How China Built Its 'Manhattan Project' To Rival the West in AI Chips (reuters.com) 171
Chinese scientists have built a working prototype of an extreme ultraviolet lithography machine in a high-security Shenzhen laboratory, a development that represents exactly what Washington has spent years and multiple rounds of export controls trying to prevent: China's path toward semiconductor independence and an end to the West's monopoly on the technology that powers AI, smartphones and advanced weapons systems.
The prototype, completed in early 2025 by former ASML engineers who reverse-engineered the Dutch company's machines, is operational and generating EUV light, though it has not yet produced working chips. The effort is part of a six-year secret government initiative that sources described to Reuters as China's version of the Manhattan Project.
Huawei is coordinating thousands of engineers across companies and state research institutes, and recruits are working under false identities inside secure facilities. The Chinese government is targeting 2028 for producing working chips, though sources say 2030 is more realistic -- still years earlier than the decade analysts had predicted it would take China to match the West.
The prototype, completed in early 2025 by former ASML engineers who reverse-engineered the Dutch company's machines, is operational and generating EUV light, though it has not yet produced working chips. The effort is part of a six-year secret government initiative that sources described to Reuters as China's version of the Manhattan Project.
Huawei is coordinating thousands of engineers across companies and state research institutes, and recruits are working under false identities inside secure facilities. The Chinese government is targeting 2028 for producing working chips, though sources say 2030 is more realistic -- still years earlier than the decade analysts had predicted it would take China to match the West.
That was fast (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
China has been making chips for ages. This is about making AI chips that are comparable with Nvidia, AMD, Google, Amazon etc using modern fabs (TSMC primarily, also Intel, Samsung, Micron etc that mostly use ASML machines).
The article suggests they're likely > 5 years behind, and that probably isn't to scale production. Also consider EUV was first used in 2018 commercially, 2019 at scale. So maybe early Chinese EUV will be a decade behind when it launches.
Lots of the supporting ecosystem to develop to
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is you have taken China's word they have actually accomplished what they said they did. Personally, I don't believe them until I have seen it. For example, China proclaimed a breakthrough when SMIC made the Kirin 9000 processor for the Huawei Mate 60 Pro in 2023. The chip was a 7nm chip which all the "naysayers" said China could never manufacture. Except it was made using DUV not EUV. No one ever said 7nm was not possible using DUV. The main reason EUV was used was the smaller size meant low yield
Re: (Score:2)
It's a variation on the 4 stage strategy.
https://youtu.be/3hua1pkDmJc [youtu.be]
1. Say you don't believe them.
2. Say it's technically true but nothing to worry about.
3. Admit that they caught up, but it's just a copy and they can't improve on it.
4. Tariffs to "protect" Western industry that has been left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a lab machine, and it's not clear that it's making large chips. I think your 5-10 year prediction of last year is probably right. There will be engineering challenges in converting a lab machine into a production machine.
Actually, my (uninformed) prediction last year, and this year, is that it will take about a decade for China to equal the production of TSMC assuming TSMC keeps improving. But that they'll have "good enough for 90% of the market" within a very few years (and perhaps already do).
Re: (Score:2)
Last year I was predicting 5-10 years until China could make chips. It took them 1. The USA is fucked, especially with that racist, demented asshole in charge.
From the fine summary:
This is a prototype, not a complete product. It's the result of a 6-year program, not 1. They have not produced any working chips. Your prediction was bad and your reading comprehension is bad and you should feel bad.
The USA is fucked, especially with that racist, demented asshole in charge.
Yes, bu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Last year I was predicting 5-10 years until China could make chips. It took them 1. ...
They're not making chips. The article says "2030 is realistic."
Re:That was fast (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me get this straight. You listened to propaganda that led you to believe "sleepy Joe" would star a shooting war with China?
Re: (Score:2)
In an interview with the CBS news show 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday, Biden was asked if U.S. forces would defend Taiwan — a self-ruled democracy that sits roughly 100 miles off the Chinese coast and is claimed by Beijing as part of China.
"Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack," Biden replied.
Asked again if, unlike in Ukraine, U.S. forces would get involved in the event of a Chinese invasion, Biden replied: "Yes."
(source [npr.org])
I could go on and on. If you don't understand the significance of a US president repeatedly saying this (and many other things, to say nothing of the US Navy's menacing activities), you don't understand the situation at all and should stop embarrassing yourself.
Re: That was fast (Score:2)
Defending an ally is NOT starting a war.
Try learning English before arguing in it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason the White House had to keep walking back these comments.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason the White House had to keep walking back these comments.
