The US and Europe Are Growing Alarmed By China's Rush Into Legacy Chips (time.com) 159
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TIME: U.S. and European officials are growing increasingly concerned about China's accelerated push into the production of older-generation semiconductors and are debating new strategies to contain the country's expansion. President Joe Biden implemented broad controls over China's ability to secure the kind of advanced chips that power artificial-intelligence models and military applications. But Beijing responded by pouring billions into factories for the so-called legacy chips that haven't been banned. Such chips are still essential throughout the global economy, critical components for everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military hardware. That's sparked fresh fears about China's potential influence and triggered talks of further reining in the Asian nation, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private. The U.S. is determined to prevent chips from becoming a point of leverage for China, the people said.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo alluded to the problem during a panel discussion last week at the American Enterprise Institute. "The amount of money that China is pouring into subsidizing what will be an excess capacity of mature chips and legacy chips -- that's a problem that we need to be thinking about and working with our allies to get ahead of," she said. While there's no timeline for action to be taken and information is still being gathered, all options are on the table, according to a senior Biden administration official. The most advanced semiconductors are those produced using the thinnest etching technology, with 3-nanometers state of the art today. Legacy chips are typically considered those made with 28-nm equipment or above, technology introduced more than a decade ago.
Senior E.U. and U.S. officials are concerned about Beijing's drive to dominate this market for both economic and security reasons, the people said. They worry Chinese companies could dump their legacy chips on global markets in the future, driving foreign rivals out of business like in the solar industry, they said. Western companies may then become dependent on China for these semiconductors, the people said. Buying such critical tech components from China may create national security risks, especially if the silicon is needed in defense equipment. "The United States and its partners should be on guard to mitigate nonmarket behavior by China's emerging semiconductor firms," researchers Robert Daly and Matthew Turpin wrote in a recent essay for the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University. "Over time, it could create new U.S. or partner dependencies on China-based supply chains that do not exist today, impinging on U.S. strategic autonomy."
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo alluded to the problem during a panel discussion last week at the American Enterprise Institute. "The amount of money that China is pouring into subsidizing what will be an excess capacity of mature chips and legacy chips -- that's a problem that we need to be thinking about and working with our allies to get ahead of," she said. While there's no timeline for action to be taken and information is still being gathered, all options are on the table, according to a senior Biden administration official. The most advanced semiconductors are those produced using the thinnest etching technology, with 3-nanometers state of the art today. Legacy chips are typically considered those made with 28-nm equipment or above, technology introduced more than a decade ago.
Senior E.U. and U.S. officials are concerned about Beijing's drive to dominate this market for both economic and security reasons, the people said. They worry Chinese companies could dump their legacy chips on global markets in the future, driving foreign rivals out of business like in the solar industry, they said. Western companies may then become dependent on China for these semiconductors, the people said. Buying such critical tech components from China may create national security risks, especially if the silicon is needed in defense equipment. "The United States and its partners should be on guard to mitigate nonmarket behavior by China's emerging semiconductor firms," researchers Robert Daly and Matthew Turpin wrote in a recent essay for the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University. "Over time, it could create new U.S. or partner dependencies on China-based supply chains that do not exist today, impinging on U.S. strategic autonomy."
You can't do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you can't do that either.
What the fuck do you want China to be able to do? Just make clothes, etc. forever, third world economic status?
Re:You can't do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty simple, what they can do.
1). Leave Tibet
2). Restore Hong Kong's democratically elected government
3). Rescind territorial claims to the South China Sea and Taiwan
4). Close forced labor camps
5). Stop requiring foreign parties to sacrifice IP in order to do business in China
6). Stop stealing foreign IP in general
Right after (Score:3, Interesting)
1)Leaves Guam
2)Restores Puerto Rico's democratically elected govt
3)Rescinds the Monroe Doctrine
4)Closes for profit private prisons
5)Stops using export licenses to prevent development of key industries
6)Stops buying politicians and favorable trade rules.
Also
8)stop weaponizing the dollar
9)close the 185 foreign military outposts around the world
Re: (Score:2)
good counterpoint!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget restoring Hawaii's independence.
Re: Right after (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And none of what you suggest is the reason why the US blocks China from having access to the new technology.
