What economic domination in Hyd by andhras ba

[Telugodura456]

This is the latest one by the way :

 

Intel Subsidies for Ohio, Magedeburg Fabs Measure in Billions of Dollars

By Anton Shilov published March 17, 2022

Government subsidies are crucial for fabs in the U.S., Europe.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-gets-billions-in-state-aid-for-ohio-and-magdeburg-fabs

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Telugodura456 said:

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/intel

First subisdy INTEL recieved is 1993. - LMAO

@Raven_Rayes - you never lost an arguement? - LOL

the argument didn't even start.

we are just arguing whether your c) proposition is worth it or not. its not worth it.

[Telugodura456]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

Japanese fell behind in semiconductor tech.

taiwan's expertise is both a function of western tech, and its business model. given that majority of chip market was in the region, TSMC was in the right place at the right time.

yes TSMC's business model to be replicated in the US is very very tricky. but most of the tech in semiconductor tech is a mixture of western and some japanese.

you really think Taiwanese came up with TSMC out of the blue? when almost all semiconductor manufacturing before that happened in the US/Japan?

Japan case is irrelevant ?
What do you think about taiwan? you aready said they have a superior business model. But now you sound like there is a conspiracy.

Yes Taiwan beat Japan and US in fabs. So can China.

[Raven_Rayes]

2 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/intel

First subisdy INTEL recieved is 1993. - LMAO

@Raven_Rayes - you never lost an arguement? - LOL

all this throwaway arguments that don't amount to anything about what we are discussing is what I mean when I say you are dishonest in a conversation.. always desperate to win it. I should dig up how much subsidy Samsung gets from its govt in Korea.

we are discussing whether c) is worthy of being debated.

[Telugodura456]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

the argument didn't even start.

we are just arguing whether your c) proposition is worth it or not. its not worth it.

hahahahahaha . Let me quote :

"Intel doesnt have the support of the federal govt (until now) like Samsung does to experiment in areas that are not its core business"

Not only now. You never had a decent argument with me before., If you did i would accept your view instantly. Instead you lie, slander, gaslight and do all kinds of vile and psychopath tricks.

[Telugodura456]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

all this throwaway arguments that don't amount to anything about what we are discussing is what I mean when I say you are dishonest in a conversation.. always desperate to win it. I should dig up how much subsidy Samsung gets from its govt in Korea.

we are discussing whether c) is worthy of being debated.

Dishonest anta - hahahahahahahaha.

You are pyshopath ra narsy - its clear now. anyone in this db would accept their understanding is wrong. But not you.

What do you gain with such craveness? i dont know

[Raven_Rayes]

Just now, Telugodura456 said:

Japan case is irrelevant ?
What do you think about taiwan? you aready said they have a superior business model. But now you sound like there is a conspiracy.

Yes Taiwan beat Japan and US in fabs. So can China.

there's no conspiracy? where did I say conspiracy? I said Taiwanese benefited from their business model, but the tech was all western and japanese.

US didn't have fabs because it made no economic sense to have them.

Intel cant be compared with TSMC because its not a pure fab. They were selling their 14nm chips until recently without much problem to their bottomline.

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Telugodura456 said:

hahahahahaha . Let me quote :

"Intel doesnt have the support of the federal govt (until now) like Samsung does to experiment in areas that are not its core business"

Not only now. You never had a decent argument with me before., If you did i would accept your view instantly. Instead you lie, slander, gaslight and do all kinds of vile and psychopath tricks.

to claim that I lost, I have to look for how much support Samsung gets from Korean govt.. there are two players here.

dude, I don't know why you are so worked up over nothing. I haven't even started to argue. I only have a rough idea of what points I'm going to take.. I still haven't looked them up.

why are you in a hurry to declare victory?

I'm just saying c) is impossible to prove one way or the other. and doesn't need to be in the agenda.

[Telugodura456]

Just now, Raven_Rayes said:

there's no conspiracy? where did I say conspiracy? I said Taiwanese benefited from their business model, but the tech was all western and japanese.

US didn't have fabs because it made no economic sense to have them.

Intel cant be compared with TSMC because its not a pure fab. They were selling their 14nm chips until recently without much problem to their bottomline.

I dont care whose tech is it. you are a fool if you think taiwan did not bring its own tech to enable it to make its chips at such high yeilds and low cost.

So it makes no sense to US because there is NO economic sense? Just wait there. Are you saying TSMC has no economic sense ? its one of the most profitable industry out there. Us makes burgers but too rich to make semiconductors?

This is the quality of your arguments.

 

 

[Raven_Rayes]

3 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

Dishonest anta - hahahahahahahaha.

You are pyshopath ra narsy - its clear now. anyone in this db would accept their understanding is wrong. But not you.

What do you gain with such craveness? i dont know

so you think showing me some random table (that I didn't even bother to look at) just settles this debate is it?

and you call me craven?

 

[Raven_Rayes]

Just now, Telugodura456 said:

I dont care whose tech is it. you are a fool if you think taiwan did not bring its own tech to enable it to make its chips at such high yeilds and low cost.

So it makes no sense to US because there is NO economic sense? Just wait there. Are you saying TSMC has no economic sense ? its one of the most profitable industry out there. Us makes burgers but too rich to make semiconductors?

This is the quality of your arguments.

just read the sh1t you said in highlighted text again.

do you think it makes sense? did I say that TSMC didn't make economic sense or that fabbing in the US (which is the business model of TSMC) doesn't make sense in the US.

if this is not dishonest gotcha talk, what is?

[Telugodura456]

Just now, Raven_Rayes said:

to claim that I lost, I have to look for how much support Samsung gets from Korean govt.. there are two players here.

dude, I don't know why you are so worked up over nothing. I haven't even started to argue. I only have a rough idea of what points I'm going to take.. I still haven't looked them up.

why are you in a hurry to declare victory?

I'm just saying c) is impossible to prove one way or the other. and doesn't need to be in the agenda.

hahaha ...i am not in a hurry. you will make a fool of yourself another hundred times.

What is this c) thing you keep using as an excuse to lie about everything else. Just lie about everything and say "We are discussing c) here why do you point out all my lies elsewhere" - LOL

C) is a fact. what is unprovable about chinese competency in space ? that competency in our area of science and technology can be transferred to others a conjecture. Its fine to me if you remove from agenda.

[Telugodura456]

2 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

so you think showing me some random table (that I didn't even bother to look at) just settles this debate is it?

and you call me craven?

 

its not a random table - lmao. It shows the federal support to intel which you claimed did not exist until CHIPS act.

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Telugodura456 said:

hahaha ...i am not in a hurry. you will make a fool of yourself another hundred times.

What is this c) thing you keep using as an excuse to lie about everything else. Just lie about everything and say "We are discussing c) here why do you point out all my lies elsewhere" - LOL

C) is a fact. what is unprovable about chinese competency in space ? that competency in our area of science and technology can be transferred to others a conjecture. Its fine to me if you remove from agenda.

chinese competency in space is irrelevant to whether they can lead the tech in leading edge chips.

yes, tech competency in one area cannot be transferred to another just like that.

 

[Raven_Rayes]

3 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

its not a random table - lmao. It shows the federal support to intel which you claimed did not exist until CHIPS act.

I didn't claim that federal support to intel didn't exist. I said Samsung gets more support to pursue its ventures than Intel does.

I may even be wrong about it, but wouldn't still matter to the debate we are having

that's why I don't understand why you are getting all so worked up about it.