Yeah, pressure from the bitch-ass clowns who want to cede the world to China and don't give a fuck about promises made to allies. Same stupid fucking cucks who want to let Russia have Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
But directly provoking China in a way that is absolutely known by everyone except you to be be provocative is reckless.
Re: (Score:2)
America was never going to be the reliable partner
Being a reliable partner is why America is as powerful and influential as it is. That orange dipshit has destroyed that completely. The consequences of our failure to remove him from power back in February will be severe.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a reliable partner is why America is as powerful and influential as it is.
Reliably doing what? Reliably waging financial warfare on our so-called "allies"? Reliably invading countries on false or patently illegal pretexts and committing war crimes once we're there? You ought to read foreign language news outlets like I have for the last thirty-plus years. The shit I'm talking about goes back to Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" days. Go live in another country and make some friends who are willing to be candid with a Yankee.
As gross as Bad Orange Man is (I'm a Green voter and Bern
Re: (Score:2)
Reliably being the only major power that didn't get destroyed in WWII then holding everyone else over a barrel while they rebuilt.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the US has been shafting its partners since at least WW2, it's just that now the lack of economic lubricant is really starting to make it painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the fucking Voice of America has this to say:
“History will record that the U.S.-China science and technology war really kicked off in October 2022,” Brands wrote. This is also the consensus of many experts on U.S.-China relations.” It was then that Biden introduced far-reaching export controls that leveraged the dollar’s dominance in global finance and the key U.S. role in specific supply chains (high-end semiconductor design) to limit China’s access to advanced chips that drive economic and military innovation.”
(source [voanews.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Root Cause. (Score:5, Insightful)
Deluded liberal feminist arrogance seething with zero accountability manifesting into THE most incompetent Didn't Earn It administration in the entire history of America, ultimately created President Trump. Again. After those infected with long-TDS didn't learn their lesson the first time.
But tell me again how the last four years of American culture being forced to debate keeping parents rights intact with regards to their children being groomed by the rainbow coalition of sex terrorists running classrooms, was SUCH a fantastical worthwhile effort. Along with having to debate whether or not biological men should be able to steal wins, medals, and opportunities from women in "fair" competition. We've known for thousands of years, but let's also debate what a "woman" is too while libtards attack anyone questioning a President suffering from dementia and a VP open border czar addicted to tossing word salads.
China can make Starships too. Any minute now you'll see those chopsticks catch three at a time. Just don't ask for witnesses. There's only like six spots in the AI-magination parking lot.
Again, another day where trans people didn't entertain my thoughts until a republican brought it up.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say about latent homosexuality? I guess latent transsexuality is also a thing, this is why the far right seems to constantly think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about the politics, but trans have been on men's minds for millenia. From Classical Greek plays to Kabuki to Milton Berle to cashiered skippers of nuke carriers.
So 5 years from now, they'll be 5 years behind? (Score:2)
So 5 years from now, they'll still be 5 years behind?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in aerospace and not in chips. The two areas that matter the most for the future.
In aerospace, they won't have anything to match Falson 9 until next year or 2027 until they can match the launch cadence. But by then the US will have Starship. It will take the Chinese at least 5 years to catch up to Starship. By which time we'll have something else.
In chips they will always be 5 years behind. By the time they can make FinFET at 2nm, the US will be making CFET transistors in sub nanometer.
Re: (Score:2)
Depressingly inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
Once you accept that a competitor or adversary has both the ability and the will to create technologies domestically, that they would be prohibited from purchasing, you have to accept that the originator has lost control. What is worse is the possibility that they might just make a better version than you have.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that one country can develop a technology that no other can, is as flawed as it is arrogant. And by refusing to sell advanced technology, the reasons to produce domestic alternatives get stepped up a gear - or several. Once you accept that a competitor or adversary has both the ability and the will to create technologies domestically, that they would be prohibited from purchasing, you have to accept that the originator has lost control. What is worse is the possibility that they might just make a better version than you have.
And no one said any of that. In the world today, the current EUV machines are made by one company in the world. It is ASML in the Netherlands. The US nor Japan produces them, and both countries have a long history with making lithography machines. The problem was the cost of R&D and the specific strategies to make EUV was successful only for one company. Making EUV machines is not an easy task that someone can do in their garage this weekend.
Can China copy everything ASML did? Sure. The issue is that it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Zeiss must be very upset that the Chinese have been pushed to develop competitive lenses even faster.
insert idiom here.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If yopu need a ... (Score:2)
... massive industrial spy op to get on par, you actually prove your gross incompetence.