1)Why? it's none of our business.
2)Again Why? it's part of China, so they can do whatever they want with it.
3)Why? it's still officially part of China so why should they rescind their claim (hell most countries in the world don't acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state).
4)Why? its not like the US doesn't have forced labor camps or many other countries to keep their criminals busy. Hell, the US even g
Re: (Score:2)
most countries in the world don't acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state
Most (maybe all?) countries in the world accept Taiwanese passports and conduct trade, governmental, and other relations with Taiwan without consulting China. Most countries spew out the PR line of not officially recognizing Taiwan as a country and at the same time treating Taiwan as a country in most respects, with the exceptions of spewing the PR line for sports and NGO organizations (where the label of "Chinese Taipei" means you're not a country but wink, wink you really are a country).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok. So your argument is a thief stole from a thief.
Re:You can't do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every friggin' square inch of this planet's dry land with the possible exception of Antarctica has been taken by conquest at one time or another. Now we're gonna get all sideways about it? Now???
Re: (Score:2)
Not Iceland or the Falkland Islands to name 2 places that were empty till the current inhabitants showed up, or at least earlier settlers had died off.
Re: You can't do this. (Score:5, Informative)
> Basically it's thieves all the way down.
Including the natives themselves.
The Last Tribe To Get The Black Hills
A few years ago, I was contacted by a friend in South Dakota who asked me to research the history of the Black Hills and the claim by the Lakota Sioux that the area is their ancestral homeland. My friend sent me all sorts of information that I read and found interesting. After looking into this, this is what I've found. So, if this sounds like a report to my friend in South Dakota, that's why.
The Black Hills are a small isolated mountain range that rises up from the Great Plains in western South Dakota and extends into Wyoming. Harney Peak, which rises to 7,244-foot elevation, is the range's highest summit. Today, the Black Hills actually encompass the Black Hills National Forest. The name "Black Hills" is a translation of the Lakota Sioux Indian tribe who called them "e Sápa." And while that's true, it should be noted that the Cheyenne Indians called them "Mohta-vohonáaeva" for a hundred years or more before the Lakota Sioux ever arrived there.
The hills were so-called "Black Hills" because of their dark appearance from a distance because the hills were covered in trees. Although some tribes say they occupied that area in the year 1500 to 1530 AD, we do know that the Arikara Indian nation arrived there around 1100 AD. To my knowledge, they were the first to occupy the Black Hills. In fact, after reading about the Arikara, it is pretty much a given that they had the Black Hills first -- and the longest. Yes, long before everyone else. If there are people who want to give the Black Hills "back to the Indians" as the saying goes, then it should be to the right tribe. Yes, the right tribe.
The Arikara in the Black Hills was followed by the Crow, Pawnee, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Lakota Sioux, and then to the United States. The Lakota Sioux arrived in the region after getting kicked out of Minnesota in the late 1770s by other tribes. The Sioux took over the region after they drove out the Cheyenne Indian nation. The Sioux forced the Cheyenne to move West.
The Lakota Sioux people, and Teton Sioux, are part of a confederation of seven related Sioux tribes, the "Ohéthi akówi" or "Seven Council Fires." Siouan language speakers may have originated in the lower Mississippi River region and then migrated to the Ohio Valley. They were all farmers and may have been part of the Mound Builder civilization that took place from the 9th to 12th centuries.
The tribes belonging to the Siouan linguistic family are the Lakota, Assiniboin, Omaha, Ponka, Kansa, Osage, Kwapa, Iowa, Oto, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Hidatsa, Crow, or Absaroka, tribes whose territories sat in the region now known as Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. The Biloxi, who were formerly near Mobile Bay, the Catawba, of South Carolina, the Tutelo, Sapona, Occanechi, of North Carolina, and Virginia were also part of the Siouan language-speaking nation. The Dakota-Lakota-Nakota speakers lived in the upper Mississippi Region in present-day Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and later in the Dakotas.
Among tribes, the wars were more brutal than most realize. Warfare among the Native American Indian nations was brutal and not unlike savage warfare anywhere else in the world. Waging war did not always turn out well for the Lakota. Their wars with Anishnaabe and Cree nations pushed the Lakota Sioux west and into the Great Plains in the mid to late-1600s.
