[tbrownaw]

So basically she's saying "if you do exactly as much as the rules allow, I'll change the rules to not allow that". That sounds like the general sort of thing that tends to end up with whichever government agency did that being on the losing end of a lawsuit?

[fnordpiglet]

Well what she is saying is if you intentionally attempt to circumvent the intent of the regulation they will adjust the regulation to continue to bring about the intent. An awful lot of law and regulation isn’t cut and dry like a computer program but is intent driven. Sounds like Nvidia understood the intent but is trying to knowingly circumvent the intent by being minimally compliant. They can sue but it won’t go their way, and the government could move against them hard for willful non compliance.

[fauigerzigerk]

I thought the performance thresholds they put in the law were supposed to express just that intent (i.e sell only second rate GPUs to China). If the real intent was to stop all GPU sales to China, why doesn't the law say so?

[pests]

Maybe it will now.

[FireBeyond]

> knowingly circumvent the intent by being minimally compliant. They can sue but it won’t go their way, and the government could move against them hard for willful non compliance.

In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.

If the agency keeps moving the goalposts to "clarify" intent because it was not sufficiently clear initially, that's on them, but it's also not a failing of Nvidia.

[josefx]

> In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.

Right, so if there is a new export ban then nvidia will be in violation and the agency just clarified that it will create such a ban if nvidia makes it necessary.

The cost of trying to play cat and mouse would be on nvidia loosing lots of R&D time and money and not the agency that only has to copy paste the product details into what is probably a preexisting form.

[fnordpiglet]

I’d also note a lot of regulation is not enforced at court, but by the regulator. They get to decide. You can appeal it to a court, but courts also grant the regulators pretty good latitude to interpret behavior as willful non compliance even when it’s done literally compliant but to the extent it enables and facilitates the specific outcome the regulation is intended to prevent. Technologists always have a hard time accepting the idea laws and regulations aren’t absolute or formulaic. Judgement and common sense can also be used and often is in situations where there is an intentional evasiveness.

[willcipriano]

"He's trying to circumvent the speed limit by driving under it!"

Banana republic stuff.

[prometheon1]

"We put a speed bump at the dangerous crossing to prevent accidents, but they made a car that has more suspension so that they can still cross it at almost the same speed."

[willcipriano]

"The speed limit of this intersection is 45, the people who design roads put a bump in it that annoys customers, let's solve that problem."

Make the speed limit 25 if you want them to go 25. This is a simple case of a lack of leadership.

[fnordpiglet]

They tried the speed bump, they did the suspension thing, now it’s time to reduce the speed limit and install a traffic camera.

Regulation is always like this. I work in a lot of highly regulated spaces and my work deals with it an awful lot as it’s sensitive stuff. This is how it works. They always try to do the less restrictive language first and once some jackass starts trying to do literalist stuff to circumvent the intent the thumb screws come out.

Why do we end up with absurd overly restrictive regulations? Jackasses who fully knowingly try to circumvent the intent by cutlining the edges of the language. Most regulators try to make the rules loose enough to allow for things they didn’t intend to squash that are in line with the intent not being squashed.

In this case it was obvious what the intent was. They had no intention of punishing gamers in China or whatever other edges. Right or wrong they didn’t want.high end AI enabling GPUs sold to China, so they tried to propose something that captured a looser definition and held it up and said “ok folks this isn’t overly restrictive just remember why we did this and don’t be a jackass.”

Then, of course, they went and were a flagrant jackass thumbing their nose st their regulator. First, that’s just a stupid idea. Second, it’s why we can’t have nice stuff.

[willcipriano]

> Why do we end up with absurd overly restrictive regulations?

Beacuse instead of making the law, "go 3 mph beacuse I'm fearful of what will happen" fearful people install a speed bump so they don't get called a totalitarian. Then they get mad when people don't go 3 mph, even though that isn't the law, beacuse you know, they are totalitarian.

Classic banana republic stuff.

[salawat]

Federal Government has jurisdiction over foreign policy.

This is one of those cases where you can sue all you want, but it's working as designed.

[maxwell22]

The federal government foreign policy is giving full bright scholarships to the best of the best Chinese students so that they get PhDs fully paid at the best US tech universities. And then kicking them out for loosing a lottery 3 times and sending them back to China so that they have no choice but working in products and companies that directly compete to the US.

Selling or not selling tech to China is the least of the US problems.

[cyanydeez]

it's weird because the business purpose already streamlines products for capitalism and not some hard limit on resources and regulations try to do the same but with different inputs but the same artificial boundaries.