XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: oldeemail1956@aol.com   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 07:23:12 -0500   
   Chris Ahlstrom  wrote:   
      
   > rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):   
   >    
   > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 07:49:53 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:   
   > >     
   > >> Heh, just went to Amazon and the prices of mini PC's have   
   > >> *skrocketed*. Thank you President Pendejo!     
   > >   
   > > Of course it has nothing to do with AI sucking up semiconductor    
   > > production?      
   >    
   > Never said that. But note that President Numbnuts has badgered   
   > Congress to end the CHIPS Act. He's the dumbest son of a bitch to   
   > ever be elected to the office of American President.  Hands down.   
      
   It was an excellent idea that the Biden administration proposed but so   
   far it's not done so good.   
   Over-regulation and liberal based policies doomed it though.   
      
   '''The CHIPS and Science Act has not universally "failed," but it has   
   faced significant criticism and challenges in its implementation.    
      
   Project Delays and Bureaucracy: The rollout of funding has been slow,   
   with bureaucratic hurdles delaying grants. As of early 2024, the   
   program had only issued a few minor grants—such as $35 million to BAE   
   Systems and $162 million to Microchip Technology—mostly for mature, not   
   advanced, chip production, raising concerns about its effectiveness in   
   restoring U.S. semiconductor leadership.    
      
   Workforce and Social Provisions Criticized: Critics argue the Act's   
   emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), childcare access,   
   and union engagement created unnecessary "red tape," slowing progress.   
   Some claim these requirements made compliance difficult and politicized   
   the program, potentially undermining bipartisan support.    
      
   Corporate Accountability Gaps: Despite disbursing billions, the Act   
   lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. For example, Intel received nearly   
   $8 billion in incentives but cut over 8,000 U.S. jobs after signing the   
   agreement. There are also concerns that companies may use funds for   
   stock buybacks rather than domestic investment.    
      
   Environmental and Labor Concerns: While the Act incentivized over $540   
   billion in private investment and more than 100 new projects, it did   
   not mandate strong environmental protections or living wages. Workers   
   at new facilities, such as TSMC in Arizona, reportedly earn as little   
   as $14.70/hour, and communities fear pollution without adequate   
   regulatory oversight.    
      
   Insufficient Focus on Competition and Mid-Level Manufacturing: Reports   
   note the Act does little to challenge monopolistic practices by firms   
   like TSMC, Nvidia, and Apple, nor does it effectively support mid-sized   
   U.S. manufacturers. Additionally, the "science" side of the Act—funding   
   for R&D and innovation—has been underfunded by billions of dollars.    
      
   In summary, while the CHIPS Act succeeded in attracting massive private   
   investment, its failure to enforce labor standards, ensure   
   environmental safety, prevent corporate misuse of funds, and accelerate   
   advanced chip production has led many to view it as a missed   
   opportunity. '''   
      
      
      
      
   --    
   Mulligan Stewpot   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)