Historically the Anishinaabe peoples maintained close alliances with Cree nations, including the Atikamekw, Montagnais, Moose Cree, Swampy Cree, and Plains Cree. Other allies included the Noos (Abenaki), Miijimaag, Nii'inaa-naadawe (Wendat), Omanoominiig, Wiinibiigoog, and Zhaawanoog. Other closely related Algonquin groups such as the Zhiishiigwan and Amikwaa were incorporated into the Anishinaabe family of nations through alliances. Due to competing interests for land and resources, f
Re: You can't do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The allied Lakota Sioux and Arapaho, along with the unified "Northern Cheyenne," were involved in much of the warfare after 1860. It should be noted that the Lakota Sioux nation was still fighting other tribes while fighting the Americans. For example, the battle of Massacre Canyon on August 5th, 1873, was the last major battle between the Pawnee and the Sioux tribes. That was when the Sioux attempted to exterminate the Pawnee Indians once and for all. Yes, men, women, and children while on a buffalo hunt for food.
As for cruelty, please don't write to tell me that Native American nations were peaceful. Cruelty was common at the time. Yes, to the point of being genocidal. Genocide is defined as "the intentional action to destroy a people." That's what Indian nations did to each other long before Europeans arrived on the North American continent. If you've heard me say that before, there is a reason that I repeat it so often -- re-writing history to sanitize the actions of warring nations doesn't change what took place. And for some reason, there is an effort today to rewrite history to disregard the cruelty that Indians set upon each other.
General George Crook's Army fought the Sioux at the Battle of the Rosebud. That battle occurred June 17th, 1876, in the Montana Territory between the Army along with its Crow and Shoshoni allies against a force consisting mostly of Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne. Yes, Americans had allies among the tribes. Not all Indian tribes saw the Americans as their enemy.
The battle is known to have prevented General Crook from locating and attacking their camp. It also prevented General Crook from playing a role in the Battle of Little Bighorn eight days later. Crook's Crow and Shoshoni allies left the Army for their homes shortly after the battle. The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne returned to the battlefield after Crook's departure and piled up rocks at the location of key events in the battle. Some of the rock piles they built are said to still be there.
Eight days after the Battle of the Rosebud, the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho combined their forces to wipe out Custer's 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Known to the Lakota as the Battle of the Greasy Grass, also commonly referred to as Custer's Last Stand, started on June 25th and finished on the 26th of June in 1876. It was an overwhelming victory for the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho, led by Crazy Horse and Chief Gall. Some say it was a fight that was inspired by a vision that Chief Sitting Bull had experienced.
Led by Colonel George Armstrong Custer, the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry was a force of 700 men. Five of the 7th Cavalry's twelve companies were annihilated. The total U.S. casualty count at the Little Big Horn, including scouts, was 268 dead and 55 wounded. George Custer himself, his two brothers, a nephew, and a brother-in-law, were killed.
Some say Col. George Custer was a fool on a number of points, including refusing to accept the information brought back to him by his own scouts, his wanting to move faster, so he left his Gatling guns behind as he saw them slowing him down. It's also said that he moved his troops at a pace that wore out their horses. This meant their mounts were spent when they arrived at the Little Bighorn River there in the eastern Montana Territory. His horses were in no shape to retreat when he attacked a camp of several tribes that was much larger than he realized.
His scouts told him about the size of the village before he charged headlong into a hornet's nest. The combined allied tribes are said to have numbered over 5,000.
After the battle, the tribes struck camp and left. They actually scattered. After the Little Big Horn, it's said the Sioux and the Northern Cheyenne feasted and celebrated during all of that July because they saw no threat from American soldiers. After their celebrations, many of the Indians slipped back to the reservation, perhaps sensing that the summer of 1876 would be their last victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than 2 years of History class. Thank you kind person. Additionally, the CAPTCHA is perfect. Quenches.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled England, France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia there. Those were the parties from whom the US bought, fought, or stole most of its territory. Precious little native land was actually taken by the US itself.
