That's how Japan strangling South Korea by withholding the chemicals even though South Korea has access to ALL western equipments.
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Bet what? What would a 14 year member with 9,000 posts and 32,000 approval rating bet, in a 10 year stake, against someone who needs a new account every week to hide from moderators because he's not welcome anywhere?
And that's also not how logic works. 10 year bets aren't an acceptable substitute for evidence. People don't buy what you're saying because you have no credit; no long term hanging bet will change that.
These have nothing to do with your 10 year claim.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
What have you got left to wager, Bo? Like I said before, you're bankrupt with nothing to bet and even with a bet hanging for 10 years, no one buys what you say. That's just your credibility here. Funny money and fake experts don't work here.
With regards to AI, the algorithm matters but more importantly the amount of data fed also matters. I'd say Chinese data samples are as good as US ones.
However, US companies can source data from a wider region (EU and others) . The depth of the data is diminished because of regulations in place.
China is flexible on that regard. Simply put it'd be safe to assume that on a state vs state level China's AI power and potential is greater than that of US.
Must look forward to the per annum 20 billion dollar special fund US has created for better competing with China. (I forgot the name of it).
I doubt it'll gain traction. Hope it doesn't.
Funny, I don't even care credibility my self. I waiting to laugh at you fanboys after few years. It took whole western Bloc decades to develope EUV. I give China 10 years is already incredibly generous. Those still not satisfied are true idiots. Nuff said
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Uh oh, no wager cus don't have anything worth a bet, eh? So that's another thing that doesn't work for you... You can wait for your whole lifetime like Westerners were waiting for China to collapse. You can't be generous cus you don't have anything worth a hair off a rat's bum to give anyone; China's own development speed is self-earned and has nothing to do with you. Nobody's satisfied or not satisfied because a random number prediction from a totally unqualified individual is worthless regardless of how many years it is; you'd have to be a true idiot to find dis/satisfaction in that. You've said "nuff" since before you ever joined the forum.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I'd rather be a real amateur than a fake expert any day. China didn't start EUV research yesterday; they are working from a base. The question of how long it would take China to build an EUV lithograph from starting research is moot because that's not where we are now. I wouldn't know how long it takes such a thing to develop (and unlike you, I can admit it) but news is trickling in about parts being ready to assemble for an EUV lithograph in 2 years or so. Maybe it's dead on; maybe they run into snags and take a little longer. No one would listen to a pretend tech expert/pilot/landlord over that.
Of your mind as always, Bo.
Not sure which thread is most appropriate for this article, but it is related to Huawei. It can be a catch-up reading on the Meng Wanzhou case with some interesting details. For example, the warrant for Meng was issued by DOJ on August 22, 2018, and she was arrested in Vancouver on December 1, 2018. Between the two dates, Meng had visited six other countries with extradition treaties with the US, namely Britain, Ireland, Japan, France, Poland and Belgium. The choice of Canada is very notable.
The author hopes that Biden, if elected, could drop this process. The US has gone so far to prosecute Huawei, it's difficult to see how they could get out from the mess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next extradition hearing in Canada for the Huawei CFO is set for Monday; it is time to end this sad story
by
October 25, 2020
Until she was detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while transiting Vancouver International Airport, the world had not heard of Meng Wanzhou. Now everybody knows that Meng, 48, is the chief financial officer of Huawei and the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, chief executive officer and founder of China’s leading technology giant.
The RCMP arrested Meng in respond to a warrant from the US District Court in Brooklyn, New York. The warrant was actually drafted on August 22, 2018, but not delivered to the Canadians until November 30, urging immediate action because Meng was expected to transit Vancouver on December 1 en route to Mexico City.
The message from US officials implied that if she was not arrested this time, the next opportunity might not come again for an indeterminate period. Unfortunately for the Canadians, they fell for the story.
The Americans had been monitoring Meng’s movements for some time. Between August 22 and December 1, 2018, they noted that she had visited six other countries with extradition treaties with the US, namely Britain, Ireland, Japan, France, Poland and Belgium. Had she been allowed to leave Vancouver, she would have visited Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina. They too have extradition treaties with the US.
