News on China's scientific and technological development.

free_6ix9ine

Junior Member
Registered Member
Xi would have retaliated if it didn't look like Trump is about to lose the election in an landslide. What comes after is more important. Bidens campaign is reaping in mass amounts of dark money from Chip company lobbies. Trust me, this sanction lifted soon enough.
 

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Don't worry about it; it's for the other members. There are so many things you really need to be informed on that pretend ignorance doesn't even make the list.

So it's not my reading problem, is it? That's what it says in English? LOL

The US opens many exceptions for business. If Huawei paid for it, they got it; if it was banned, they would not have been allowed to pay for it. And even if they paid for nothing, they've still achieve far more than you could in all your previous and present lifetimes added together. The stupid one is still, and will always be, you.
Keep on spinning. What does your words even mean. Is huawei getting qualcomm chips yes or no?
US government says no today.

Dont tell story. Give me a link that huawei for sure gets qualcomm chips.
 

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ok lets listen to a random person on the sinodefenceforum instead of a peer reviewed journal.....
A journal? Yeah right. Welcome to real world of mass productio n Focused laser is not hard tech. If its doable other countries wouldnt go through so many troubles developing EUV and paying excess of $100million each
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
No a country on this earth would use focused laser for making chips on mass volume. Not before not after. Not ever.
Lots of confidence, lots of provably wrong statements, no evidence. That's what you specialize in. And now, you have a prediction about technology that extends to the end of time LOL.
Keep on spinning. What does your words even mean. Is huawei getting qualcomm chips yes or no?
US government says no today.

Dont tell story. Give me a link that huawei for sure gets qualcomm chips.
I'm spinning? LOL The article said Qualcomm technology. Never did it nor I, say Huawei is getting Qualcomm chips. I know you like to move the goalpost but this is too obvious; it's not clever at all. You are getting worse and worse at it.
A journal? Yeah right. Welcome to real world of mass productio n Focused laser is not hard tech. If its doable other countries wouldnt go through so many troubles developing EUV and paying excess of $100million each
Yeah, a peer-reviewed journal, reviewed by real world-recognized experts, not fake Ukrainians who post in Chinese and harass Huawei with letters filled with stupid ideas.
 

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
You cannot prove your claim so you say you are throwing me a bone? LOL No thanks, you keep it. The rest of your statements don't support that China had the chance to dominate the lithography or semiconductor industry in the 50's or 60's; it's random ranting that doesn't have a point.
Yeah right. Constant harping on proof of China lithography tech during 50s and 60s shows your ignorance
 

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lots of confidence, lots of provably wrong statements, no evidence. That's what you specialize in. And now, you have a prediction about technology that extends to the end of time LOL.

I'm spinning? LOL The article said Qualcomm technology. Never did it nor I, say Huawei is getting Qualcomm chips. I know you like to move the goalpost but this is too obvious; it's not clever at all. You are getting worse and worse at it.

Yeah, a peer-reviewed journal, reviewed by real world-recognized experts, not fake Ukrainians who post in Chinese and harass Huawei with letters filled with stupid ideas.
Show me a link that a company uses focused laser for mass production of IC .

Focused laser is old tech. It should be used based what you said


A valid Link not your story telling.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Yeah right. Constant harping on proof of China lithography tech during 50s and 60s shows your ignorance
Constant inability to prove your actual assertions attempting to substitute basic facts shows your inability to construct an evidenced argument. Constant fixation on a minor and trivial point shows your desperately obvious debate strategy to move away from all important points that you have been defeated on.
Show me a link that a company uses focused laser for mass production of IC .

Focused laser is old tech. It should be used based what you said


A valid Link not your story telling.
That's moving the goalpost again. We are talking about the potential of focused lasers for mass production as demonstrated in a peer-reviewed research article, not its current implementation. I never said that this is actively in use. That's the whole point of new research. Your attempt is, once again, too obvious and not clever.

That manxique dude was demanding i show proof
Oooh, sounds so much like Tidalwave LOL Yes, I was just asking if you had evidence to back your assertion that China was self-sufficient at the highest level. If you proved it, it would show that China squandered and opportunity 50 years ago. If not, then it didn't necessarily. Either way, it would not have been impacted by 5G, AI, etc... as you falsely claimed and it would not be relevant to today. It's just trivial knowledge that you have put center stage because you have defined that as your least indefensible claim.
 
Top