There was none left to take?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most certainly no. They may have been vaguely ethnically close, but they weren't from China (China didn't exist) nor even that region. The closest relatives in the "old world" would likely be the Yakutians in Northeast Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not the same people. That's like saying that because Vikings found North America you can say that Italians did. Aside from the fact that Italy didn't exist, they're still not the same people they are just ethnically somewhat similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You also see Epicanthic folds in Japanese people, and Koreans, and Mongolians. And Thai, Cambodian, etc. And Yakutians as I mentioned earlier. None of these people are Chinese.
Again, the same as with my Vikings versus Italians example, I could say "Please explain why they had blond hair.". Or blue eyes. A genetic trait that is sometimes shared by a group of people doesn't mean they're the same group.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You can't do this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
allow the chips to be made in the USA with no IP (Score:2)
allow the chips to be made in the USA with no IP claims or dmca claim from china
Re:You can't do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US seems to be constantly surprised by how competitive China is. Cutting edge chips? Oh yeah, they're going to be putting nVidia GPUs in missiles, clear military technology, sanctions.
DUV? Well, you could make somewhat shittier GPUs with that, so sanctions.
Dammit, China's doing 28 nm chips now? Sanctions! At least they're now forced to be honest that the goal is protectionism rather than some sort of military idealism.
China did this to itself (Score:2, Insightful)
But you can't do that either.
What the fuck do you want China to be able to do? Just make clothes, etc. forever, third world economic status?
Yeah, cry me a river.
No one wants to deal with China's shenanigans any more, you did it to yourself.
It's the global equivalent of a circle of friends who tend to keep each other in line by saying when you go too far, do something wrong, or are about to make a disastrous move. For people, that keeps them sane and within the bounds of socially acceptable. For countries, that usually prevents them from being complete dicks on the world stage.
We gave China the opportunity to join the world and be an equal playe
Re:China did this to itself (Score:5, Insightful)
No company wants to take a chance on being associated with China any more.
What a load. The giant American corporation I work for makes nearly $1 billion in profits from China every year, and the (mostly American) shareholders love that money.
I have no idea who Peter Zeihan is, but if he's predicting the end of China as a global power, I've been hearing that regularly since the late 1990's when their economy was going to have a massive contraction which still hasn't happened.
You're mad at the wrong people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that's the problem, people don't want to deal with the US' shenanigans, or Europe's regulations, either.
China positions itself as a reliable partner. Stable government, because it's not a democracy and therefore not subject to changing political ideology every few years. China doesn't try to enforce its laws outside China, or make trading partners adopt its culture. China doesn't randomly start trade wars and sanctions for domestic political reasons.
I don't want Europe to reduce its very good regulato
Re: (Score:2)
Re:China did this to itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Peter Zeihan predicts the end of China as a global power within 8 years for a number of very good reasons, only 1 of which would be sufficient.
Considering that China has manufactured almost everything you own, I would like to know how you will make this occur. I see some attempts at moving manufacturing elsewhere that is even cheaper, but many of the countries have seen how we roll here in America and have chosen to not cooperate. There is nothing in it for them.
I'm a big fan of morality in society. Good riddance, I say.
Then why are you supporting an amoral political class that panders to the wealthy?
Look, China is absolute shit, but America is not really much better. One third of the population lives in terror of losing their place to live over a stupid boss or a medical event. They literally can not last more than one month without a job or they lose everything. Think about that. I will believe you stand for a moral society when the issue of survival has been addressed.
Go ahead and deflect and say how wonderful those people have it with air conditioning, phones, electricity, and shopping centers to buy food. They have to work their entire waking lives to afford food and shelter all while knowing it could be taken away tomorrow.
These people will NEVER know security. Every day is a terror of becoming homeless and starving. Raising children? LOL, only by accident. Owning a home? Oh my, we are asking for too much here. Having time to spend with their accidental kids to raise them to be responsible humans? Oh no no no. They must work.
TL;DR, I do not believe you stand for a moral society at all. Additionally, your stance on China is unpalatable due to a mistaken understanding of moral high ground. (but yes, we should stop doing business with China, but we won't because America is essentially a two dollar whore)
Interesting post (Score:3, Informative)
Is all your information from Peter Zeihan. You seem to always quote/refer to him when it's pretty clear he's no objective by any means.. By this point your constant citation of him is basically propaganda.
But if China is not going to be a global power in 8 years I guess we don't need to worry about China anymore, but yet all the fearmongering.
