China’s domestic semiconductor industry landscape has changed considerably. The Biden administration has continued to impose export control restrictions on Chinese firms, and the October 7, 2022, package of controls targeted not only advanced semiconductors (such as GPUs used for running artificial intelligence and machine learning workloads) but also expanded significantly on controls over semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME). One goal of the U.S. controls is to prevent Chinese firms from moving into nonplanar technology processes, such as FinFET and eventually Gate All Around (GAA). The new restrictions included novel end-use controls and controls on U.S. persons, posing major new challenges...
I feel like this is very short sighted. Yes, they can’t do it now. Yes, they are far behind…
But as a manager and a father, the textbook way you get someone to truly learn something and grow is to give them pointers, give them a reason to want to do it, and then let them figure it out on their own. This is how kids learn to walk, how people get good at games, how employees are pushed to learn and grow in their roles, and how countries develop their own tech.
China clearly has enough examples and pointers (legally or not), and now we have a given them a reason to do it (barring them from importing it, but still needing the tech). It will take a while, and their end goals and processes might be different than what ours were. I.e., Sometimes my kid thinks of doing something a different way and it still works. Time will tell. But in the end, they will have their own logistics, their own factories, and their own products. They might be worse, but they could definitely be better, that’s all up to them.
If you wanted China to stay dependent on us, then this was not the right move.
Eventually maybe. But it will be super tough to get to the leading edge, because by the the time they reach where the rest of the world currently is, the rest of the world will go a couple more steps ahead.
What companies like ASML have achieved are half a century of R&D that even if china just copy, paying no attention to IP, there are so many things to perfect. Things like the specialized mirrors and optics that are needed.
China can probably one day get to where the rest are currently in a few years, but to both manufacture and keep per unit costs down at the same time is not an easy hurdle to cross.
I work with a few people from China. What do you think they will say if I ask them if they have a way to say yes to other people in the language they speak when they call their parents?
I would wager that if you asked that question to Chinese people, they’ll answer something like “we use 对, which means correct”, as I explained earlier.
Ask them if they like ice cream, but to answer in Chinese.
They are not going to say “对", they’ll say ”喜欢“（I like it), “不喜欢”,(I don’t like it) or some variation.
They won’t say 对 because “correct” doesn’t answer the question “do you like ice cream?”
You can get an approximate or what you can assimilate as a functional answer to your questions, but you’ll never get a “yes”.
That’s just how “yes” works in all Chinese languages and dialects.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Lacking a word for"yes" is one difference among thousands this culture has that determines their reactions to what you think are subtle influences, while you are assuming that culture will react in a way that you understand, even though you can’t understand it by virtue of your simple, practical differences and context.
Bearing in mind that this is a fraction of a percent of the cultural differences, "是“ means “it is” and "不是“ means “it isn’t”. Neither of them mean yes or no, and would be an incorrect answer to “do you like ice cream?”
" Do you like ice cream?"
" It is."
You can understand what they’re going for, but you are not prompting the response you would expect to because that answer doesn’t exist in those languages or in those cultures.
The framing and context of a single word seems small, but when you’re asking a child “do you like ice cream” but you’re not allowed to ask it in anway that they can say yes or no to you and employ the complexities and implications of those words, the situation is different.
" You like ice cream, correct or incorrect?"
They’ll answer you, but you’ve taken away their independent facility to formulate an answer.
" Ice cream is good, is it or is it not?"
Again, they’ll answer you, within the strict confines of your question. There’s no gray area in your question, which is how you have to ask it in order to elicit any sort of response.
You give them two possible answers, they choose one.
That in turn shapes how you and they see questions in general. How questions and behavioral prompts like the types you’re suggesting are perceived, are asked and responded to.
You can imagine how linguistic formation can determine thought processes pretty quickly, layer upon each other and result in a consciousness you don’t quite recognize.
And that’s from one word among a couple dozen thousand, and those are all only words and ignoring all other parts of the culture.
As I’ve mentioned multiple times from the beginning, it’s a salient example of how your paternal metaphor about the US prompting China to behave a certain way is entirely wrongheaded.
And it isn’t a “position”, it’s a linguistic fact.
English not having gendered nouns is a fact, not a “position”.
是 and 不 can be functionally understood to mean yes and no, but they’re certainly not direct translations and not correct answers to asking someone if they like something.
If you ask in Chinese if somebody likes something, You’re going to get the answers"喜欢“ or "不喜欢“, not "是/不是“.
You can get "是“ by asking about the concrete nature of whether something is or is not.
"这是公园吗“?
"是“ or "不是“
A Chinese language speaker can use these two words to convey what an English speaker understands as “yes” or “no” that what you’re referring to is or is not a park. But they are not saying"yes" or “no”.
They’re saying “it is” or "it isn’t“, which are different words with different semantics.
It’s a response to an example from a commenter saying that if the US treated China like the comments are treats their own child, they’ll be able to manipulate and receive a desired response, and that the US is going about semiconductor sanctions wrong.
This is a terrible analogy, as the US and China do not have a paternal relationship, or share similar cultural or behavioral contexts or environments, and there’s no reason that the US should expect China to respond to its prompts how the US expects china too
I feel like this is very short sighted. Yes, they can’t do it now. Yes, they are far behind…
But as a manager and a father, the textbook way you get someone to truly learn something and grow is to give them pointers, give them a reason to want to do it, and then let them figure it out on their own. This is how kids learn to walk, how people get good at games, how employees are pushed to learn and grow in their roles, and how countries develop their own tech.
