• u_tamtam@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You obviously fall into the trap of believing that hard science cares about politics, and that money thrown at problems as part of national strategic planning magically solves them. But for anyone else legitimately interested in understanding the topic better and having a glimpse at its complexity, those are great resources:

    If the above is too advanced, this can serve as a good primer and answers “how the heck did we get there”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9NEnWmyMo

    Also, I never wrote that China will never get to EUV (or eventually something beyond that), just that it will take a very long time, because the complexity is spread across several very distinct scientific disciplines, integrating them is a challenge of its own (again, watch the videos), and packaging this into a system that meets the scale and reliability requirements to make it commercially viable hasn’t been reproduced to date.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      EUV is complex, unlike nuclear weapons and energy, 5G, space stations, probes to the dark side of the moon and hypersonic missiles. Those things are simple.

      smuglord

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        EUV is complex. And more so than the accomplishments you mentioned: nuclear weapons were cracked in the 1940’s, probe moon landings in the 50’s and space stations in the 70’s. All have since been reproduced by several nations in isolation. That is not the case of state of the art lithography. No single nation “owns” it because it truly is a multinational endeavor.

        (And actual hypersonic missiles haven’t made it to the battlefield, and 5G is about commoditization and standardization, by the ITU, an organ of the united nations, so I’m not sure exactly how that adds to your rhetoric)

        smuglord

        Way to put your ignorance on display.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Way to put your ignorance on display.

          smuglord

          Lecturing me about ignorance while deliberately misrepresenting bleeding edge next generation nuclear reactors and probes to the dark side of the moon as old tech.

          American hypersonics can’t even make it out of testing and Chinese ones are being deployed on warships already.

          Weak shit for someone pretending to argue from a position of knowledge

          • u_tamtam@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Lecturing me about ignorance

            Fair, how about you enlighten me about the present topic, then, instead of digressing? It does look like deflection and insults doesn’t make it prettier.

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I’m not digressing at all. Your argument is that EUV tech is somehow exceptionally complex, therefore China cannot create it’s own version in a reasonable time frame. The direct response to that claim is to point to examples of complex technologies that China has mastered and advanced.

              China leads the world in new patents and has mastered several technologies which even America has not. Given that the current leading purveyors of EUV are the frickin Dutch, not the Americans, there’s no basis to claim that EUV is exceptionally complex such that the world’s leading scientific and econmic power cannot reproduce it.

    • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      and packaging this into a system that meets the scale and reliability requirements to make it commercially viable hasn’t been reproduced to date

      Your overall point about EUV being difficult isn’t wrong, but this line is really where the typical liberal forecasting of China’s capabilities fall apart: they don’t give a shit about it being commercially viable, they give a shit about having the industrial capacity.

      The reason why EUV is more or less a cartel monopoly in the West is that it’s a cobbled together collection of scientific principles that work well enough that the first few companies that figured it out could make insane profits off of it, and then proceeded to patent the shit out of it to prevent anyone else from doing so. The engineering behind EUV is… not great from a reliability standpoint, most notably the fact that EUV has an average downtime of something like 10% (meaning your fabs are offline 10% of the year for maintenance), in large part because you’re shooting little droplets of liquid metals with a high intensity laser which tends to splatter and require cleanup. There are potential alternatives to this process for creating the kind of UV light you need for lithography, such as particle accelerators, that are theoretically superior but the R&D into those alternatives costs tens of billions of dollars with no guarantees that any of it will ever become profitable, so Western capital doesn’t bother trying.

      China doesn’t have that profit restriction. It needs the ability to produce bleeding edge chips to remove its reliance on an increasingly hostile West, and it has not only the engineering and scientific power to brute force that kind of R&D but the ability to devote a sizeable portion of its national resources to doing so. It doesn’t matter if its profitable, it matters if they’re able to decouple a critical industry from the West and ignore sanctions accordingly, and that has infinitely more value than a shareholder dividend, so they will put the resources into doing so and, inevitably, they will figure it out. And from what we’ve seen over the past 2 years since the trade wars have started, they’re not only succeeding but doing so ahead of expectations, in large part because increasing tensions have made life a living hell for Chinese scientists and engineers abroad working in these industries due to racism and suspicions of spying which push them to emigrate back to China and lend their expertise there instead.

