“In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO,” Cotton wrote in the letter. “Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”
I don’t know about his investments, but one fact is clear: he was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which has just pleaded guilty to federal charges for exporting technology to China. That alone should make him ineligible to lead a company with major government contracts.
If he resigns (and he will), the board should go with him.
The Board is a disgrace. For all his fault, Gelsinger had Intel at least on a path back, yes, it's going to take a lot of money because the past two decades have been missed opportunities.
And not only did the Board not do their proper due diligence on Tan, but just let him toss Gelsinger's plan out? Shareholders should sue every one of them.
"Should not be" is too harsh, you should have diversity on a board, not only people from that single industry, but maybe you mean "too many". Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies. The type of people who should know how to hire a CEO.
> Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies
Investors have experience "managing" money to themselves. What is controversial about this? It's like saying pilots have experience flying planes. These investors have a lot experience financializing everything about a company.
We know where that leads, and it's not to success ... well, except for the investors with inside information that get out at the right time.
How effective would Gelsinger be at returning after the then previous CEO took the company in a totally different path and practically trashed Gelsinger’s original plan?
I highly doubt the US government will let Intel sink. I think one way or another they will bail them, either by emergency funds or through government contracts, and keep the lights on until they turn things around. For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
> For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
Right — so that extends the time window for pillaging, and means that you can raid future taxpayer money, not just current assets. But there’s still no “turn around,” it’s just different flavors of getting paid massively to go down with the ship.
Can you imagine the look you'd get if it was 1998 and you told me that AMD would have over twice the market capitalization of Intel in the next few decades? In 1998 Intel was 50x larger by market cap than AMD.
It is a company that has been catastrophically mismanaged.
AMD was in critical trouble just ten years ago - if Zen 1 had failed AMD would have faced bankruptcy. Probably a good reason why they're so behind on the software side.
So AMD going from that to 2-3x intel's market cap is just... not quite as impressive as Apple's turnaround, but certainly in that direction.
Fixing how? His first major act is to fire 20% of employees, refocus on old technology (smt) and deprioritize next gen (14a) process development. This is tantamount to surrendering as a leading foundry.
Fixing the willful ignorance that the market structure today is very different from 20 years ago. Process leadership and volume leadership are tightly coupled, and no integrated chip company will again have volume leadership. Intel's historical margin power built on a combination of monopoly on performance (in some markets) and superior economies of scale, that's not coming back. The question is not whether they can get fabs up and going with process nodes competitive with TSMC, the question is whether doing it actually leads to any kind of success given the costs involved. The key question is what the basis is for competition going forward, and what Intel's strengths are in that context.
To paraphrase, Intel has to go of the notion that for Intel to win AMD and TSMC have to lose. The strategy that follows from that might involve some painful choices.
This is such an obvious gap in the market for GPUs right now. Nobody wants to make an affordable card with a ton of vram. 32GB isn't even enough. Someone needs to make 48 or 64gb gpus for reasonable prices. Surely GDDR isn't that expensive. AMD and nVidia margins must be insane.
This doesn't seem like a bad idea but let's follow it a few steps. If a key tactic is to take share by shipping LLM-friendly consumer GPUs, one question is would this work. Setting aside the technical issues, they'd certainly sell some. They'd be limited by software, that's still much better on Nvidia, so it would be people with a near-term need for inference at lower cost than Nvidia's going rate. Two things to think about:
1) How might Nvidia etc respond? They've made one-off SKUs for crypto, they could certainly respond quickly with a part that matched on memory but had much better software (meaning, more compatible with tools and better performance. AMD doesn't have the software, but their hardware is find and they could similarly up on-board memory. So Intel would really have to compete on price.
2) Ok, now we've found some 2nd or 3rd place success in a business built on logic fabbed at TSMC and DRAM from Samsung or Micron. If this is the future, why have fabs or any of the associated R&D?
I don't know what the right answers are but maintaining Intel at anything resembling its current size seems like a pretty tough puzzle.
I like this point. Maybe needs pci4 + large vram + mid line gpu + cheap cpu. The cpu could maybe go scatter/gather/atomics like nics so getting data into and out of gpu is offloaded from the mb cpus doing app work.
What's your source for that? All I've read is that he recognizes that Intel has not had been selling competitive amounts of product in the core areas where Nvidia and others are making most of their money. You could debate why that is but it's certainly not that they've been ignoring AI.
