“My simple message is, ‘Let’s get it finished,’” said Gelsinger in an interview with The New York Times.
  • gregs_gumption@lemm.ee
    87·
    4 days ago

    This reticence to give out CHIPS Act funding right away apparently stemmed from fears from the government that Intel specifically would not meet its promises. “[There is fear that] Intel is going to take chips money, build an empty shell of a factory and then never actually open it, because they don’t have customers,” said former Commerce Department official Caitlin Legacki.

    Honestly this seems like rare reasonable move by the federal government.

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
      202·
      3 days ago

      I mean, ‘take the money, build an empty factory’ is what tech companies do when you give them a money helicopter.

      Maybe we should stop giving them any money and just nationalize these failed businesses that need bailouts? (Yes, yes, Intel isn’t failed - yet - but my point is still valid.)

      If they’re important to the national security or whatever, then they’re important enough to go through that process for too.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      161·
      3 days ago

      I am a bit shocked they got a back bone left…

      There is more to this story.

      Endless state aid while peasants are being driven into poverty finally being recognized but the state?

      Jk

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    831·
    4 days ago

    The U.S. government put some objectives between CHIPS Act recipients and their money, with milestones including completing building projects, securing customers, etc. “Obviously, with elections, you know, nigh in front of us, hey, we want this done,” said Gelsinger, with the possibility of a new presidential regime lighting a fire of urgency.

    Imagine having to do something for your 8.5 billion fucking dollars.

    • zurohki@aussie.zone
      34·
      4 days ago

      Why won’t the government just give them the money and trust that they’ll do what they said? It worked out great paying companies to roll out fiber years ago, that’s why we’re all on reliable, high speed fiber internet today.

      • Clusterfck@lemmy.sdf.org
        121·
        4 days ago

        As someone who works in the telecommunications industry, look up RDOF.

        Not only is it a HUGE timeline that does nothing to incentivize actually completing a project early, but the main RDOF winner in my area has only wireless service available with zero construction projects planned except to put up more wireless equipment.

        It also means those areas that company claims they’ll serve one day are ineligible for any more grant money and now that companies that are willing to bring fiber to those homes have to pay a boatload out of pocket while the RDOF winner just hangs out and watches.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    4·
    2 days ago

    If a company needs so much from the tax payer to stay afloat, to me that means they can’t be trusted with money since they mismanage already, or they don’t have a marketable product to sell. Any payouts should equal government ownership

  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
    251·
    4 days ago

    Has he tried to stop sucking?

    Maybe just admit that the only reason he’s still the CEO of anything is because of DOD contracts and STFU.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      82·
      4 days ago

      Yeah. I can understand being nervous that Putin won’t approve spending money on national defense investments.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        62·
        3 days ago

        national defense investments.

        Wierd way to name a cash transfer. Is US Treasury taking equity stake for their contribution here?

        Asking for a friend

  • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
    81·
    4 days ago

    “My simple message is, ‘Boost share price before I get shown the door,’” said Gelsinger in an interview with the New York Times.