21–30 of 229 posts
The more they sell, the less likely China & others are going to make a real alternative.
They will still make a real alternative, it's in their own national security interests to do so.
There is also a massive difference between making them uneconomically and making them economically at scale.
I am not sure I buy this argument that Nvidia management was complicit, but it does need investigation.
The more they sell, the less likely China & others are going to make a real alternative.
I am not sure I buy this argument that Nvidia management was complicit, but it does need investigation.
Close this loophole and another one opens. The ban was and is incredibly shortsighted.
Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy”, even if the people harmed isn’t of significant size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why did you post the tweet also then? Stick to the source
um... try reading the tweet maybe? it's adding massive new details about a different country altogether
Post the tweet in the thread about the mumbai article then. (a story that's been submitted 5 times already) It's a Related: or this is a Related:.
No need to split up the discussion with multiple threads.
And of course China sees Taiwan as a rogue province, at at least treats invasion there as "on the table". While the US may decide to actively support Taiwan, at the very least a war over that will disrupt production.
Should Taiwan fall, and China choose to ban exports from there to the US, then the fun and games would really start.
As long as back-channels exist to supply the chips to China, then there's less incentive for China to control Taiwan. The ban exists as good politics (we don't ship to our adversaries) while the back-channels ensure they aren't forced into a position no-one wants them to be in.