I like your points a bunch. Now what needs some emphasis is customer satisfaction. Usually in near monopoly situations customers hang on longer than might otherwise be natural. They get disaffected first, and then after another 3-7 years it starts showing itself unflinchingly in financials. Vitually every major company overhaul involves getting back to customers.
Going forward, our investment in Intel 14A will be based on confirmed customer commitments. There are no more blank checks. Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution.
He said he’s only building out 14a capacity as needed. A fab is $20 billion a pop. TSMC has 500 customers to pay for each fab. Intel has Intel. Every new generation is increasingly expensive. Intel needs to find other customers
Why don’t you already understand this??? You are misleading everyone.
Lets not be hasty in condemning him - some "cross pollination" is probably standard in this business. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese high-tech companies, with CEOs named something like Jack Smith, or Andrew Callahan, that were caught exporting technology to the USA.
Huh? What'd we supposed to learn? If we're doing billion foot maxims i prefer iacocca: you need people, product, profit. Without people you can't get the other two.
I would assume they benefit from Perl code (not sure how much at this point in time), and want Perl to continue to be maintained, therefore, they benefit from this donation.
OBS is a service that SUSE provides to the greater open source community free of charge for everyone’s benefit. It’s not a great example of greedy corporations taking more than they give back.
Package hosting, security updates, gradual improvements after perl 7 didn't pan out (?), Raku is an ongoing language in continuing development, grants, events, etc
perl 5 specifically has had ~15 releases so far this year. (not counting release candidates)
> Sure but 'not giving a shit' means accepting Nazism.
This is some "critical theory" nonsense. The real world isn't divided into two camps, "those actively for" and "those actively against". You can, and should, just go about your life.
You'll live a happier, more mentally-healthy life by just ignoring the noise and not getting pulled into some sort of "if you're not with us, you're against us" thing.
Gleam is a language, and just like all languages - be it English, Spanish, C++, Python, musical notes, and more - both agreeable and disagreeable people will use it. It's impossible to prevent people who you disagree with from using a language. There's no point in even trying - all you succeed in doing is giving yourself mental grief, anxiety and hardship.
> It's impossible to prevent people who you disagree with from using a language
True, but the message on the website starts with "As a community...", and speaks to participation in the Gleam community, not the usage of Gleam as a language. And participation within a community _can_ be prevented by its stewards.
I just want to point out, this conversation has been had over and over, on HN, in the Gleam Discord, and I'm sure in many other places as well - always spurred by the same statement on the Gleam website.
So instead of discussing one of the most beautiful programming languages ever created, we're discussing politics, virtues, and wannabe Nazis. Because of a single sentence on the website...
I don't care either way, but it is notable how distracting that seemingly innocuous statement has become.
Could the community goals not be accomplished in a possibly less divisive way? The first part of the community statement seems entirely sufficient to me.
So, while I don't care and will continue to use Gleam regardless, it does seem to me that greeting curious potential new users with any particular brand of politics (righteous or not) is possibly antithetical to the goals of the language.
I don't believe even a little bit the success of the community has anything to do with this sentence on the website. The success of the community belongs to the relentless hard work of Louis et al.
The sentence is a source of continuous friction between the language, community, and public. It just seems so... unnecessary.
Half of this thread was consumed with people discussing politics and virtues instead of the v1.12 release - that is a pretty large problem for the language, objectively.
When people google Gleam, they'll find pages/discussions like this instead of people discussing the merits of certain syntax or libraries, new features and the like.
There's a reason most businesses/organizations don't engage in politics... even if the founders have very strong political views.
Your metrics for community success might be misaligned with those of the community stewards.
There's more room for interpretation in "all backgrounds, genders, and experience levels are welcome and respected equally" than with the explicit stated support for BLM, trans rights, and anti-nazi ideologies. Room for interpretation on codes of conduct make for more moderation work, allowing more undesirable behaviours to crop up.
> There's a reason most businesses/organizations don't engage in politics... even if the founders have very strong political views
Yes, but that might not be the goals of the Gleam stewards. Maybe they would rather take a moral stance even if it hurts Gleam's reach.
I think it's valuable for the leaders of a community to make it clear what kind of a community they're trying to build. If you think being anti-Nazi is like, "woke nonsense," then you know that the Gleam community is not going to be for you.
Does that prevent a Nazi from using Gleam? No. But the actual objective is to set the tone.
