frezik

All we need to do to make AES secure is double the size of the key. That's it.

Bluetooth wouldn't save you from that.

There's also a feeling of "knowing" more than other people. You don't know about how Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla invented a time traveling aircraft carrier? Have I got some research that you need to do on your own. But if you did know about it, then it's junk meant to distract you from what's really going on.

None of that "knowledge" derives from any level of credible sources, but it does bring a certain level of superiority over people on Facebook. If it's actually well documented and widely known, then that isn't something where I get to feel better than other people.

Brave, but foolhardy.

You're way off base to the point where I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

Nvidia would probably cease existing without cheap Taiwanese labour to do all theoretical work for them so those shorts could be free money

Nvidia uses TSMC, and it isn't because of price. It's a very expensive fab because it's the best one in the world. If war blocked it from functioning, Nvidia would switch to some other fab. What they put out would be worse than what they had before, but nobody else would be able to make anything better, either.

But more likely, open war over Taiwan would tank the economy worldwide. Shorting Nvidia would only be a technical victory for yourself.

What if we make a better world on accident?

HVDC solves the "not everybody has a river/sun/wind". The longest one in the world is in Brazil, and goes for 1300 miles. Similar builds in the US would mean wind in Nebraska could power New York City, and solar in Arizona could power Chicago, and hydro anywhere can store power from anywhere.

A little of both. The node that those am4 chips are running on is cheap, so why not?

If we had a fusion reactor developed today that showed net energy gain for the entire facility, it would be 10 years before it could be designed into a practical commercial reactor. So no, that's not going to save us at this point either way.

Being best in one aspect of the laptop market is not going to save Intel. They are losing their grip on the server market. That's where the real money is, and once those customers go AMD, they are likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.

The problem with shorting is that it's not clear when the crash will happen. If it happens next week, yes, you'll make a giant fortune doing that. If it happens in a year, you'll be fucked. Shorting is essentially a loan, and like any other loan, you have to pay in a little something for as long as you're holding it. That can sap away all profit before you ever see it, if not sap away your entire savings.

There's a saying around the stock market: the market can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

That said, I do think this crash is happening sooner rather than later. I'm just not confident enough to put money on it.

Intel has made some major strategic errors and may not be able to bounce back. At least, they won't bounce back with the company looking the same as it did. Their fabs need to be spun off to an independent subsidiary--which is apparently already underway--which will eventually be spun off entirely like AMD did with Global Foundries. The remaining company focuses on engineering. The resulting company won't have the same assets, but could potentially get them back to doing good work.

AMD's chiplet design has proven to be the way to go, and Intel has been struggling to replicate it across their entire lineup. I can get into the details of how genius it is, but suffice it to say that it lets AMD be extremely responsive to changes in the market in ways that were never possible before.

So is Intel undervalued? I don't think so. The market has decided their problems are so negative that it drags down the company below what their direct assets are actually worth, and the market is probably right. However, this is not a death sentence, and there are ways that the company can go on.