I found an interesting thread on the /r/semiconductors subreddit discussing what it is like to work at TSMC
https://reddit.com/r/Semiconductors/comments/1m96m4f/my_expe...
Reading that post, all i felt what a splendid luxury it is to live in the united states and be paid much better than those in other nations because of the country’s brand.
Not for much longer
... while having a 38th-in-the-world healthcare system that can completely bankrupt you, and an obscenely puny PTO allotment.
Tradeoffs.
> They sent Taiwanese over to clean up because they just couldn't handle all the American blue-collar workers.
Translation: Unions got in the way of actually efficient construction so they had to bypass them with their own people.
Unions in the US, in general, are extremely luddite as any new technology improvement that's better is treated with hatred because it removes jobs from the union's control. This is how the longshoremen have basically permanently prevented any technology improvement at our ports because they refuse to accept any automation and lobby heavily to prevent it.
In general though that post just comes off of "disgruntled former employee who doesn't understand high-intensity work cultures".
I disagree with your assessment, the poster is obviously disillusioned but they just detail their point of view. You can't just write off safety violation and toxic environment as "high-intensity work culture". You also just work in your own anti-union discourse without any basis in the actual text.
Capitalism is Luddite at a fundamental level - if their isn't competition, there is absolutely no reason to innovative, change, or maintain a quality level - so, in a capitalist economy all participants are always incentivised to grow as large as possible, above all other things, bc at some point, they really will become "too big to fail" - whether in a small monopolized niche or a massive but dominated industry, that is always true, without fail as profits are always most important.
It works with everything in a capitalist system too - all production, resources, and outputs of a society that allows unchecked greed, will grow until it stops due to market consolidation (not always nefarious either). Google search as an example, we all picked it first, then they got greedy - even if they were saints that always was going to play out like that, bc of capitalism.
Once a market is controlled by a few players - ALL TRUE GROWTH STOPS and bare minimum, most cost effective to profit ratio "limited/controlled/planned" growth follows.
Hard drives for my adult life are my singular example. Lots of tech is like that actually.
Capitalism without competition will naturally evolve into full on Feudalism and Serfdom if it is allowed to.
Isn’t TSMC one of like 3 semiconductor producers on the planet? And wouldn’t that satisfy your claim of “once a market is controlled by a few players, all true growth stops”? But we’ve seen phenomenal and continuous improvements over the last few years. So which part of our situation do we have to re-interpret for your claim to be correct? Is the growth not “true”? Is 3 not “a few players”? Or is, perhaps, your outlook somehow incorrect?
I think you can understand quite simply why that isn't a standard type of example - far, far more companies and industries exist like my example, owned and dominated by a small number of companies that operate essentially in lockstep - same pricing, branding, type of products - none of the players trying to innovate at all, as that would threaten their status quo. This is everything in life nowadays, pretend otherwise, but as soon as you realize lie 5 companies own all the brands, it's all going to to make sense.
With micro chips, 1 company has all the companies by the balls - nobody likes that, so this is a bit different bc there is also room for several companies "Top level" chip manufacturers - for sure more than 1, so although it seems like that industry proves me wrong - it also proves me exactly right also.
Think about the demand for graphic cards with a lot of ram right now for an example - ALL PF EVERYONE knew we needed more than 8gigs of ram last generation but they still rolled out them this generation and there are still even smaller 4gb cards being made - look at an HP or Dell desktops or laptops, look at Gamepass now, so much evidence of the exact formula I described - bc it's like a rule, we just didn't have enough "East India Trading Companies" and couldn't see enough of the whole picture of capitalism, before we all globally started thinking in that mindset.
Capitalism doesn't give a fuck about innovation or quality or providing or services, or the 3 ps - only money. All of us are going to start understanding this in self evident ways as our lives continue - unless we pivot.
good point, but to push back a bit, I think geopolitical factors such as Taiwan's Silicon Shield and the related AI arms race are as much responsible as free market principles for semiconductor improvements recently.