Interesting post. From the broken English, I surmise that you are not a native English speaker, and from your position I surmise that you are Chinese.
China employs about 30,000 to 50,000 people [google.com] to police the internet, making up the "great firewall" of China. It's very likely that a number of them are tasked with painting China in a positive light on social media, and it's not that far of a stretch to think that a couple of them read and are tasked with managing slashdot.
Here's how English actually works: sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You can't do this. (Score:5, Informative)
The Big, BIg difference when it comes to China's semiconductor/solar industry is that 30-40%+ of these companies are state-owned, the rest are heavily subsidized, and the West comes nowhere even close to that sort of market manipulation. Even Biden's semiconductor handout is like ~4-5%.
This ain't a free market, and shouldn't be treated as one. China's foray into mass solar panel construction has seen mass subsidies and boom/bust cycles that would be impossible if they had to compete on the same playing field as the rest of the world. Over half of the solar panel manufacturers in China at one point or another were operating at a loss - and that was pre-covid when labor was chepaer. Why should the China be able to manipulate global markets with no repercussions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You can't do this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't do that either.
What the fuck do you want China to be able to do? Just make clothes, etc. forever, third world economic status?
Yes, they should be America's slaves and scapegoats. It's worked well so far.
Re: (Score:2)
this is pretty normal wherever any tech product hits the Wall of diminished demand.
massive amounts of embedded micro-controllers for automotive, all the way up to entry-level arm+ Mali chips from Rockchip or MediaTek for sub 200 phones, or 100-ish tablets
other consolidated Chinese powerhouses have included active-matrix displays manufactures (since 2005, once generic displays became "good enough" for most users to kill everything in Korea except pro!) this means everything except oled is now made almost-
Re: You can't do this. (Score:2)
dear northern hemisphere (Score:2, Funny)
Stay on your side of the equator.
Leave us out of your world war 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Stay on your side of the equator. Leave us out of your world war 3.
Nope, we are coming to your beaches after WW3. :-)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
As per the Northern Hemispheric Cooperation Agreement, signed in mid 2023, the countries of the north have all agreed to set aside all differences until the whining southern bitches have been butchered to the last before returning to our ww3.
Have a nice day,
The Northern Hemisphere
Re: (Score:2)
- signed the Southern Illuminati
Re: (Score:2)
Its obvious, 2nd source to Taiwan after invasion (Score:5, Insightful)
In short its wartime contingencies. It's not terribly different than stuff the US does. Having an overseas Pentagon supplier manufacture in the US.
Re: Its obvious, 2nd source to Taiwan after invasi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they dump the surplus onto the global markets at discounted prices in the meantime? I think that's the whole point of the article. :)
And use the proceeds to pay for the wartime buildup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you could argue China is becoming increasingly belligerent, and we need to be careful and therefore develop those plans/strategies, no argument there. But the first poster had it right. China has over a billion people, what the heck are they supposed to do? We block them from accessing chips from other countries, now we don't want them to make t
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think it has anything to do with the increasing number of sanctions that the US is putting on China, or their long stated goal of building up their domestic chip fabrication industry?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think it has anything to do with the increasing number of sanctions that the US is putting on China, or their long stated goal of building up their domestic chip fabrication industry?
What it has to do with is their desire to continue with all the behaviors that are currently warranting those sanctions. Many of those actions are part of their plant to become the dominant superpower.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an interesting comment because it suggests you think that China doesn't have a right to pursue becoming a superpower, and that the US does, and furthermore than the US has a right to prevent it.
I mean a moral right, beyond just trying to compete fairly.
I'm not thrilled about China becoming the world's largest economy and a manufacturing superpower, but it's inevitable and I think the best way to deal with it is to stick to our principles and complete. Numerically China has a lot more people, and the
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting comment because it suggests you think that China doesn't have a right to pursue becoming a superpower ...
Nope. You are ignoring the part about the questionable behaviors they are engaging in to get there. It's these behaviors that are the controversy. Dominant superpower is mentioned merely as their motivation for these questionably behaviors.
I think the best way to deal with it is to stick to our principles and complete.