      In 20 years, chips made in mainland China will be competitive or even superior to their Western counterparts unless the West undoes 50 years of neoliberal rot overnight and replicates what the CPC is doing for silicon manufacturing or the CPC collapses and China experiences the same shock doctrine that the former Soviet states did in the 90s, and neither of those outcomes look likely right now.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hey, thanks for the constructive comment :)

        [China] don’t give a shit about it being commercially viable, they give a shit about having the industrial capacity.

        True, but I don’t think the end-goal is to “just” achieve technical sovereignty. Answering local demand requires production at a large scale

        The reason why EUV is more or less a cartel monopoly in the West is that it’s a cobbled together collection of scientific principles that work well enough that the first few companies that figured it out could make insane profits off of it

        I really wouldn’t put it that way, if you check my 3rd link out, you’d see that there were a few competing technologies on the table, and the topic was researched by national labs and a lot of public funding as well. Japan was also a leader and significant contributor but ultimately failed. It’s not nearly as clearly cut as “bad imperialistic USA locks it down for rest of us”: there is real international competition, and real international cooperation.

        I can’t predict where we will be at in 20 years. No matter what, we will be many generations beyond EUV. Other approaches that were deemed unfeasible before (=today) might turn practical in the future as fundamental research advances, and I suspect China will be strong in those areas, and, as you said, perhaps a leader.

    • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You definitely know you’re winning when you’re constantly complaining about your opponent. You hate communists yet allow them to live in your brain rent-free. Interesting.

        • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Love turning mental health discourse into a snide bitchy weapon to imply that someone pursuing a disagreement is simply mEnTaLlY iLl

          Who hurt you? Help is available.

        • ferristriangle [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          No one is attacking your “factual and informative” comment.

          No one is disputing the difficulties you’ve highlighted. What is being disputed is your assertion that those difficulties are relevant to your assertion that China won’t be able to achieve this.

          And the subject of the conversation is a technology that humans have already developed and is in use. So what is it about China/the PRC that would cause you to assert they are incapable of building/employing this technology?

          Your argument is that “Hard science doesn’t care about politics,” so I assume you don’t want to imply that you’re critiquing the capabilities of China’s political system. So what’s left? Is it racism? The removed can’t achieve what other humans have already proven is possible because the removed is subhuman?

          You are making a political statement whether you intend to or not, you don’t just get to whine about how you were only talking about the science and why is everyone being so mean when you only started a discussion about the science to reinforce (or deflect from) your original assertion.

          • u_tamtam@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            your assertion that China won’t be able to achieve this.

            Well, except I did not only NOT write that, I even wrote the exact opposite, see: https://programming.dev/comment/5899890

            Also, interpreting my messages with your ideologically colored lenses doesn’t imply that this thread invites political discourse. I’m sure you’ll find many people here willing to vent their frustrations with you in easily ignorable threads of their own.

          • u_tamtam@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Because every single thing must revolve around America, only one thing can be bad at a time, and if I’m not with you I must be against you.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              and if I’m not with you I must be against you.

              Neutrality is support of the status quo, there are no parties that neither support nor oppose it.

            • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              , only one thing can be bad at a time,

              Oh, were we talking about something being bad? I thought we were just having a non-politically tinted discussion about science and technology

            • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I mean, it’s the most powerful empire ever to exist, one built on ongoing slavery and genocide. It’s difficult to find global problems that don’t lead back to the amerikkkan ruling class.

                  • u_tamtam@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I mean, from here I see only one person feeling obliged to bring up:

                    • America

                    • Imperialism

                    • Slavery

                    • Genocide

                    • IQ

                    • boot licking

                    in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with this, and this person isn’t me. So do yourself a favour and go babble with people who care.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You obviously fall into the trap of believing that hard science cares about politics

      Look in the fucking mirror champ

      You’re trying to tell me a rapidly developing, well-resourced country will hit some arbitrary technology threshold because communism. You know, the political system that put the first man in space a generation after most of the USSR wasn’t even literate.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’re trying to tell me a rapidly developing, well-resourced country will hit some arbitrary technology threshold because communism

        Don’t you think that you are over-reading a little? I never brought up communism nor any socio-economical ideology for that matter. Quick tip for you: try to read some about economics and China if you nurture any expectation that it is a communist state other than in name.