I completely agree - which I must also concede definitely appears to be capitalism and is even functionally capitalist (about as capitalist as can be even) tho the external factors that helped to force the internal innovation and extremely driven and dedicated investments to staying ahead weren't solely economic or profit - they were all about competition tho ;)
It's a good example of capitalism that kinda works right now - but, it could easily be the opposite... if China did takeover Taiwan, that company could easily (would likely very aggressively) do exactly all the late stage capitalism, death to innovation, money machine stuff that I've been describing - as almost/all other companies have done so with similar market positions.
tl;Dr: The only reason they are still making such good stuff is bc they needed/still need to be the silicon shield.
> Capitalism is Luddite at a fundamental level
You mean: Capitalism is luddite at the individual level. At the aggregate level, it's the opposite.
> in a capitalist economy all participants are always incentivised to grow as large as possible
As opposed to...?
> Once a market is controlled by a few players - ALL TRUE GROWTH STOPS
I'm not trying to be insulting but I think you need to read a bit more about the world before capitalism. Before the Renaissance Italian and Dutch innovations in banking, company ownership, etc.
Bc this is HN - I will clarify. I know there wasn't capitalism, I don't even mean economic system in the start of my reply - The Medicis for example - they were very opportunistic, selfishly greedy, and exploitative, with power as their primary pursuit tho, not money.
Today money is power - power like the royal power even, so capitalism today, being late stage, will solely become about exploitation as the powerful and wealthy become further away away from the innovations, they will support innovations less and less, etc.
I don't know, I think capitalism is super broken, and now that it is broke, it can only get more broken and nobody will ever catch up to those benefiting from it being broken now - mostly just bc they were rich at the right time too. The pandemic addition of wealth to the top 1% as examples - they are all already like batman and tony, all researching life extension and blah, blah - tbh, I think everyone can understand this.
All of that was capitalism before we invented the word capitalism. Systems of domination, like monarchy, work well as examples of the kind of capitalism we have now - if Microsoft changes something huge with digital document creation, so will all others that create documents, like how all games will find their way onto a Gamepass in the next few years.
Eventually, making a game without a subscription model will not accepted by the distributors (Xbox, Epic, Steam) and games will be made with tiers of subscription play, from conception and the drawing on up - not like DLC now, bc it couldn't be the way it will be until now - bc one player/a small number of companies have so much control.
That's a funny take, since reading the history of Luddism I've always interpreted it to be anti-capitalist. The Luddites were peasants that had their way of making a living disrupted by a high capital expenditure technology that they could not compete against and thus took to destroying it.
I love Asianometry! The semiconductor history videos are incredible. The level of quality on that channel just blows my mind. It’s one of the best examples of the revolution happening in high-quality, independently produced content.
I actually first heard about it from the Acquired podcast, which is another great example of that same trend.
His unix videos are excellent as well.
This is just anecdote, but my roommate's dad works in construction management specifically for semiconductor fabs, and he was working for about a year on one of Intel's new fabs in Arizona up until a few months ago when the entire project was suddenly scrapped. IIRC he got the sense it was someone high up in intel that decided to pull the plug on it.
New CEO started in March, I vaguely recall him cancelling fabs.
So are they going to give back the money they got from the feds to build them?
Intel didn't cancel any fabs in Arizona, one just came online. They killed plans Fabs in Poland and Germany, and the Ohio fab is on hold. You don't get the money up front, so nothing to give back.
Though the relevant governments in Poland and Germany probably spent a lot of time and effort (and money). Only some of them they will get back.
But I guess that's a risk they knew they were taking.
I doubt there was much; the sort of outright subsidy the US sometimes does is usually classed as unlawful state aid in the EU (there are exceptions; in particular member states were allowed to bail out/nationalise their banks in the financial crisis. But subsidies to random foreign companies would generally be illegal; see the Apple tax case).
Well, I'm also taking about all the bureaucrats time wasted on wooing Intel.
The time of government officials and civil servants ain't free.
Didn’t the feds just get 10% of the company?
The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash.
Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock.
You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.
I guess they could make the argument that holding 10% of the only company with an x86 license that manufacturers them at scale in the US was worth it.
If you consider it a hedge against missiles flying in the indo-pacific.
