[diddid]

To have a conversation about the US government buying a stake in Intel, and the threats of China in that space, requires one to have a conversation about both politics and ideology. It’s disingenuous to claim anything else. And to point out the irony of the passing fad on straws but deep love of fast fashion highlights the hypocrisy of US society in general and why we are incapable of having nice things or getting anything meaningful done at a scale of other countries such as China, Taiwan or even South Korea. And love or hate DEI you also can’t say companies like Target jump on and off that band wagon at shareholder will, when they aren’t ever jumping on the “we should invest in R&D and the next generation” because why would they, we haven’t asked them to so why would any other company Intel included.

[tomhow]

The purpose of HN is to discuss things in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. To respond to an article about chip manufacturing with such a generic ideological flamebait line as "You can’t build a foundry on DEI, but you can feel good about yourself as you virtue signal about straws as you buy fast fashion" is the opposite of intellectual curious discussion. If the topics of DEI, straws and fast fashion are mentioned in the article or are relevant to the content of the article, sure, write them into the comment in a way that is relevant to the content of the article. The way you've invoked these themes, without any clear relevance to the article's content, is just what we're trying to avoid on HN. This is not new or difficult; the guidelines have been in place for many years and make it clear what we're trying for here.

[diddid]

You can’t in good faith say the root article was an “article about chip making” unless you didn’t read the article. I will only agree my tone was off but it was very much on topic and anyone who actually read the article would realize it’s political. I’ve learned often what HN is going for, which is often shallow group think, and I agree HN is better when it posts articles that are “about chip making” but this wasn’t one of them. The silver lining is at least we can still comment on this without the “system” making a “decision” that just ends the discussion immediately.