IP theft (Score:2)
"The prototype, completed in early 2025 by former ASML engineers who reverse-engineered the Dutch company's machines, is operational and generating EUV light". "recruits are working under false identities inside secure facilities"
China must be paying them a fortune for this theft, no wonder they want to remain anonymous. The basic technique ASML uses to create the EUV light is public knowledge and ASML even describes it, but the machinery to do it is not.
They shine a powerful industrial CO laser at microsc
Re: (Score:3)
Once you get to UV-C wavelengths, you stop being able to use traditional optics. I doubt they're using mirrors at all. This is for the rather funny reason that the wavelength starts approaching the size of individual atoms such that you can't make a mirror that appears smooth to the light beam you're using. You start having to use things like grazing incidence mirrors [wikipedia.org] or diffraction gratings to collimate the light.
You could also skip all that by using an electron beam to do your etching. You can easily get
Re: (Score:2)
According to their website, they "developed a brand-new optical system that uses ultrasmooth, multilayer mirrors inside a vacuum chamber. Each mirror has over 100 layers of materials that were carefully chosen and precisely engineered to maximize the reflection of EUV light.
Flatness is also crucial for EUV reflection. The mirrors are polished to a smoothness of less than one atom’s thickness. "
Re: (Score:2)
That's a description of a fairly traditional type of mirror called a dielectric mirror [wikipedia.org]. Basically every optical telescope made in the last 75 years uses them. Even most of the higher-end hobbyist telescopes use them. I'm guessing they use something besides the normal aluminum deposited on borosilicate glass for their mirrors. It would need to have lots of electrons to reflect such high frequencies, be relatively durable, and also be shiny/reflective. If I had to guess, I'd say gallium, indium, tin, or some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not that special. For example, the main mirror on Hubble, which is also the same primary on the KH-11 spy satellites, is an order of magnitude smoother than this and is designed to work in optical and near-IR wavelengths. While Hubble's primary is doped with aluminum and James Webb is doped with gold, ASML's mirrors would need a different dopant.
Re: (Score:2)
As expected (Score:2)
Chinese engineers and scientists are smart
Attempting to prevent China from acquiring tech is futile and counterproductive
Cooperation would be better
Re: (Score:2)
Cooperation would, indeed, be better. Unfortunately both sides want to ensure that only they win.
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder what's going to happen to Nvidia (Score:2)
You've got these companies that a few changes in who makes the chips could drop their value by hundreds of billions of dollars. And you have investors buying in during
There's more to making chips than EUV (Score:5, Interesting)
TSMC are the masters, inventing small machines and leading the world. Apple are 2nd with a working 3nm wafer fab line. Samsung have a working 7nm line, I heard they were upgrading to 5nm, but I never heard of product coming out, so they seem stuck there. Intel has a 10nm wafer fab line, but Intel can't get it working. They've rejigged things so their 10nm line is actually putting out 12nm chips but they still lose money trying to make silicon. They make their CPUs on a 14nm line.
Here's China's progress. In 2021, Rockchip released the RK3588 on 8nm Silicon. They have that technology for many years, and I don't doubt they will improve on it. Chip making is extremely seismically sensitive, and barely noticable movement on a seismograph just wrecks stuff. Ditto power surges, lightning, etc.
Smaller fab size = lower power usage at the same frequencies or higher frequency for the same power. But every increment downwards needs complete redesign now. It's not just about making things smaller, because thinner insulation doesn't work.
Is the article inaccurate? (Score:2)
The (linked) article begins with:
"It was built by a team of former engineers from Dutch semiconductor giant ASML (ASML.AS), opens new tab who reverse-engineered the company's extreme ultraviolet lithography machines or EUVs, according to two people with knowledge of the project."
Then, much later in the long article, it explains:
"ASML won an $845 million judgment in 2019 against a former Chinese engineer accused of stealing trade secrets, but the defendant filed for bankruptcy and continues to operate in Bei
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind. My question is answered later in the article:
"The ASML veterans made the breakthrough in Shenzhen possible, the people said. Without their intimate knowledge of the technology, reverse-engineering the machines would have been nearly impossible."
Whelp (Score:2)
Not a Manhattan Project (Score:3)
The part most people think of when they think of the Manhattan Project is the designing of nuclear devices. In reality, the bulk of the Manhattan Project was manufacturing the weapons-grade fissile material. That part of the Manhattan Project occupied roughly a third of US industrial capacity during WWII. Was this EUV R&D project consuming a third of China's industrial output? Was it even consuming an absolute amount of manufacturing capacity equal to a third of 1940's-era America? No? Then it's not China's version of the Manhattan Project.