I don't know that I would but the US gov could - it's similar in terms of strategic goals as the Jones Act.
I mean the Jones act was pretty practical for it's time. When you could obtain a ship via a cheap lease from the US Navy then the lack of capital spend building the ship is fine to spend employing US sailors.
However, now that the navy is out of the business of buying overpriced ships to rent out (with the idea that they'd be repurposed if a war broke out) now the Jones act isn't very effective.
However, unlike the Jones Act there's no criteria that Intel be able to supply chips. At least with the Jones Act we're going to have US citizens practiced sailing ships. With the stock purchase Intel doesn't need to have capacity to build chips for missiles/drones/etc; especially with the government treating them as non-voting shares!
If the USG wanted a hedge they should've just forked some money over for an option to buy X chips for $Y. Or some more complex option about fab time / output. You hedge production concerns with futures not equity!
It's also not great to hedge by using a vendor that wasn't able to meet previous goals you gave them. Counterparty risk is a real thing.
Yeah hence the “I don’t know that I would” it was more an attempt to see it from their point of view and assume a rationale, there may not have been one or not a sensible one we can infer with what is publicly known, as an outsider I can’t say the US is a rational actor at this point.
The govt got shares instead already
Fabs need pretty solid foundations IIRC, the systems don't like vibration. So this won't have been a cheap build. I also believe the construction methods for clean room is like a VOC purge on steroids. Whatever else goes into this build would have a huge impact on potentially reclaiming it for VLSI.
I left the semiconductor industry 30 years ago but back then every company had "a fab that hasn't been completed in Arizona" that people would talk fondly of perhaps opening one day if business picks up. Seems like not much has changed.
I always thought it was funny that for my entire lifetime people have talked about Arizona being perfect for fabs because it's dry there and not subject to tremors meanwhile Taiwan where 60% of all chips are produced (and 90% of the most sensitive ones) is tropical and has earthquakes fairly frequently.
I can only imagine what the Taiwanese can do in Arizona. Truly a synergy for the ages.
Maybe that's why yields there are better? [1]
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/ts...
Once you're in a air-conditioned environment the outside world doesn't matter.
More likely he compared the 4nm yield to the 3nm yield in Taiwan?
The moisture of the outside world might not matter. But aircon doesn't protect you from earthquakes, alas.
Yep, you need to install a ground conditioner for that.
So, how many earthquakes there were?
China Airlines recently opened a new direct flight route between Taoyuan and Phoenix. They've been plastering it all over their plane signage. I thought it was funny that the flight must be pretty empty other than the handful of TSMC employees that need to go there.
Apparently China Airlines and Starlux are both going to fly that route next year. I have a hard time imagining there's demand for one let alone both.
Earlier this year Eva Air also announced a direct route to Dallas, supposedly starting next month. At the time I felt like it was a tariff negotiation tactic because that one also does not make sense.
FYI to all: China Airlines is a Taiwanese company (ROC) and has no affiliation with mainland China (PRC).
Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States. It is also one of the major hubs of the west, being in a good location (midway north), having good weather for planes, and having America West headquartered there.
I would think there should be plenty of traffic going through there to Taiwan, similar to the amount going through a hub such as Chicago or NY.
From Wikipedia:
PHX was the 11th-busiest airport in the United States in terms of passenger boardings and 35rd-busiest in the world in 2024. The airport serves as a hub for American Airlines and a base for Frontier Airlines and Southwest Airlines.
Then why would nations around the world protect Taiwan?
Why do you think the Chinese people from Taiwan want to do anything in Arizona? They're there just to placate the orange guy's rage. They'll never do anything special there.
Semiconductor fabs require a significant amount of water, with some large facilities consuming up to 10 million gallons of ultrapure water daily. Water is something Arizona is lacking.
I thought these days the fabs in water-scarce areas collect their waste water. re-purify it, and re-use it. So their actual drain on outside water sources is far lower.
> It will initially have a water recycling rate of around 85 percent, with a goal to achieve 90 percent. Currently, the company’s water resource center has an efficiency rate of 65 percent, converting industrial wastewater for use in the company's operations.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/tsmc-breaks-groun...