That is what the sanctions are about. If China were to act as a good global citizen there would be no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all pretty obvious. They want a domestic second source to all the components used internally. During an invasion of Taiwan the fab plants will likely be destroyed.
That costs money; ergo, it will not happen. Too many Bentleys and ice sculptures need to be bought. But don't worry, the poors have half a billion spread out amongst them that they don't need. We can pump that into the chip industry and hope it is sufficient. (yeah, not even close to enough)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all pretty obvious. They want a domestic second source to all the components used internally. During an invasion of Taiwan the fab plants will likely be destroyed.
That costs money; ergo, it will not happen.
Incorrect. We give them plenty of money. Who do you think payed for their current massive modernization campaign. Mostly US shoppers who care for nothing other than a lower price. I don't see the changing. So there is the money.
This is just economics (Score:5, Informative)
China today is a huge consumer economy. Largest relatively uniform group of consumers in the world. With vast spending power. So is it that surprising that companies are showing up to create products specific to that market? And that they manufacture those products in China? Using Chinese components?
Then there is the vast state support that the Chinese government, both central and local, gives for building an electronics fab. You might claim those are market distorting subsidies. But other countries in the Far East like Singapore have similar policies. And now the US has the CHIPS Act. Which even forces companies which sign up for it to abandon the idea of opening new fabs in China altogether. If China went to the WTO with a court case on that I can bet on who would win. None of the Chinese incentives are anti-competitive like that.
Chinese fabs had grown their clientele portfolio quite a bit. SMIC for example raised cash on the Chinese stock market to fund expansion into newer processes. However the US torpedoed that expansion by denying China the acquisition of EUV machines. The thing is a leading edge EUV fab costs like 2x the price of an older generation DUV fab. Which the US also denied them buying machines for. And 28nm DUV fabs are probably like 4x cheaper than EUV. So with all that cash from the stock market guess what SMIC is plowing their money into? Instead of building a single EUV fab they are building four DUV ones for 28nm.
The US now claims the market for old chips is saturated. But yet just last year everyone was talking about the lack of older generation chips, and that there weren't enough old chips to make cars, etc. Everyone is now building fabs for older chips. China, Japan, Taiwan, Europe, and the US. Also, by threatening to cut China from Western chips entirely, the US just gave the Chinese economy the extra push to vastly expand their own facilities as quickly as possible. So the US government is just reaping what they sowed.
As for the notion they can stop the Chinese from making 28nm chips. Good luck with that. In two years tops the Chinese will be able to make their own machine tools, and they won't even need to buy them from the West anymore. The US is like 10 years too late to this party. If they wanted to cut China from chips then they are just way too late.
And China can retaliate to Western sanctions on chips in several ways. The US does not even know what shit they put themselves into. Nearly all the PCBs today are made in China. A significant amount of the world's DRAM and NAND is also made there. Plus several critical materials. The US is quite lucky the Chinese did not decide to pay them back in kind yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I really think countries/region should just be a bit more honest about their goals. In some ways, I like that the US for example did not sign the anti-landmine treaty. Not that I like landmines :P But I think it's better that the US is honest in saying in war, we might need to use them, so we won't sign this treaty.
I think it is clear that for a wide variety of industries, countries want their own domestic/friendly supply. Sometimes for military reasons, economic security, trade protectionism, redundancy...
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal solution is for China to take take their ball (that we gave them) and go home. We should let that authoritarian dictatorship rot within itself; however, America is not much better, it is just not as outwardly oppressive.
We will not, nay, can not let them take their ball and go home. We gave them the ball because "we" thought we merely needed to control the wealth, apparently not realizing that ownership is a real thing and if someone else has physical control that means they actually own it, even
That stuff is not that slow either (Score:3, Insightful)
Think CPUs from 10 years ago. Still adequate for most stuff, especially with well-written software. AI is mostly bullshit anyways and making it less bad does not really require high computing power, even if some people try to get rich quick by claiming so.
Re: (Score:2)
AI is straight magic in some industries at the moment.
CAD software plugins with AI can take a catalog of blueprints for 1000's of homes and spit out endless variations. Something that would take an entire floor of an office building 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It is perhaps the most overrated tech of the century though. For example you overlook completely that you still need that "entire floor" to filter out all the endless flawed variation Artificial Idiocy generates. And because some of them will be subtle and hard to find, the "value" of that tool may well be negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Labs, engineering shops, etc don't need anywhere near the amount of skilled labor to filter negative/worthless AI-generated results than it would have taken to create them with human-derived labor.
