No he's right, there are 3 chiplets in 5900x & 5950x as well as lots of EPYC chips, the IO die also counts as one.
Two links though - two chiplets would only need one link, after all. Still, I think the only limitation here is packaging, not the interconnect - they can make however many IF controllers on a die that they want. Physical layout is the real challenge: how many dice you can fit within the square/rectangular shape of the package while allowing for efficient trace routing. With a large+small chiplet design like Ryzen, that will likely be an odd number; with equally sized dice you're more likely to find an even number (like 1st/2nd gen TR/EPYC), though if one die is an I/O die responsible for off-package signaling that inherently biases towards an odd number of dice (as long as there's room).
There's no such thing, I dunno why people bring this false narrative up so often
Whatever we’re told about shareholder primacy, their rights to control companies are actually very limited.
theconversation.com
A call to action for a new form of capitalism that benefits all Americans, including shareholders.
www.forbes.com
www.nytimes.com
It's not a false narrative - heck, that WaPo article you link acknowledges as much in its third paragraph:
What began in the 1970s and ’80s as a useful corrective to self-satisfied managerial mediocrity has become a corrupting, self-interested dogma peddled by finance professors, money managers and over-compensated corporate executives.
The Forbes article does the same in
its third paragraph:
But I contend there is a problem with the status quo, with the current version of capitalism, which serves the shareholders well, but has proven to be catastrophic for the vast majority of the American people and detrimental to American competitiveness on the global stage
(an article that, for the record, discusses a different topic from the legal and institutional structures enabling shareholder lawsuits for insufficient profit focus, but mentions it in passing)
That is how corporations today are managed, and there
is massive legal precedent for shareholders successfully suing companies for not being sufficiently profit-focused. What the quasi-critical, quasi-apologist articles above (like the NYT one) point out is that this is in and of itself only one possible interpretation of the law. But it is still the dominant one, and the one that has the greatest impact on international trade as, crucially, international trade
isn't regulated by the laws of other regions that are mostly far less permissive of this type of exploitation. It is still entirely possible for a corporation to argue (in court, if necessary, and they
might win, but it will be expensive!) that strategies that are not directly aimed at short-term profits first and foremost will be the best in the long term, whether through long-term profitability, stability, growth, etc.
But this also misses a crucial point: the threat of legal action in and of itself
strongly incentivizes profit-seeking strategies. Why? Because legal action is really expensive, time-consuming, and will hurt share prices significantly. And while share prices are mostly arbitrary and don't really tell you anything about the viability of a business or its value to society, the world (including governments, lenders/creditors, investors and business partners) treat them as if they
do tell something about those things. Thus, the very fact that it's possible to sue companies for this, and that there's a reasonable chance that said litigation will drag on for a while, and that the shareholders might win, and that legal action is likely to negatively affect share prices, together acts as a strong incentive for corportations to chase profits above all else. Saying that there isn't a legal obligation to do so is effectively splitting hairs, as the legal grounds for being punished (for lack of a better word) exists, the systems they operate within are geared towards doing so, and the surrounding structures act as if there is a legal obligation to do so, preemptively punishing companies (through dropping share prices and poorer treatment by partners) even if they might win the lawsuits. Saying this isn't a legal obligation is overplaying a technicality in order to hide the real-world effects of these systems, and (why we're seeing this in the types of publications you're posted) an obfuscation tactic used by the peddlers of these ideologies to try and distract from the fact that this is the exact outcome they've been promoting for half a century.
