Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | thesmtsolver2's commentslogin

And ASML wouldn't be possible without US taxpayer funded research. ASML's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) technology utilized foundational research from the U.S. Department of Energy.

> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet.[7] Two years later, it joined a consortium, which included Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) it operates under is funded by the US government, licensing must be approved by Congress.[14] Furthermore, in return for being permitted to join this consortium, ASML committed to the establishment of a US-based research center and to source 55 percent of components for all machines sold in the US from American suppliers.[7] ASML collaborated with various manufacturers to obtain mirrors, including the Belgian firms IMEC and Sematech as well as Germany's Carl Zeiss.[14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASML


Aren't basically all high tech companies the inheritors of basic research funded by highly developed countries?

ASML is definitely a fully globalist enterprise.


The heart of the machine, the light source, is from San Diego.

That's just globalisation. Wouldn't europeans be fools if they never used american research??? And vice versa?

ed: and also to the above point, those optics companies look frightfully european...


> I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism.

Nobody said that. That is a strawman


Why?

Wouldn't government subsidies increase consumption?

So the point is even with govt subsidies and a generous oil industry, Norway ranks below all US states.


Assume that providing a service costs $1000/person/year in countries A and B. In country A, the average individual pays $200/year for the service and their taxes are $800/year higher, which the government uses for subsidizing the service. In country B, the individual pays the entire $1000/year. As a consequence, household spending is $800/year higher in country B.

International comparisons are tricky, because each country does things in its own way. While there are some high-quality data sources for such comparisons, you will almost certainly interpret them wrong, unless you spend a lot of time thinking about their data definitions, methodologies, limitations, and so on.


The chart literally says PPP, how is overpriced?

> No one would willingly live in Mississippi over France or Italy.

Have you seen parts of Paris? Not all parts of Mississippi are bad.


I think this comment is the tech equivalent of "if they can't eat bread, let them eat cake"

That would imply that somehow a bank's website was a less accessible option than the app is, when the app is dependent on a mobile device as opposed to the website which is avilable on virtually any device with a browser including the same mobile device the app is installed on.

> Barring a true breakthrough in something like quantum computing or room-temperature superconductors

Won't that also help grep and then move the asymptote down more?


This is /r/iamverysmart material (by Claude)

Part of intelligence is knowing your audience and communicating efficiently.


> Part of intelligence is knowing your audience and communicating efficiently.

Bingo! And on this axis many SOTA models fail miserably. These things are acting on my behalf under my direction. All the supposed intelligence in the world means fuck-all if nobody can understand it.

And like somebody else said… when meat-based humans talk like Claude does, it almost always means they either don’t understand what they are talking about, or are actively trying to conceal something and are a fraud. Not always, but almost always.


So, Meta should be banned because it followed EU law to ban some things?

Wow, Europeans do have a penchant for recursively banning things :)


No. Supranational corporations will find any and all ways to be maliciously compliant and blame the EU.

Look at the comment by mediaman

> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article.


Yes, exactly: META blames the EU for its failures. (Or useful gullible fools blame the EU because "poor supranational corporations can never do anything wrong")

Neither feminism nor social issues are banned in European advertissements.

Look at the comment by mediaman

> The article doesn't mention this, of course, but Meta prohibits "socially sensitive" advertising due to the EU's TTPA law, or "Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising." It imposes substantial bureaucratic compliance burden on advertising platforms to accept ads that deal with political issues. Meta decided that the revenue wasn't worth the compliance burden, so they do not accept any political advertising at all. They filter anything that smells like political or social issues, whether it be a campaign about anti-immigration or a play about feminism, because if they accept it they will get heavily fined by the EU. This is why Meta does not ban this advertising outside of the EU. It's a EU regulatory problem. The Register does not mention this anywhere in the article. reply


Follow the money

Where's the money in censoring nipples?

Obvious: Look at who funds the BBC and who they are not criticizing.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: