Freiburg

Okay.

Okay.

It's an important question. Last year, China announced and began a $37 billion investment in developing their own three nanometer chip technology. So the EUV lithography systems that Sachs is referencing require these wavelengths of light at about 13 and a half nanometer, which is, you know, the previous technology was like 200 plus nanometer.

It's an important question. Last year, China announced and began a $37 billion investment in developing their own three nanometer chip technology. So the EUV lithography systems that Sachs is referencing require these wavelengths of light at about 13 and a half nanometer, which is, you know, the previous technology was like 200 plus nanometer.

So it's very, very small wavelengths of light that you have to be able to manipulate in a very kind of discrete way to print circuits that are just three nanometer wide. scale. And so it turns out that last year, China made a claim that this investment they had made was starting to pay off and they had developed their own EUV system.

So it's very, very small wavelengths of light that you have to be able to manipulate in a very kind of discrete way to print circuits that are just three nanometer wide. scale. And so it turns out that last year, China made a claim that this investment they had made was starting to pay off and they had developed their own EUV system.

And their big semiconductor companies called the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation or SMIC in China, They launched a chip, a seven nanometer chip with Huawei in their Mate 60 Pro, which is sort of like their iPhone competitor in China.

And their big semiconductor companies called the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation or SMIC in China, They launched a chip, a seven nanometer chip with Huawei in their Mate 60 Pro, which is sort of like their iPhone competitor in China.

And so they're proclaiming that they've already got this EUV technology from what I understand, and Saks would know better than I, it sounds like there was a lot of reverse engineering and workaround of existing technology in order to deliver that system.

And so they're proclaiming that they've already got this EUV technology from what I understand, and Saks would know better than I, it sounds like there was a lot of reverse engineering and workaround of existing technology in order to deliver that system.

but they may now already be investing in and developing their own system. So JCal, I think they're doing it either way. I think that they're going to invest and build their own EUV and chip manufacturing capacity either way. And the question is, does this slow them down or limit their ability on the application or the AI layer? to kind of be held back for some period of time.

but they may now already be investing in and developing their own system. So JCal, I think they're doing it either way. I think that they're going to invest and build their own EUV and chip manufacturing capacity either way. And the question is, does this slow them down or limit their ability on the application or the AI layer? to kind of be held back for some period of time.

Harvard's endowment is $53.2 billion. Huge. Assume they make 7% return. They're making $4 billion a year in income generated from those investments in that endowment. I think there's a couple of two really important questions. One is, should the role of the federal government be to give out money equally to institutions?

Harvard's endowment is $53.2 billion. Huge. Assume they make 7% return. They're making $4 billion a year in income generated from those investments in that endowment. I think there's a couple of two really important questions. One is, should the role of the federal government be to give out money equally to institutions?

Or should the role be to give money to the institutions that are going to provide the highest ROI for America? Or is the goal to redistribute wealth? And is that the point of federal spending and federal expenditures?

Or should the role be to give money to the institutions that are going to provide the highest ROI for America? Or is the goal to redistribute wealth? And is that the point of federal spending and federal expenditures?

So you could kind of think about Harvard, MIT, and a few other institutions that have truly great research institutions embedded within them as being the best ROI for America from a grant perspective when you're giving out research grants. That's the best place because just like any other great technology company, it accumulates capital because it accumulates talent. And that has a network effect.

So you could kind of think about Harvard, MIT, and a few other institutions that have truly great research institutions embedded within them as being the best ROI for America from a grant perspective when you're giving out research grants. That's the best place because just like any other great technology company, it accumulates capital because it accumulates talent. And that has a network effect.

And now you've got a few institutions that have a monopoly on high quality talent. And as a result, it's the best ROI for America. Is that what the federal government is investing in? Or should the federal government be trying to support universities all over the place that are more in need, particularly a university that has 53 billion of capital? Do they really need the federal funds?

And now you've got a few institutions that have a monopoly on high quality talent. And as a result, it's the best ROI for America. Is that what the federal government is investing in? Or should the federal government be trying to support universities all over the place that are more in need, particularly a university that has 53 billion of capital? Do they really need the federal funds?