Nvidia and its partners built a system to bypass U.S. export restrictions

>Total TSMC capacity is at around 70-80%.

I specifically distinguished Taiwan on island capacity vs TSMC global capacity in my prior reply. Taiwan TSMC fabs producing cutting edge fabrication is at 100% capacity. Taiwan is the specific topic of this post which is why I offer the differentiation.

As for the rest of your reply, we can agree to disagree. Have a good day.

Well, specifically regarding 華 and 華人, if you want to watch something interesting, ask a group of Mandarin speakers that aren't PRC citizens whether they're 華人. 9/10 times they will immediately begin arguing with eachother about the answer. That's basically my point: 華人 and similar concepts in English described as "Chinese" have been historically defined by empires, written about by empires, etc, and modern anthropological techniques are finally teasing apart that this concept isn't necessarily natural but more derived from the efforts of any given empire in Chinese history - all building on eachother and legitimizing their given rule using these historical concepts. I certainly don't disagree with you that there's a lineage of these concepts!

> DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race.

This seems to me to be an oversimplification of even the "well accepted standards," such as for example there's a clear delineation between northern and southern "Han." You can subdivide Han even further purely genetically. Furthermore, at the end of the day, defining race by genetics is always a bit of a rabbit chase since it's a relatively meaningless distinction without considering culture, and culturally, the group most call "Han" is extremely diverse, much moreso than portrayed historically or in the modern era. I won't go into the trouble of listing the distinctive ethnic groups, many of whom aren't even recognized by the CPC, but suffice to say basically every province has one or more distinct ethnic groups normally described simply as "Han," and that's before counting what the CPC (and others) designates as "aboriginal."

> Next most definitive is the language.

I would say this is the least definitive! The unique nature of a morphosyllabic language is many languages can be written with it. Yes, definitely the various languages of the cultures within the PRC's modern territory are unarguably similar, but that's a feature shared with various languages in other parts of the world. Take a look at India! So, for that reason, just because many different people throughout history could read what was being written by whatever Chinese empire, doesn't mean they were all Han via language.

Further to that, the reason that people in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, and throughout history Korea and Japan, could speak what we today call Mandarin, is because it was the language of an Empire. Of course one would speak the King's language in the King's land.

I mean, in the PRC they call every language "Chinese" when speaking about them in English - Shanghainese, Ninghainese, Ningbonese, everything. So it's just another empire doing empire stuff.

> Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people.

With all due respect, just saying this doesn't really refute my argument.

> both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements.

Yes, this is an overall point I have, that these concepts are difficult to divorce from politics, since politics has such a strong effect on what these are. E.g. if it weren't for the politics of the early United States, many indigenous languages in north america would be much more widely spoken (a recent news item I learned about, it's on mind) - regardless of the initial conquering, it was specifically the political policy of reeducation that ensured the basically permanent demise of these cultures.

If one gets into the weeds of the whole messy thing, the Shanghai Communique acknowledges the position of both sides (Taiwan and China) that there is one China, the 1982 Joint Communique acknowledged the Chinese position and said the US had no intention of pursuing a "two Chinas" or "one China and Taiwan" policy. And of course there's a non stop stream of such political speak, which is a red herring for the whole issue. Beyond minor changes to wordings, the main things the US did that screwed over Taiwan:

1) Revoking the mutual defense treaty which legally bound the US to defend Taiwan, replacing it with a more vague law where military intervention was not clear. 2) Recognizing the PRC as the legitimate representative of China.

To align your claims slightly, Taiwan also claims the same section of the SCS (actually it claims a slightly larger part), so strictly speaking it is what happens if the "Chinese claims" are realised (Taiwan and China work jointly to support their claims, ironically enough). In real terms the economic effects of China with respect to the SCS are greatly exaggerated for a number of reasons. First being that shipping can be routed through Indonesia. It is not a chokepoint, it just happens to be the shortest route. Second, blockades have little to do with recognising swaths of ocean as territory. These are enforced by navies, and most blockades in history have not happened within the blockaders' own waters (for obvious reasons). It is no easier for China to blockade trade in the region if it claims the SCS. And third, of all the major economic powers, China has historically been the least likely to enact economic warfare like blockades or sanctions. There is also a fourth aspect where in the current political environment, the globalised, trade based economic order is the least popular in the US and assorted European states, not China (who in fact desperately needs trade).

  I specifically distinguished Taiwan on island capacity vs TSMC global capacity in my prior reply. Taiwan TSMC fabs producing cutting edge fabrication is at 100% capacity. Taiwan is the specific topic of this post which is why I offer the differentiation.

Well yea, the most cutting edge node such as N3 are pre-sold and in high demand. It doesn't make your statement about banning Chinese companies from using TSMC fabs having no effect on revenue right. That's just divorced from basic supply and demand economics.

Capacity as in the amount of chips they can make. If they are already at max capacity, then which of their customers currently maxing out that capacity will be told no so that they can suddenly start producing chips for other people.