Take for an example chemistry - which has been using AI for decades. Computational chemistry in three or four decades has eliminated something like ~75% of all wet lab chemists. Pharma companies aren't running warehouses full of wet labs anymore, not even in China. Look at the size of old wet research labs like
Re: (Score:2)
Labs, engineering shops, etc don't need anywhere near the amount of skilled labor to filter negative/worthless AI-generated results than it would have taken to create them with human-derived labor.
That is an empty claim. In fact, in some areas there is pretty strong indication the effort will be higher. The problem is that you can in no way assume "AI" did even get the basics right or followed sound principles. It will make mistakes not even a non-expert would make. It may do 99% right and then make one fatal, completely unexpected mistake in a surprising place.
Take for an example chemistry - which has been using AI for decades. Computational chemistry in three or four decades has eliminated something like ~75% of all wet lab chemists. Pharma companies aren't running warehouses full of wet labs anymore, not even in China. Look at the size of old wet research labs like Eastman Kodak's in Rochester NY and compare that to any modern wet research lab in Triangle Park or the like. They aren't even relatively close in size.
You seem to be confused as to what AI is. Computational chemistry is not using the type of AI that is currently hyped. That is where it uses
Re: (Score:2)
Computational chemistry has plenty of of AI-driven platforms.
Old school quantum/ab initio, dynamic, and process chemistry platforms in the 1990's had fuzzy logic, expert-augmented-ML, and neural networking plugins.
That was 30 years ago.
Automation is Key (Score:2)
I think the U.S. government should invest heavily in advanced automation for lower-cost production of these chips, in addition to other important things. There really is a lot that can be done to reduce manufacturing costs through robotics and advanced mechatronics. Invest in building R&D for these technologies and invest in building and upgrading of manufacturing plants in the United States and allied countries. The R&D will be grants but the money on factories could be investments to repay tax
Re: (Score:2)
Are you thinking maybe people are drawing the transistors on the wafers and a robot could do that better?
The commodity chip market is broken (Score:4, Interesting)
From a low volume user perspective, commodity chips (MCU's, ADC's and DAC's) which cost $2-3 before the pandemic now cost $6-7 when purchased in the US at low volumes. However, if you buy them outside the US and have them shipped in, you can gut them for considerably less. There is a lot of overcharging going on due to shortages in the industry.
Frankly, I think this is why the established US distributors and manufacturers need to feel the pain of some competition.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people won't buy chips from overseas because they are worried about getting fakes or recycled parts. Things are changing on that front, with suppliers like LCSC being seen as reliable now. The only thing they can't overcome is that even the fastest shipping takes a few days, but I expect that in due course they will open warehouses in Europe and the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I think this is why the established US distributors and manufacturers need to feel the pain of some competition.
It is hard for their to be internal competition when a majority of big companies are just the same set of people in trench coats and sunglasses pretending to be different people. Capitalism as a game has been won. It is over. It is all admin now and the admin is letting everything valuable slip away. It bodes well for the future. China will be king because America is just a two dollar whore who has sold herself to the Chinese.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm hearing is "China must never advance itself, it must not be allowed to meet the economic needs of its people, it must always remain in 3rd world conditions outside the large cities, only white Westerners should be allowed to live in luxury".
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'm hearing is "China must never advance itself, it must not be allowed to meet the economic needs of its people, it must always remain in 3rd world conditions outside the large cities, only white Westerners should be allowed to live in luxury".
These (American) fools pretend that pieces of paper convey ownership. In an orderly society, they do... more or less. There has been a LOT of talk about the New World Order since before Bush Jr.s time. Those folks think their NWO will guarantee their ownership. I would laugh, but it means the end for me too. I am part of the ship that will sink and I do not like it... but arrogance will be arrogant. *shrug* Nothing you can do when people are chasing dollar bills so single-mindedly.
