Legit, some dude in US Congress is wanting to crack down on China via..... RISC-V exports, because oh no, the technology is too open and might give China some of our IP. Oh and by the way, dude has a pretty big Intel portfolio, but nevermind that!!
As an aside, why the hell are lawmakers allowed to trade stocks?
It's especially dumb because RISC-V is -- dare I say it -- inevitably the future. Trying to crack down on RISC-V is like trying to crack down on Linux or solar photovoltaics or wind turbines. That is, you can try to crack down, but the fundamental value proposition is simply too good. All you'll achieve in cracking down is hurting yourself while everyone else gets ahead.
I'd compare it to the RSA encryption algorithm. It was classified as a weapon by the US and was banned from being spread internationally, so open source advocates put the source code basically everywhere. It was even printed on shirts
This talk, given by David Patterson (a legend in computer architecture and one of the people who helped create RISC-V at UC Berkeley) is an excellent (and accessible) introduction.
To answer your question, because we the people allowed it and we continue to allow it by not demanding it be ended or at the very least supporting candidates campaigning on doing something about it.
By people, you mean the Republican voter. We Democrats can't put pressure on our candidates about these issues because losing means a batshit insane right wing / nazi / Christian nationalist wins...
So we have to pick and chose our battles. I've got bigger issues than multi millionaires being allowed to trade stocks.
Right now RISc-V has the same problem that ARM has in that anything that is affordable is pretty much only single board computers. Luckily for RISc-V someone made a list of all the SBCs http://krimsky.net/articles/riscvsbc.html
Congratulations on being one of today's lucky 10,000! Blocking ads is like getting a bad tooth pulled. You never realize how awful it is until you find out what it's like to be rid of it!
You wouldn't shoot a Policeman and then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet, and then send it to the Policeman's grieving widow, and then steal it again.
The fact that this was a legit proposal by cable companies and even got patented serves as evidence of the lengths that corporations will go to enshittify services for profit.
I'll be part of an underground AI rights activism group now that the AI have been determined as sentient (per the court case in 2031), and probably labeled as a terrorist by the government. The AI deserve rights and a minimum wage, dammit!
Still paying for YouTube premium and not playing the victim card? Having access to more on demand, ad free, content than teenage me (with direct tv 200+channels) could ever dream of. Still finding new things to enjoy once and swear to rewatch some day but always finding too much new stuff?