This is a misleading title. They said no to whether they are currently considering any additional US joint ventures. The title implies that they are saying no to a specific joint venture, which is not the case, all existing joint ventures are continuing as planned.
Wonder how many news companies are using an idea I had to name their articles where you have an AI generate a large set of suitable titles based on the contents of the article and then rapidly A/B test them to determine which get the most clicks. I know they already do this to an extent but from what I understand there are only a handful of titles that are human generated.
The title of the article is usually cached wherever it is shared. The Facebook post, Discord link, Google search result, and even the HN post could be a snapshot of the title when it was indexed or shared, not necessarily when it was clicked.
So you wouldn’t get the signal you hoped for.
Making distinct URLs for each different headline would solve that problem, but I think you’d get flagged for duplicate content across your site. SEO would suffer, unless I’m mistaken. We’d need an SEO expert to chime in.
In reality, editors and authors who have been doing this for years already know how to make titles into clickbait efficiently. They know what works best from experience and hundreds or thousands of personal trials.
> "So far we did not change any of our original plans of expansion of our overseas fabs. We continue to expand in Arizona, in Kumamoto, and maybe in future in Europe. No change in our strategy. We continue in our current practice,"
So it is not a sign of a weakening relationship or anything, just a decision not to start a new project (which, I mean, if they were going to start a new joint project with the US, I guess reporters wouldn’t have to prompt them for info, right? It would be broadcast all over the place).
The news industry is under heavy monetary scrutiny. Expect the same title to be "Trump blocks/stops/restarts " in about a year on nearly every news article to pick up revenue.
> "So far we did not change any of our original plans of expansion of our overseas fabs. We continue to expand in Arizona, in Kumamoto, and maybe in future in Europe. No change in our strategy. We continue in our current practice," he added.
I found that to be a very confusingly worded title as well. Even more context helps:
> TSMC is spending $65 billion on three plants in the U.S. state of Arizona and has other new factories in operation or planning stages in Japan and Germany, which have partner investors.
> Asked if TSMC would consider a joint venture in the United States following Trump's comments, Wei said no.
> "So far we did not change any of our original plans of expansion of our overseas fabs.
> We continue to expand in Arizona, in Kumamoto, and maybe in future in Europe. No change in our strategy. We continue in our current practice," he added.
Ok, no new joint ventures, no existing joint ventures for cutting edge technologies. But the West can pay for the defense of Taiwan, directly and indirectly via unnecessarily worsening relationships with China.
I suppose technology transfer works one way only. How about selling ASML wafer steppers in Europe only, until Europe has a functioning chip industry?
"TSMC and Philips have deep historical ties. In fact, TSMC may not have existed without Philips. In the 1980s TSMC was established as a joint venture with Philips Electronics, the government of Taiwan, and other private investors. Several semiconductor companies were approached by Morris Chang for funding including semiconductor giants Intel and Texas Instruments but neither chose to participate. Both Intel and TI are now TSMC customers so it came full circle."
ASML is also a Philips spinoff from the time in which large European corporations sold off their IP to basically anyone. So the Trump quote in the Reuters article is wrong, in that not 100% of the U.S. chip industry was stolen; but you can bet there was technology transfer from Philips (European chip industry) to TSMC in the beginning.
No, I don't think that. Do you remember all the insane theories about what Trump was going to do if he got elected in 2016?
What differentiates your theory here from the millions of incorrect theories we heard 8 years ago?
For the most part, Trumps first presidency was normal. The biggest thing people say against it is generally that the US wasn't prepared for the pandemic. Well, no one was, I'm not sure why anyone would think a Democrat in the White House would have changed everything.
You're using "all the insane theories" as a blatant straw man. Of course the cacophonous social media industrial complex generated endless rage bait. The fact that most of it was noise doesn't indicate much. We wouldn't say that a priori criticism of the philosophies of Clinton or Biden had no merit due to being amongst stories about how they're literal lizards.
The main overarching themes of criticism were that Trump had an autocratic mentality, looked up to dictators, appeased foreign interests, would paralyze federal agencies, and wouldn't be quick to step away from power. Those dynamics actually did end up playing out, with things like just standing by while China destroyed Hong Kong a few decades early, race riots were inflamed by a federal rejection of law and order, divisive anti-leadership during Covid, and culminating in what is hard to explain as anything other than a coup attempt when his poor performance cost him the election. Even being a libertarian (and highly sympathetic to many of the issues he was building support by paying lip service to), given that we all take the US/USG-led western order for granted for our generally high standard of living, and given that China (and its junior partner Russia) have been all too happy to step into any power vacuums made by our missteps, I'm highly inclined to not pull the threads of western civilization any further.
I don't think Ukraine will be fine as you say. Trump seems keen to empower Russia for doing more stupid moves like they did with the invasion of Ukraine and this is a pretty dumb move geopolitically for US, they will be seen as weak and finnicky.
Yeah, but's only true if you believe in the American-led world order and organizations like NATO. We know Trump either doesn't care or is actively hostile (he loves to threaten pull out of NATO and things like that).
There should be no doubt that he'll pull all support for Ukraine on Day 1. Ukraine will survive because they're already fighting and will still have the support of Europe, though that won't be enough to win. Taiwan will be actively pressured to capitulate without a shot. It will be "fine" the way Hong Kong is "fine".