Re: (Score:2)
The race to the bottom (Score:2)
If we all had adequate regard for our safety, our freedom, and the future of our species, then China's bid for economic dominance wouldn't be a problem. We would just agree to pay more for locally-sourced chips and devices, knowing that not supporting a repressive totalitarian regime is in our best long-term interests. Innovation would be a bit slower, and our lives might be (blissfully) a bit simpler. Our civilization might live a bit longer, and we might have a chance to reverse and/or successfully cope w
Re: (Score:2)
The fear is that rich Western nations make up a smaller fraction of the world's population. If China were to lead three quarters of the planet and be their manufacturing, technical, and agricultural hub. Then the West's influence over world politics would wane, and a very different set of players would emerge. The US could one day be are irrelevant as Russia, if we don't adapt. Sadly our political leaders are only interested in enforcing the status quo, they don't have a plan for adapting. Because change co
Why is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
So what if Huawei is building smartphones that are as powerful as the latest iPhone or Pixel or Galaxy. Ban them from being used in situations where spying is a concern and move on. Same with cars, drones, TVs or anything else where Chinese spying is a concern.
And if western manufacturers can't compete with China, that's the free market at work and we shouldn't be trying to shut down China to protect them.
Re: (Score:2)
no no, you don't get it, the free market is fair only when the US comes out on top !
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair I can kind of see the truth in the "if we don't stop China, their unfair advantages will put western companies out of business" logic.
A good example is here in Australia where TPG (a major ISP and telco) wanted to roll out a 4th mobile network. But when Australia bowed down to the US and banned Huawei mobile gear, TPG decided that it was no longer viable to roll out that 4th network and instead merged with the #3 network (Vodafone Australia)
Pot calling the Kettle Black (Score:2)
US and EU are like... (Score:5, Funny)
we love competition, as long as we are on top !
uhmm... (Score:2)
The amount of money that China is pouring into subsidizing
Oh, you mean exactly what the US and a lot of EU countries are doing now to get chip factories build in their own countries, and even worse, they try to force it with blocking creation of these chips in China so those companies have to build those factories outside China.
Yes, independance of any outside country is good, but the way the US is trying to do it, is just the biggest hypocritical way of doing it, and just show again that the US is one of the biggest bully of this world.
8051 love stories (Score:2)
how to manufacture an adversary (Score:2)
All you need to do is treat them like an adversary and they will behave like one. Some real Wag the Dog shit going on here.
Re: (Score:3)
China was NEVER our friend. For some reason, Clinton gave them most favored nation status, which was great for a market flooded with cheap Chinese goods, but is/has lead us to being dependent on the Chinese for critical infrastructure parts, as they out price all the US competition and put them out of business. MFN status should mean equal trading, but China artificially manipulates their currency, and provides subsidies to ensure companies can operate at a loss to beat the US competition. This, of cou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you're overlooking China and the United States in World War II. The combination of China reacting to Western Imperialism after the 1949 revolution and US foreign policy around the Red Scare pretty much set the trajectory of US-China relations for the last half of the 20th century. But it is important to recall that the relationship was not always this way.
Any country that has a fixed exchange rate, such as France, Germany, Greece, and China–is, by definition, a currency manipulator. It's diffi
Easy "problem" to solve (Score:2)
OMG! (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
"U.S. and European officials are growing increasingly concerned "
What did they think would happen?
If you want something done, you do it yourself.
Welcome to the new cold war (Score:2)
"further reining in the Asian nation" - wow.
In the past, if you wanted to prevent a nation from doing bad stuff, you would try to work with them, and give them an incentive to build trust and cooperation.
But now we're literally using the rhetoric of domination and paternalism to talk about the largest and second most powerful nation in the world. Like they're a child throwing tantrums, and not a nuclear superpower with the ability to amass the largest troop deployment in history.
America never seems to lear
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.aliexpress.us/item... [aliexpress.us]
Re: (Score:2)
What I think he is saying is that they will sacrifice collective benefit for individual profit. This story is about the fact that Taiwan makes the worlds chips, including for the USA, and China is stocking up on old school chips, this could indicate an invasion coming where it all gets destroyed. What it fails to mention is that the US is incapable of making a computer domestically, even an Apple 2e. Nothing. The reason for this is that it is not as profitable for some asshole if he cannot outsource to Taiw
Re: (Score:2)
either that, or there is some proof in there that capitalism is not working..