this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
494 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

74551 readers
4238 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Would it be the same as if they did the same with Boeing? If they were circling the drain? Since Boeing literally makes military planes for the US goververment, so that means that they can't fail lest say they got bought by some Chinese or XYZ interest outside of the USA. So then those new owners would have access to highly classified designs and schematics that the military uses.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Shrug. The DoD is notorious for trying to keep competition between its suppliers alive. But I don’t know enough about the airplane business to say they’re in a death spiral or not.

The fab business is a bit unique because of the sheer scaling of planning and capital involved.

I dunno why you brought up China/foreign interests though. Intel’s military fab designs would likely never get sold overseas, and neither would the military arm of Boeing. I wouldn’t really care about that either way…

This is just about keeping one of three leading edge processor fabs on the planet alive, and of course the gov is a bit worried about the other two in Taiwan and South Korea.

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago

No, I didn't say that they were, but more like agreeing with the point that if Boeing was in deep financial problems that the FED could do the same because of the strategic concern to National Security if it were to be available to be sold or merge with others in the open market. No way the FED would allow it and would bail them out and a way to do that would be to purchase a physical stake in the company as a way to infuse operating funds into it.

I was agreeing with OP.

[–] Upgrayedd1776@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

noice, i respect a follow up that is honest about limits of their opinion and their knowledge. Opinion, i do think boeing should be partly absorbed, but i also believe this about certain foods that are on the store shelves for certain periods of time. Sort of like generic but publicly managed to an extent, keep competition open while maintaining security over long established and basics of human need and advancement, this was from a period of time i was not watching the fall of the US to a pedo rapist octogenarian.