Canada the designated patsy
With 10 countries to choose from, then US deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, directing this operation, concluded that Canada would be the easiest patsy and most willing to act as a vassal state to run this errand for Uncle Sam.
Selecting a willing collaborator was important because extradition hearings are almost always complicated, subject to challenges and appeals, and can consume a lot of time. Most countries would prefer not to get involved with such proceedings, since as a disinterested third parties, they have no skin in the game.
Indeed, Meng has languished under house arrest at the home she owns in Vancouver since her arrest nearly two years ago. Her next hearing is scheduled for this Monday, October 26. Lawyers familiar with extradition cases have opined that this case could drag on for another five years before all the issues and challenges can be resolved.
Much has already been reported about this cause célèbre, but I have seen very few discussions that examine the rotten underpinnings of the case, which I now propose to do in this article.
The origin of this case was probably more than 10 years ago as Washington watched the growth and development of Huawei with increasing dismay. Huawei had grown into a major supplier of telecommunication technology, and then threatened to become the world’s leader in that sector.
By the time Donald Trump became US president, Huawei had indeed become the leader in 5G, the fifth-generation wireless communication protocol and a leading maker of telecommunication hardware and mobile phones.
The Trump administration decided that the way to deal with the rise of Huawei was to use brute force – suppression, harassment and active campaigns with other nations not to buy from Huawei. Two news articles in and gave the ad hoc task force the idea to consider accusing the company of violating the US sanctions on Iran.
On further reflection, they must have concluded that charging a company in China with violating a US sanction on doing business with another country, in this case Iran, had a low probability of sticking.
But another article in reported that Meng had given HSBC a PowerPoint presentation about Huawei and Skycom. Meng was quoted as saying, “Huawei’s engagement with Skycom is normal and controllable business operation,” and that “as a business partner of Huawei, Skycom works with Huawei in sales and service in Iran.”
The “aha” moment for the Trump team was the fact that Skycom had attempted to sell Hewlett-Packard (HP) personal computers to Iran. The sale was never consummated but the intent to sell US technology to Iran was evidently sufficient to charge Skycom with violating the sanctions.
So far in the story, it seems to be a slam-dunk for the Trump team. All they did was read some old news articles and found a way to link the printed evidence to the CFO of Huawei.
Now bear with me, dear readers, and you will see that the story starts to smell fishy.
The most damaging “evidence” offered as part of the charges filed by the US Justice Department with the Canadian courts was the aforementioned PowerPoint Meng had prepared for HSBC. The US prosecutors claimed that the presentation showed Meng had lied to the bank and cause it to violate the sanctions against Iran unknowingly.
So it would seem that HSBC had turned state’s evidence to help the US federal court. However, the bank did not necessarily have clean hands in this matter. It issued a press release in that read in part: “HSBC has reached agreement with United States authorities in relation to investigations regarding inadequate compliance with anti-money-laundering and sanctions laws.
“Under these agreements, HSBC will make payments totaling US$1.921 billion, continue to cooperate fully with regulatory and law-enforcement authorities, and take further action to strengthen its compliance policies and procedures.”
Even for a major international bank, $1.9 billion is not chump change. But the interesting question not answered is whether “cooperate fully” included giving the PowerPoint slides to the Justice Department. Did the US government agree to deduct some amount from the fine as quid pro quo?
--------------------------------------
To be continued ...
The author hopes that Biden, if elected, could drop this process. The US has gone so far to prosecute Huawei, it's difficult to see how they could get out from the mess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next extradition hearing in Canada for the Huawei CFO is set for Monday; it is time to end this sad story
by
October 25, 2020
Until she was detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police while transiting Vancouver International Airport, the world had not heard of Meng Wanzhou. Now everybody knows that Meng, 48, is the chief financial officer of Huawei and the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, chief executive officer and founder of China’s leading technology giant.
