the consequences of the answer, particularly for leaving"

Or even remain. And the lack of apocalypse after the FUD about brexit and immediate benefit (such as vaccine supply) is important to consider.

"Prominent leave campaigners argued that we would remain part of the single market; there were repeated claims that we would have most or all of the benefits of membership at a greatly reduced cost and with the benefit of some poorly-defined “freedoms”."

Vs the end of western civilisation if we vote leave? Etc.

"As if this isn’t enough, I’ve already pointed-out that some people probably answered a different question about whether they supported David Cameron’s austerity government"

So you say idiots answered a different question than the one posed? Unfortunately not much we can do about that when asking opinions.

"but from a poorly-articulated remain campaign I recall little more than shroud waving"

Funny you say that. I assumed the official leave campaign was chosen by the remain government as a trojan horse, until I saw the quality of the remain campaign and both were embarrassing.

"You can argue that this is the same as any election (and those are bad enough), but this was not just any election: it is a long term change in our relationship with our nearest neighbours and most significant suppliers and trading partners that has consequences for generations."

And yet how was joining the EU considered? Without the population and without a choice. Good job we had a referendum and subsequent elections focussing on this issue so people could be sure? And every time remainers demanded the electorate be asked again or flat out ignored!

"Given that we had a referendum, I made my decision not, as you suggest, “Xfactor”-style, but on listening to the arguments and examining the motives"

Sorry its just you explicitly stated in your comment- "I gave careful consideration to voting leave in 2016, but the existence of people like Farage, Rees-Mogg and many others backing them helped me to decide to vote remain". You explicitly stated that the personalities supporting a view helped sway your vote, which sounds XFactor style over substance decision making. Sorry if I misunderstood you but it sounded clear.

"Every encounter I've had with a leave supporter since then has only reinforced my view that only a very vocal few of them stood to gain, while the rest merely believed them."

Good for you in your small circle. I thought we were talking about an issue affecting the UK.

Re: No Way!!!

@AC

"That's a tautology."

He theoretically read the article and claimed it didnt say what it said. He read my comment and still managed to miss what was said. I considered writing it a few other ways too just so there was hope of him reading and understanding it.

Re: No Way!!!

@Jonathon Green

"A report commissioned, paid for, published by, and with its terms of reference set by a company who’s principal business is on-site power generation reaching conclusions suggesting that on-site power generation might be a handy thing to have…"

Probably helped by the winter we just went through that was luckily mild and yet countries just got through while turning to coal again.

Re: No Way!!!

@Charlie Clark

"The broken record is back!"

I am so glad someone else corrected you. Instead of your knee jerk Pavlovian response why dont you read first.

"the UK had some of the most expensive energy partly due to the lack of such infrastructure."

You mean this bit I quote from my comment you are responding to- "How can Europe be having supply issues after blowing huge amounts on power generating infrastructure?"