Well, so far as the governments get VAT from the manufacturers, they are getting a return on their investments. They are more like mutualizing the companies than subsidizing them, that is the successful or mature ones are getting taxed to help the nascent ones.
Performance is generally limited by the process. Yield not so much. Assuming you can make it at a meaningful level at all, yield is generally a learning process.
Yield is generally not an issue over time, at least not as big as someone outside of the industry would think, if you get enough chips to work in the first place. For high volume chips, fabs will tune their process specifically for your chip over time. And you can do mask changes just to address yield problems and you can add redundancies if you have to. For example Huawei is no longer bottlenecked by the quantities of chips they can get for their handsets. Their problem is that they can't get the performance they could get with a better process.
What do you mean? Yield is a function of the chip size and density as well as the process. Plus it's a commercial secret so your bet can't be adjudicated.
Yes division is a poor example. It's a poor separation of concerns to try to wrap at this level without usage context. To see the point try to wrap overflows on arithmetic functions.
A lot of Chinese internet commentators are very ignorant of the reality in the US, but the Economist's riposte is weird too. For example how is the Chinese property malaise, which reflects an oversupply of housing and largely affordability of rent, somehow a refutation to the Chinese focusing on US homelessness? Is the Economist's position that they should create housing shortage to shore up the economy?
Price of a commodity metal can do whatever they want without causing a big problem. It is just a resource allocation signal. However if you base your currency value on it suddenly you are forcing debtors into bankruptcies if the value shoots up. Credit relationships aka investments are what make an economy run and grow, not some arbitrary commodity price.
Your point is right on. And additionally, why would an average Indian refuse the pay package to work in China? The top r&d guy at SMIC is from Taiwan after all. Liang got both Samsung and SMIC into the advanced nodes.
Humans are also not rewarded for making pronouncements all the time. Experts actually have a reputation to maintain and are likely more reluctant to give opionions that they are not reasonably sure of. LLMs trained on typical written narratives found in books, articles etc can be forgiven to think that they should have an opionion on any and everything. Point being that while you may be able to tune it to behave some other way you may find the new behavior less helpful.
I don't think people mind having bigger spaces but market is not clearing. In the US you have slums and bombed out building shells in prime urban locations as well. It is fascinating how human expectations work against each other.
Cheap housing isn't the problem. The problems are people speculating on the appreciation of property, banking system depending on property value as loan collaterals and local governments depending on property sales for revenue generation.
I don't think the repair could be done. It's not about plugging a hole in space. It's about surviving reentry. They can't guarantee the integrity of the glass. Anyway to your point they could stock the kits in space on regular supply missions, which again diminishes the utility of express delivery.
It has a fixed capacity of how many different things it can pay close attention to. If it fails on a seemingly less important but easy to follow instruction it is an indicator that it has reached capacity. If the instruction seems irrelevant it is probably prioritized to be discarded, hence a canary that the capacity has been reached.
A human rated vehicle would be much more expensive than one rated for cargo. And there are not many use cases for the vehicle other than rescue missions to the two space stations.