Gleam has a note regarding type-classes on their website[1]. The language itself seems to aim to remain simple - which is a pretty good thing in my opinion.
I don’t like it. Makes it feel like golang it’s like they want to keep it simple so they remove something fundamental. Golang says the same shit in their faq and there’s a whole slew of people who gave golang so much shit for it. Especially the fp community.
Golang for the longest time had no generics. Now it doesn’t have sum types.
When you try to build something truly complex like a compiler, you’ll see the abstractions start to screw up because can’t use interfaces in gleam.
It's rather interesting that California is having it's coolest summer in decades. In the valley, it's been high 80's, low 90's with only a couple days so far that were 100+. Typically in the valley it's 100+ nearly every day of summer.
I wonder what impact that may have on wildfire season this year.
Joining their Discord and getting greeted by the language creator himself within a few minutes was pretty cool. Most other languages, their creators/maintainers seem so unapproachable and distant. You can talk directly with the core team on there, ask questions, etc. Louis really has built a pretty fun community around Gleam.
Yeah why would an administration that is doing mass illegal deportations without due process want to remove freely available information on Habeas Corpus from their websites?
Clearly dumb and very sensationalized! Nothing to see here!
And it's an administration that has a history of trying to rewrite history and deny reality when it conflicts with their goals. And regularly claims fundamental parts of the constitution are "unconstitutional" somehow and are actively trying to get rid of them.
You keep harping on the point that the laws haven't changed. Nobody is arguing that. But how would the average person access the text of the constitution?
Should they not expect to find the full text on the official government website for the constitution?
If I search "US constitution" and congress.gov is the first result, am I dumb for reading that source and believing that is the full text?
If I am detained illegally by ICE and I try to inform myself of my constitutional rights through the official government channels, and am not informed of my right to due process, have I been successfully ragebaited?
And yes you've been successfully rage-baited, as the site problems were over an hour ago. All the text and missing commentary is back up. From the site: "The Constitution Annotated website is currently experiencing data issues. We are working to resolve this issue and regret the inconvenience."
> But how would the average person access the text of the constitution?
Right, because the average person googles the constitution right away when they are arrested?
What are you going to do with this googled info? Show it to the officer and get released? What reality is this even?
Nothing on this website changes anything... so yes, you are being very successfully rage baited, to the literal max. Just look how outraged over nothing you are... getting all worked up over a website on a Wednesday afternoon. You'll probably stew on this all day, even complain to others about it.
If deliberate, then we must understand what was the chain of command and the motivation for deleting references to habeas corpus on this government website.
> doing mass illegal deportations without due process
I think it's wrong to overreact to what Trump is doing and label things you don't like as "lacking due process" because when he does do something illegal you'll be like the boy who cried wolf.
Trump is following the law on immigration but many people think otherwise because of media misinformation. Take the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He had his due process and a judge ordered his removal in 2019. He also received "withholding of removal" from being sent home to El Salvador. The administration made a mistake in deporting him there, but they are ordered to deport him.
Many of the people you see in the news also had their day in court.
But media is also spreading misinformation on arrests. ICE doesn't need warrants to arrest people. This has always been the case. They can also arrest anyone (citizen or not) who commits an illegal act in their presence.
It's okay to not like what Trump is doing, but you should protest to change the law, not deny reality.
Also, I'm surprised you're using "illegal" instead of "undocumented".
Your skipping over a lot here. Like the fact that Garcia wasn't just "sent home" he was sent to prison. Along with 220 other men, at least 200 of which had no criminal records, and at least 50 of which entered the country legally. Against a judges orders.
I get the feeling you're one of the people who's going to be telling me I'm overreacting while we sit shackled together on a bus to Guatemala, where surely there are lawyers waiting for us.
"Technically this isn't illegal, because we've got an extradition treaty with Guatemala, and the court said Trump needed to show evidence in a trial before flying people out, but we're on a bus, not a plane, so really this isn't violating any laws, so it's hard to really call this executive overreach.
Also, there's no law specifically saying the court trial needs to be in an American court room, plus the ICE-built adjunct to the Guatemalan embassy is technically American territory, and the local immigration judge was officially appointed by Congress in a secret session to protect his identity, and of course you can't let media in the room for a closed session. None of this is actually illegal, so I don't know why you're being so hyperbolic."