Maybe chaos monkeys help innovation
Chaos monkey yes...but more like desperation for survival. Its the same mentality that drives Israel. As been shown a few times, it mutates into a sick culture with unintended consequences...but obviously it does produce results.
You as a Chinese bot, is obviously very familiar with sick cultures coming from one.
"death river strategy"
Tell us more about your insights, as a clueless outsider
There were 2 under construction, this is a local news story that they completed "Fab 52" instead of "pulling the plug". Fatter NYT story here: https://archive.is/WmXxl
Some pictures (provided by Intel) from inside: https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/chinese-media-given-tour-...
There was a big layoff a few months ago, maybe that lines up with the parent comment: https://www.azfamily.com/2025/07/15/records-intel-lay-off-ne...
Don't see much mention of Fab 62 from any source. Did it get the axe, "postponed", or kind of on schedule?
I mean, not to sound rude, but of course it would be someone high up who would make that decision. It’s not like a grunt could decide to scrap a whole new fab
Yea fair. What I was trying to say was that it seemed like a decision that was less the construction/development team saying "this plan isn't workable for xyz reason and we need to reconsider our approach" and more someone high up saying "we are cancelling this and we won't say why".
I could be wrong but I’d assume what the OP is trying to say is that the leadership of these companies does not want these fabs to actually open and work. That something transpired maybe between them and govt.
well, intel is loser on semiconductor boom
This is actually a good video (I say actually because this youtuber sometimes has surface-level reporting on things, but this one is quite a bit better).
It's investigative on-the-ground reporting of the TSMC plant in Arizona, and the recent SemiCon West conference.
What's TSMC's headcount down in AZ? I ask because Intel has laid off or retired around 40k employees in the past two years and they still need to cut a little more to please the new boss.
Ime, most of those cuts were employees working on legacy nodes and processes - especially at Beaverton.
how competitive will american made cpu's be? will american consumers just end up paying n * more for same product that the rest of the world gets from taiwan?
I don’t think the mix of engineers we’ve been producing is right for this. We need a whole generation of folks at a higher hardware:software ratio. Check back in a decade to see if we’ve seriously started.
Does America need to produce the talent or can they import it?
America could import it if the current administration wasn’t so hell bent on repelling global talent through inflicting great cost and uncertainty upon the talent
Even this forum can’t decide whether skilled personnel are a boon because they positively contribute to the local economy, or a negative because they undermine employment prospects for locals.
I don't know about this forum, but mainstream economics (and quite a few of the more niche approaches, too) is pretty much all in favour of open immigration for all skill levels.
I don't think you can say that. They are neither for or against, they make (or try to make) predictions what happens in either case. Who benefits and who loses is not the same in those cases, it's not linear. If you wan to be "for" or "against" you have to take a side. Doesn't mean they don't have opinions too, but two economists that each favor different outcomes may still agree on the methods of their field.
Economists generally point out that the world would be a lot richer with open borders. You can of course argue about whether its desirable to be richer.
https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of... (https://archive.ph/TFS4G)
Net benefits are positive from open migration.
Not just net benefits when you include the foreigners, but also just netted over natives.
Except for the guys receiving the lowered salaries. And all the other problems of migration, when some destinations are WAAYYYY more desirable to live in, even jobless, than others.
You guys are very selective, either not even bothering with links, or carefully selecting that one particular piece of paper supporting your PoV. Which of course looked at only very few if not even just a single variable, and (by necessity) failed to account for the breadth of reality.
Quoting single papers is always a sign of desperation. That's not how anything works, when given a broad question. Studies are extremely specific! In comparison, the question here is as broad as it can possibly get for an economics question.
Discussions such as here are only worthwhile when the parties don't care about "winning" and use debate club methods.
So where are your links?
I think the policy is “immigrate your complement.”
There really is a big difference betwwwn needing to import engineers to create high end chips and WITCH companies using h1B to get cheap contractors to do enterprise dev or any software development except something really specialized
I worked at a US college that had a big semiconductor engineering and manufacturing engineering program. They were about 20-30% international, but the program wasn’t huge.