Re: (Score:2)
China is pointedly not spending a third of their manufacturing on AI. They're also not spending a third of 1940s America's manufacturing output on it. They're not spending even an inflation-adjusted amount of money on AI as was spent on the Manhattan Project. China is not pursuing hyper-scaling as a technique to improve their generators, unlike the US. They've already shown much more progress with a much faster and cheaper process. These new chips, if they ever develop them, will improve those models, but t
Doing to ASML what they did to Nortel (Score:2)
I see Huawei and the Chinese Government are up to their old tricks. They stole technology wholesale from Nortel then undercut them, which destroyed Nortel. How soon before they do the same to ASML?
Clueless authors didn't mention LLMs (Score:2)
Re:so dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
They way you control your enemies is you kneecap them opportunity arises.
China is the proof your argument is bullshit. "Open China' has been the policy for how many decades?
All keeping China close has done is
- Let them industrialize
- Let take massive technological leaps by importing western knowledge
- Let them build up a massive armed force we probably can't counter
- Let them a ton to time develop weapons systems (hyper sonic missiles specifically) that will utterly negate our own usual force projection strategy. Look at any of the war games information that leaked out..The Gerald R. Ford is sunk in HOURS...
- Let them make themselves a critical part of the supply chain for the things we need to build modern smart weapons
TL:DR we lose access to Taiwan, it just a matter of attrition, we deplete our stocks of modern weapons long before we can stand up the manufacturing of advanced semiconductors and other supply chain elements to replace them. Once we run out of stuff China moves in and captures the strategic islands in the pacific.
We are really really fucked, precisely because we let them get to near.
Re:so dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
"Letting them get near" is not exactly putting it in correct terms. Yes such a talking point was part of the sales pitch, but one should by now know the difference between the words and actions in politics.
Western elites sent all their jobs and factories to China, and the Chinese were smart enough to accept it on the condition of technology transfer.
The West itself taught China everything it knows about manufacturing. Everything was delivered to them on a silver platter. There is no other way to put it but treason on a civilizational scale, but it made some of our elites insanely rich, so they made it happen. The result is we already live in a Chinese world, but it will be years before the dust settles and the West wakes up to look around, and the people at fault will be long dead by then.
Coming back to the OP, yes there still was an actual letting them get near strategy available, even after all the outsourcing had happened. The West still had tech lead in three key areas - semiconductors, aerospace, and biotech. All the West had to do was to keep the lead and not fuck it up. The Chinese were happy to buy this stuff from us. Because in the end, they also want to sell to us, and trade needs to be mostly balanced out, otherwise someone is giving away their stuff for free. Money you earn but never spend is not worth the paper it's printed on.
But then the West went and fucked it up. The US, having designated China their enemy number one, and starting all sorts of trade wars, proved to them beyond any doubt, already by Trump's last term, that they would have to be self-sufficient in everything. Now Trump is flailing around like a windmill, but the Chinese are prepared, and Trump has no leverage anymore. China is about to close the gap.
But once the gap has closed - what will the West have left to sell to China? To anyone? Because anything the West can make, the Chinese are about to make better and cheaper. But if you have nothing to sell, you have no money to buy anything, either. The West will end up poor, backwards, and isolated. Like it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly is wrong with that?
White imperialist christian colonial rapist and plunderer?
Asshole very much? You asshole can rule the planet and the dipshits have to eat dust?
Re: (Score:2)
Let them?
One of the reasons why much of the world, especially the developing would, is moving away from the US and its soft power is because the US thinks it gets to decide how fast and how far they can develop.
Re: so dumb (Score:2)
So, not making enemies is not an option, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China's population is crashing, too, nearly everyone's is.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Bill Clinton that opened up for China to enter the WTO and become a normal trading partner with the world. What it allowed fore was the complete erosion of our manufacturing base. Then we got books telling how the world was flat and this was a good thing. It was not good for us.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you propose keeping a population of a billion people from industrializing? And to expand on that what right do you have to interfere?
Good questions.
You can't, unless you bomb them and the rest of us into oblivion. And the *supposed* rules of the world are that given China is a sovereign country no one else has the right to interfere.
In any case, they are mostly using the same playbook that the US used against England during the 18th century to become an industrial age power house:
Obtain knowledge, ignore other countries IP rights, innovate, to exceed capabilities of adversaries.
