Sure, I don't disagree.

I'm trying to point out the inconsistecy with the OP who implied sanctions evasion is not implicitly immoral but that "cheating" is.

Huang may have had an agreement with his wife that this was fine.

But he did not have an agreement with the justice department to flaunt the law and funnel GPUs to China.

▲

pj_mukh a day ago | parent [-]

>>But he did not have an agreement with the justice department

Neither did conscientious objectors? I don't think you mean to claim that the justice department is the final word on morality? Just that on this topic, you agree with the justice department (which is fine), but they will do things that you disagree with. They are no final arbiter and have helped enforce plenty of immoral laws in the past.

There is even a case to be made that flooding the Chinese market with advanced GPU's will hamstring China's ability to build their own, just like they have done to our ability to manufacture. In fact that is exactly the case Jensen has made plenty of times. By holding back exports you are actually creating the market conditions in China for building advanced GPU's indigenously, CCP doesn't even have to do much, the market is responding. Who's immoral and unpatriotic then?

▲

jappgar 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Comparing conscientious objectors, who refuse to participate in war, to someone who profits massively from supplying adversaries with advanced weaponry, is ridiculous.

	▲	pj_mukh 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You mostly ignored what I wrote so this is not really fruitful. But for more everyone else reading, not helping the enemy build better defenses is basically Sun Tzu 101. China keeps us addicted to their manufacturers, the least we could've done is kept them addicted to our GPU's (to be easily turned off during a time of war). But Mr.Moral Police can't look past one chess move, so we're screwed now. To be clear, I'm not saying mine is the only moral move (like others), I'm saying being confident about the morality here is senseless.