All of this heavy breathing leaves out that the edit also deletes the U.S. Navy, I mean, if it had any legally binding impact, which thankfully, a website does not.
“Legally Binding” is determined by the courts. The process of overturning sections of the constitution start with claiming they were never there.
The current admin spent months saying the 14th amendment essentially isn’t valid, so they could justify it to their base once they got SCOTUS to overturn birthright citizenship, despite it being plainly enumerated in the 14th amendment.
I've heard ideas I liked less. Let's give the damned airedales back to the Army while we're at it, hey? Buncha fancified cavalry-wannabe jagoffs, they've had swelled heads for fifty years.
Under normal circumstances I could more easily give the benefit of the doubt on this, but the reality is we are not living in any amount of normalcy as far as this administration is concerned.
Of course removing this does not change the law, but this is still an official place for people to view these documents.
Could it have just been someone making an honest mistake? Yeah of course.
Has this administration already been deleting other important information from government websites and this could have been on purpose? Also yes.
> P.S. Sadly, I think enough people have left Twitter that it's never going to be what it was again.
Majority of those people came back after a while. The alternatives get near-zero engagement, so it's just shouting into the wind. For the ones that left over political reasons, receiving near-zero engagement takes all the fun out of posting... so they're back.
Some highlights from this release are listed here[1].
The best part of Gleam in my opinion is the language's design. It's just so elegant to read and write. Take this example code snippet from the release notes:
It's a trivial code snippet, but I'm finding this kind of "first class" pattern matching produces very readable, elegant-looking, well organized code.
There was a discussion the other day about the pipe operator being added to PHP 8.x. Gleam was my first language which included a pipe operator. Now, having used it a bit, I feel every language should have something like it.
Interesting. I was just about to write the opposite. I tried Gleam to solve last year's Advent of Code, and it felt like a weird mix between Rust and Elixir. You can't write code as elegantly as you'd do in Elixir, which was somewhat disappointing. I switched back to Elixir after a couple of days. I think the biggest advantage of Gleam is static type system.
Depending when this was, it was likely pre-1.x days? Things moved very quickly there for a while - it's worth checking back in again.
Gleam seems to have a lot of obvious influences from Rust, and the creator is a rust dev.
While the Gleam ecosystem is vastly less mature than Elixir's or Rust's (because it's literally younger), the language itself, I've found, is vastly more pleasant to read/write. YMMV of course.
> Gleam seems to have a lot of obvious influences from Rust, and the creator is a rust dev.
Hi! That's me!
Gleam the language doesn't have any Rust influence really. It's a happy accident that some of the syntax ended up looking the same, but that's likely due to both being inspired by similar languages such as OCaml and the C family. Most the syntax and the semantics predate Gleam's compiler being rewritten in Rust.
The build tool is a rip-off of Cargo for sure though.
more like both gleam and rust have a strong ML influence (gleam might actually consider itself an ML? not sure about that, but it's definitely a descendant)
I prefer Elixir's syntax over Gleam's, but my main issue with Gleam is architectural. Specifically, Gleam had to bastardize BEAM and OTP to implement static typing. To me, static typing vs. dynamic typing is like having a shelf with a doily vs. one without a doily (the shelf works fine either way), so messing up a solid Actor Model implementation, for instance, for the sake of static typing seems like the wrong thing to do.
It has been a while since I looked at Gleam. Some things may have changed. However, the last time I used Gleam, I was forced to switch back to Elixir because Gleam:
• Lacks support for named processes.
• Has limited actor abstractions.
• Doesn't support OTP system messages.
• Has implemented supervisors in a way that can lead to improper shutdowns, data loss, and deviations from the expected BEAM behavior.
• Doesn't support pattern matching directly in function definitions. Instead, it requires you to use case statements.
• Doesn't support global mutable variables because it has no way to track variable types and state changes when BEAM modifies these variables, which is one of the hallmark features of BEAM.
• Doesn't support hot code reloading.
All of these features, which are readily available in Erlang and Elixir, are far more important to me than static typing. I've used statically typed languages like C, C++, C#, and Java, and dynamically typed languages like Python, Ruby, and Elixir throughout my 30+ years career. I've never once lamented not having static types, nor have I ever jumped for joy when I do. For me, static vs. dynamic typing is largely irrelevant and doesn't affect my work one way or the other.