NOTE: Venezuela is also a sovereign country. And that is no
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose keeping a population of a billion people from industrializing?
This is a good question to ask India. India has sufficient population, intelligence, and resources. It lacks the needed governmental and economic structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not being a dick was even better. The US has tried that "kneecapping" trick on a bunch of countries, including their good friends in NATO. The French quit NATO because they saw it happening. Then the US secretary of state writes an essay in 2011 called "America's Pacific Century" stating in the very first paragraph that as the US winds down it's wars in Iraq and Afganistan it's time to move on to the Asia-Pacific region.
WTF was China supposed to do?
Re: so dumb (Score:2)
"China doesn't have to be your enemy."
Like Russia, and of course the US, China would like to be in charge. If we wanted to remain in charge then we had to treat China as an adversary.. But we also needed to not elect Trump. Oh well.
Re: so dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Given Hitler's expulsion of the Jews who built the atom bomb, is it inconceivable that liberal democracies are inherently more innovative?
Re: (Score:3)
is it inconceivable that liberal democracies are inherently more innovative?
It's not inconceivable it's a fact. What so many argue about is why it's a fact and that leads some to think it isn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple. Every holder of power acts to restrain challengers. If you allow monopolies, then innovation in that area slows drastically. When you have diverse centers of development, then development tends to be faster...but more expensive.
So if you want the most profitable companies, then you allow monopolies. If you want the fastest development, then you break up monopolies, of prevent them from ever arising...but this will make the companies less profitable (on the average).
Historically dem
Re: (Score:2)
Historically democracies have been more willing to break up monopolies. Right now, though, the US doesn't seem to be willing to do so. So now rapid development depends on competition between either countries or blocks of countries.
Agree with this 100%, liberal democracy is capable of the most innovation and really has but part of that is the string institutions and management of markets. Capitalism needs maintenance and boundaries or as you've described it will naturally drift towards things like monopoly. The fact we've been cajoled into not doing that anymore I think is a core component of why it seems to be faltering as of late.
Re: (Score:2)
For 70 years? Yes. Next time say 20 years and you're closer to an argument but I can assure you just based on what's baked into your 9 words whatever your explanations and prescriptions are not going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so innovation can only meet your specific criteria. So since Unix was a thing already Linux doesn't count as innovative.
Re: so dumb (Score:2)
It (Linux) didn't when it was new, maybe it does now.
Re: (Score:2)
For sure, I'd say it passed it's progenitor long ago but it's a total Loki's wager to say what that line of innovative or iterative is.
Re: (Score:2)
Words are important, it's never been only the premise was more and I'll stand by that. Europe and the US have been *more innovative than China and USSR/Russia. Equal everything else a liberal democracy will be more innovative than other forms of government and societal structure. I will defend that 100%.
I absolutely would not say either of those have not been innovative at all because that's just not true, that's also silly statement but nobody was making it.
Re: (Score:2)
Two world wars might have had something to do with that. I'd say they did remarkably well, given the circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we have the USA, which brought the world the following: Google, Meta, Apple,.... I'm not quite sure what you're so proud of...
Re: so dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Motherfucker please, there isn't a single person in this administration who isn't a "DEI" hire. None are merit based.
Wits vs. Twits. Round One. (Score:3, Interesting)
Motherfucker please, there isn't a single person in this administration who isn't a "DEI" hire. None are merit based.
Just remember. You asked for this.
Battle of the Minds, Round One:
Trump vs. Biden (a.k.a. The Big Guy, President Autopen), on anything he can recall coherently other than ice cream.
Vance vs. Harris (a.k.a. The Cackler, Open Border Czar), on word salads (allowed due to self-identified disability) and National Security.
Hegseth vs. Walz, on the benefits of masculinity.
Kennedy vs. Rachel Levine, on the value of Fathers and parental rights.
Gabbard vs. Harris, just because we deserve to see that mental bitch-sl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I knew you were stupid... I had no idea you were that stupid!
DEI policies make it more likely, not less likely, that actually competent people get hired. Unless you think being a white man with the same last name as the boss counts as "actual competency".
The sad reality is that you just can't compete on a level playing field with all those women and brown people.
Re: (Score:2)
DEI policies make it more likely, not less likely, that actually competent people get hired.
(D)iversity - Hiring that prioritizes having a diverse group of humans, over competency whenever necessary, using quotas.
(E)quity - Hiring that prioritizes equal gender representation for all positions, over competency whenever necessary, using quotas. (NOTE: Really really hard jobs, don't count. Because that would be unfair.)