The RCMP arrested Meng in respond to a warrant from the US District Court in Brooklyn, New York. The warrant was actually drafted on August 22, 2018, but not delivered to the Canadians until November 30, urging immediate action because Meng was expected to transit Vancouver on December 1 en route to Mexico City.
The message from US officials implied that if she was not arrested this time, the next opportunity might not come again for an indeterminate period. Unfortunately for the Canadians, they fell for the story.
The Americans had been monitoring Meng’s movements for some time. Between August 22 and December 1, 2018, they noted that she had visited six other countries with extradition treaties with the US, namely Britain, Ireland, Japan, France, Poland and Belgium. Had she been allowed to leave Vancouver, she would have visited Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina. They too have extradition treaties with the US.
Canada the designated patsy
With 10 countries to choose from, then US deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, directing this operation, concluded that Canada would be the easiest patsy and most willing to act as a vassal state to run this errand for Uncle Sam.
Selecting a willing collaborator was important because extradition hearings are almost always complicated, subject to challenges and appeals, and can consume a lot of time. Most countries would prefer not to get involved with such proceedings, since as a disinterested third parties, they have no skin in the game.
Indeed, Meng has languished under house arrest at the home she owns in Vancouver since her arrest nearly two years ago. Her next hearing is scheduled for this Monday, October 26. Lawyers familiar with extradition cases have opined that this case could drag on for another five years before all the issues and challenges can be resolved.
Much has already been reported about this cause célèbre, but I have seen very few discussions that examine the rotten underpinnings of the case, which I now propose to do in this article.
The origin of this case was probably more than 10 years ago as Washington watched the growth and development of Huawei with increasing dismay. Huawei had grown into a major supplier of telecommunication technology, and then threatened to become the world’s leader in that sector.
By the time Donald Trump became US president, Huawei had indeed become the leader in 5G, the fifth-generation wireless communication protocol and a leading maker of telecommunication hardware and mobile phones.
The Trump administration decided that the way to deal with the rise of Huawei was to use brute force – suppression, harassment and active campaigns with other nations not to buy from Huawei. Two news articles in and gave the ad hoc task force the idea to consider accusing the company of violating the US sanctions on Iran.
On further reflection, they must have concluded that charging a company in China with violating a US sanction on doing business with another country, in this case Iran, had a low probability of sticking.
But another article in reported that Meng had given HSBC a PowerPoint presentation about Huawei and Skycom. Meng was quoted as saying, “Huawei’s engagement with Skycom is normal and controllable business operation,” and that “as a business partner of Huawei, Skycom works with Huawei in sales and service in Iran.”
The “aha” moment for the Trump team was the fact that Skycom had attempted to sell Hewlett-Packard (HP) personal computers to Iran. The sale was never consummated but the intent to sell US technology to Iran was evidently sufficient to charge Skycom with violating the sanctions.
So far in the story, it seems to be a slam-dunk for the Trump team. All they did was read some old news articles and found a way to link the printed evidence to the CFO of Huawei.
Now bear with me, dear readers, and you will see that the story starts to smell fishy.
The most damaging “evidence” offered as part of the charges filed by the US Justice Department with the Canadian courts was the aforementioned PowerPoint Meng had prepared for HSBC. The US prosecutors claimed that the presentation showed Meng had lied to the bank and cause it to violate the sanctions against Iran unknowingly.
So it would seem that HSBC had turned state’s evidence to help the US federal court. However, the bank did not necessarily have clean hands in this matter. It issued a press release in that read in part: “HSBC has reached agreement with United States authorities in relation to investigations regarding inadequate compliance with anti-money-laundering and sanctions laws.
“Under these agreements, HSBC will make payments totaling US$1.921 billion, continue to cooperate fully with regulatory and law-enforcement authorities, and take further action to strengthen its compliance policies and procedures.”
Even for a major international bank, $1.9 billion is not chump change. But the interesting question not answered is whether “cooperate fully” included giving the PowerPoint slides to the Justice Department. Did the US government agree to deduct some amount from the fine as quid pro quo?
--------------------------------------
To be continued ...
Last edited:
- Status