I'm curious to know what the parent meant, as well. My understanding, which is incomplete admittedly, is that Gleam's type system lives in Gleam and isn't carried over into the produced Erlang/BEAM code, since BEAM has no concept of types, etc.
Gleam also has an OTP implementation[1] available, which includes Actors and the like. My understanding is that every BEAM language must implement OTP themselves, so there's nothing unusual here.
I'm so envious of this. In TypeScript I use ts-pattern and Effect Schema, and while they make this logic way nicer, it's insanely verbose and doesn't offer any of the niceties of being first class.
I have not used it at all, but Gleam does have a javascript target in it's compiler/build-tool. So in theory, you can write Gleam (strongly typed, etc) and produce js.
I've exclusively used the BEAM/Erlang target so far - but the js community within Gleam seems quite interesting.
I've been considering trying this, but my team already struggles to properly adopt TypeScript so I'm fairly sure introducing Gleam would cause a few people to throw me out a window.
Gleam is so much smaller and easier than typescript and the type system works harder for what it is. TS gets you because it is similar to javascript in some ways that make it easier to start the transition. But a complete js -> ts transition is about as big a deal as it would be from js to any other language, except you can use the same external libraries.
No, it doesn't have strong if err != nil { return err; } vibes.
Pattern matching on Ok/Error is one of the best known error handling, while go error handling is one of the worst. They are about as far from each other as possible.
That's what Gleam's use expressions[1] are for (the last example is exactly this case). Most languages with the same heritage as Gleam have grown a similar syntactical feature, such as OCaml's binding operators or F#'s computation expressions. Although I appreciate how simple Gleam's is while having similar power.
This is a trivial snippet. Often you will transform/map your error into another type (or deal with it in some way), so it's not so much `if err != nil { return err; }` vibes like you're thinking here.
The beauty here is being compelled to handle both the happy and sad paths. You cannot just pretend the sad path doesn't exist.
It's not just about wrapping. use-expressions, result.try and result.map eliminate the boilerplate of checking for errors entirely: https://erikarow.land/notes/using-use-gleam
I come from js/ts as well and I find snake case much more readable than camel after using it in other languages for a bit. There are even js/ts projects that use snake case despite the camel case convention, for readability
I come from a background where everything is camelCase. Naturally I wrote my JSON this way as well, among other things.
Switching to snake_case was challenging at first - I kept writing things in camelCase. Now, I've become pretty fond of snake_case and have a tough time going back into environments that require camelCase - funny thing, that is.
Thankfully Gleam's build tool/language server has a fairly strongly opinionated formatter built in, so it will let you know pretty quickly and help you fix it.
One thing I disliked is black, the Python formatter, with its utterly naive rules, that treat all code the same. It required me to workaround in many places, like always using a trailing comma for any list or tuple, to keep the items on separate lines, instead of black fumbling around and putting them on the same line. It was utterly annoying. This made me very vary of "opinionated" (read: inflexible unconfigurable pieces of software) formatters. Hopefully Gleam's formatter isn't as stupid as black is.
Yes I understand... but they already knew that the license explicitly allows this, and they already knew companies regularly take advantage of FOSS without giving back, so I'm not sure why they were expecting to get lucky or something.
To me this is just like getting upset when someone forks your open source project. Which ironically I've seen happen a LOT. Sometimes the original developer/team even quits when that happens.
It's like... they don't actually want it to be open source, they want to be the ONLY source.
Because they don't think about it deeply - that's why reminders are necessary. They think they're only donating to people with similar attitudes to themselves. xGPL licenses (SSPL included) are the license family most similar to that...
... but MIT is what corporations told them they want. There has been a low-level but persistent campaign against xGPL in the past several years and the complaints always trace back to "the corporation I work for doesn't like xGPL." No individual free software developer has a problem with xGPL (SSPL not included).
> No individual free software developer has a problem with xGPL
I do... I consider it the opposite of freedom. I think it places severe restrictions on your project that make it hard/impossible for some people (like companies) to use, especially if your project contains lots of code from other people that make it really hard/impossible to try to re-license if one day you decide you like/need money (assuming you have no CLA, I don't like those either).
But I also realize there's different kinds of freedom... freedom TO vs freedom FROM.
Some want the freedom TO do whatever they want... and others want freedom FROM the crazy people doing whatever they want.
I wish there was a happy medium but centrism doesn't seem to be very popular these days.
FTA:
“In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO,” Cotton wrote in the letter. “Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”
reply