(I)nclusion - Hiring that prioritizes inclusion of all types and mental states, over competency whenever necessary, using quotas.
Explain the overtly denied and gross incompetence wit
Re: (Score:2)
Explain the overtly denied and gross incompetence within the last administration instead of deflecting.
At least they didn't try to invade Canada or rename the gulf of Mexico. At least they didn't blame Zelensky for starting the Ukraine war. or attack Venezuela. I'm no Biden fan, but the Trump administration has no shortage of stupidity and insanity.
Re: so dumb (Score:2)
Did Reagan use financial innovation to bankrupt the USSR while the US is still fine with 500% more debt today than in his day?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the History Channel said, but Germany was many years away from making the atomic bomb when the Nazi's went on the path of expelling the intellectuals. They had most of the theory, but so did everyone else. They had the people who could have helped convert the theory to practice, but they expelled them. But this was multiple years before theory was converted into practice (i.e. "The Italian navigator has landed in the new world. The natives are friendly.") At at THAT time, the US gover
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany was not attempting to build a nuclear bomb because Heisenberg had got his sums wrong. He thought you needed 150 tons of enriched Uranium to make a bomb, which was impractical. After the war he started claiming his mistake was deliberate to deny the Nazis a nuclear bomb.
The problem was that the Nazi's had expelled all the Jewish physicists, and a bunch of others had just left. Consequently, Heisenberg didn't have anyone to double-check his calculations or correct the mistake.
It is also doubtful that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The conclusions you're drawing from whatever pop-culture article you read that mentioned Calhoun's torture chambers are ... questionable ... at best. Go look at Jonathan Freedman's experiments. I believe there was another, more recent experiment where they gave the mice toys and ways to entertain themselves that didn't end in disaster, but I don't remember who was involved and can't seem to find it with a quick search.
Calhoun, if you didn't know, turned out to be quite the crackpot with his "extracortica
Re: (Score:2)
To a dictator, "hedonism" means "anything I don't want you to do."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I need a refresher on why China is my enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Hillary Clinton said so.
Re: (Score:2)
I need a refresher on why China is my enemy.
China is not your enemy, but the CCP declared ideology is to conquer the world, whether through force, innovation, or economics. So if you want to live in a communist paradise without human rights, then you have no enemies in the CCP.
Re: so dumb (Score:3)
Fake communist you mean. China is provably not communist now.
Re: (Score:2)
(Fun fact: the Soviet Union never claimed to be communist. They claimed they were working towards that goal, well aware that they hadn't achieved it. The goal? A world where man does not exploit man. It's still a worthy goal)
Re: (Score:2)
China has a value system completely antithetical to yours. China very much wants Chinese hegemony, in the way the 20th century was the America century.
This is correct but you have to realize that all the actions and ideas that drive MAGA are making this happen faster right? That MAGA is pretty much built around the idea that all the things that built American hegemony (free trade, strong allies, America as the bulwark of NATO and the military hegemon) is bad.
It's maddening to have this opinion about China and yet support the admin that literally has said they are shifting their military focus from Asia to fucking South America. That won't stand up for Ta
Re: (Score:2)
while you turn the world over to people that will oppress everyone who isnt Han Chinese and economically at first, violently later anyone who does not agree with the party, no matter where in the world you happen to be.
Sounds a lot like Project 2025.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or as if eating stroopwafels made Dutch engineers smarter than Chinese engineers
Please stop giving away Dutch state secrets.
Re:..former ASML engineers who reverse-engineered. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but copying from what others are doing is very normal. Copyrights and patents were originally intended to be quite temporary in duration. And that's as it should be.
I'm all in favor of temporary copyrights and patents, say 5 years. Perhaps 10 if there are a LOT of up front development costs. Beyond that is an aberration, and one shouldn't expect others to abide by it. (And the US basically ignored UK patents and copyrights until quite recently.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Having people working there under assumed names sounds sort of like "Manhattan project" level security. I.e. it's a big secretive project with a lot of government backing". I'll grant it's a wildly overused metaphor, but that just means everyone will recognize it.
Re: (Score:2)
China is the enemy because Realpolitik asserts that there can be only one top country.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a lot of the reason the US is the one top country is because they're the one top country. From the historical structure of NATO to la privilège exorbitant, the US enjoyed and enjoys a lot of, well, privilège exorbitant due to their position.
Of course, they currently seem determined to scuttle all that all by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to underestimate how little concern high-tech companies have to get their know-how anywhere if there are lower wages to profit from.