China clearly has enough examples and pointers (legally or not), and now we have a given them a reason to do it (barring them from importing it, but still needing the tech). It will take a while, and their end goals and processes might be different than what ours were. I.e., Sometimes my kid thinks of doing something a different way and it still works. Time will tell. But in the end, they will have their own logistics, their own factories, and their own products. They might be worse, but they could definitely be better, that’s all up to them.
If you wanted China to stay dependent on us, then this was not the right move.
Eventually maybe. But it will be super tough to get to the leading edge, because by the the time they reach where the rest of the world currently is, the rest of the world will go a couple more steps ahead.
What companies like ASML have achieved are half a century of R&D that even if china just copy, paying no attention to IP, there are so many things to perfect. Things like the specialized mirrors and optics that are needed.
China can probably one day get to where the rest are currently in a few years, but to both manufacture and keep per unit costs down at the same time is not an easy hurdle to cross.
Removed by mod
I work with a few people from China. What do you think they will say if I ask them if they have a way to say yes to other people in the language they speak when they call their parents?
I would wager that if you asked that question to Chinese people, they’ll answer something like “we use 对, which means correct”, as I explained earlier.
Ask them if they like ice cream, but to answer in Chinese.
They are not going to say “对", they’ll say ”喜欢“（I like it), “不喜欢”,(I don’t like it) or some variation.
They won’t say 对 because “correct” doesn’t answer the question “do you like ice cream?”
You can get an approximate or what you can assimilate as a functional answer to your questions, but you’ll never get a “yes”.
That’s just how “yes” works in all Chinese languages and dialects.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Lacking a word for"yes" is one difference among thousands this culture has that determines their reactions to what you think are subtle influences, while you are assuming that culture will react in a way that you understand, even though you can’t understand it by virtue of your simple, practical differences and context.
How about “shi”…?
Bearing in mind that this is a fraction of a percent of the cultural differences, "是“ means “it is” and "不是“ means “it isn’t”. Neither of them mean yes or no, and would be an incorrect answer to “do you like ice cream?”
" Do you like ice cream?"
" It is."
You can understand what they’re going for, but you are not prompting the response you would expect to because that answer doesn’t exist in those languages or in those cultures.
The framing and context of a single word seems small, but when you’re asking a child “do you like ice cream” but you’re not allowed to ask it in anway that they can say yes or no to you and employ the complexities and implications of those words, the situation is different.
" You like ice cream, correct or incorrect?"
They’ll answer you, but you’ve taken away their independent facility to formulate an answer.
" Ice cream is good, is it or is it not?"
Again, they’ll answer you, within the strict confines of your question. There’s no gray area in your question, which is how you have to ask it in order to elicit any sort of response.
You give them two possible answers, they choose one.
That in turn shapes how you and they see questions in general. How questions and behavioral prompts like the types you’re suggesting are perceived, are asked and responded to.
You can imagine how linguistic formation can determine thought processes pretty quickly, layer upon each other and result in a consciousness you don’t quite recognize.
And that’s from one word among a couple dozen thousand, and those are all only words and ignoring all other parts of the culture.
All this to defend your position that billions of people don’t have a way to say “yes”.
As I’ve mentioned multiple times from the beginning, it’s a salient example of how your paternal metaphor about the US prompting China to behave a certain way is entirely wrongheaded.
And it isn’t a “position”, it’s a linguistic fact.
English not having gendered nouns is a fact, not a “position”.
Have a great day. You are an intellectual giant who has bested me.
What the fuck are you talking about. 是 Is a direct translation for yes. And we absolutely would answer
你喜欢冰淇淋吗 With 是的。
Similarly we would absolutely answer in the negative to that question with 不。 Because 不 is absolutely a direct translation of no.
To repeat 是 and 不 are direct translations of yes and no where you can drop them in replacement in English.
是 and 不 can be functionally understood to mean yes and no, but they’re certainly not direct translations and not correct answers to asking someone if they like something.
If you ask in Chinese if somebody likes something, You’re going to get the answers"喜欢“ or "不喜欢“, not "是/不是“.
You can get "是“ by asking about the concrete nature of whether something is or is not.
"这是公园吗“?
"是“ or "不是“
A Chinese language speaker can use these two words to convey what an English speaker understands as “yes” or “no” that what you’re referring to is or is not a park. But they are not saying"yes" or “no”.
They’re saying “it is” or "it isn’t“, which are different words with different semantics.
What nonsense.
Everything you said is true in English.
If I ask do you like ice cream, a common answer is I like it. You can also say yes. Exactly the same as 喜欢, or 是的. Both are perfectly normal to say.
You are trying to imply the second one is not normal. You are wrong.
what does this have to do with semiconductors?
It’s a response to an example from a commenter saying that if the US treated China like the comments are treats their own child, they’ll be able to manipulate and receive a desired response, and that the US is going about semiconductor sanctions wrong.
This is a terrible analogy, as the US and China do not have a paternal relationship, or share similar cultural or behavioral contexts or environments, and there’s no reason that the US should expect China to respond to its prompts how the US expects china too
theres nothing paternal about relationships between countries
in fact we are siblings.
Nothing paternal, that was the problem here. It’s a pretty insulting analogy
Maybe cousins, with the distance, equal standing and cultural differences.
i’m sorry but you aint making sense to me.