Frankly, it’s shitty work. Software is where it’s at. Hardware people get paid peanuts and work really hard. When you’re a master of a particular technology, you get discarded when the next thing comes along. Ask the people at Intel or IBM. The best jobs are the execs and the tradesmen.
They cannot produce it (in large quantities) and it's getting harder and harder to import talent.
Well, they can't import it any more.
The talent is already here, the employers just need to pay better.
And attract them away from what? What are these skilled people doing? Does a photolithography skill set enable you to moonlight at some other gig such that they're here and keeping their skills fresh and we're just not noticing?
Software. Talk to anybody in the hardware space, and compare their experience to software.
Hell, the only two people I see in this thread that claim hardware experience are saying that it's a better career move to switch to software.
Software is easier, pays better, and has far better employers. Until hardware companies realize the situation they've created, they will lose their workforce to greener pastures.
Software has also benefitted from a massive tax subsidy relative to hardware, as the latter requires a massive capital investment. Hardware requires expensive real estate, and benefits from saving the spending, whereas software can exist on debt and small footprints.
That may have been the case prior to section 174, when you could invest massively in something, write it off as a loss, and then pivot to reusing it profitably, but now I think that all R&D efforts are equally discouraged.
You're right that the delta has been reduced, but producing physical goods still requires much more capital outlay (which is still disadvantaged).
I was a fab tool owner. My last paycheck in a semiconductor position was in the mid-200s. I went into software and make double that in the same metro. Same level of responsibility. I don’t even work in machine learning.
To take your photolithography example though, I know someone who went litho tool owner -> camera team at Apple -> Meta reality labs. FAANGs want semiconductor process engineers just so they can spend all day yelling at underpaid Asian vendor semiconductor process engineers who are doing the actual work.
A lot of highly skilled people are perfectly happy to stay at their job earing 60% of what they "could" be making because they have other priorities that don't involve increasing shareholder value.
No one will be until US gives couple nukes to Taiwan so that they no longer need the killswitch for the entire global semiconductor supply chain merely as the substitute. TSMC is going to just keep undercutting everyone else till then.
They can compensate for that by lowering living standards and simultaneously raising expectations in the country.
Everyone was competitive against TSMC until just 10 or 20 years ago. Then they all lost to TSMC one by one. Even IBM was competitive in price against others back in 2000s.
I am guessing that it’s a highly automated process, so per unit costs are not going to be affected much by the cost of labor.
Have you seen how much of a premium Americans are already paying for chips in the face of constrained supply?
Gamers are still buying them and so is everyone else
Given that this is the same curiosity and question since pre-pandemic and now we have many examples of a premium, I think its not a real worry as long as the chips perform
I keep seeing this in every industry. "We can't give up America because they buy so much"
"China needs the American market because they can't make up the numbers for the rest of the world combined in the short term"
Can people here help answer where the heck does everyone have the money to buy all this stuff? Especially post COVID with all the layoffs? The US is only 5% of the world population. Europe isn't that poor and many chunks of Asia have a lot of wealth now. Yet America's appetite and more importantly capability of absorbing all manner of goods remains unimpaired...how?!
> Europe isn't that poor and many chunks of Asia have a lot of wealth now.
Europe is that poor and while lots of Asia has wealth not by comparison.
> Yet America's appetite and more importantly capability of absorbing all manner of goods remains unimpaired...how?!
We are just that much richer. It's honestly mind-blowing how much more money the average American has then anyone and everyone.
I'm American and I applied to a software dev role at a European tech company some years ago. The job looked interesting and I thought it would be a fun adventure living abroad. I was shocked how low their salary range was. Even if I got their best offer for that position it would have been less than half what I was currently making. I figured it would be pointless to even to try to negotiate so I just left it alone.
This makes me wonder though, is this sustainable?
It's super sustainable, look at it this way, we talk about various European country's social safety nets and how "America doesn't have that"
well America does, in most states, at low income brackets. free healthcare, subsidized groceries, childcare, even some higher education
which happen to be the same income brackets that most Europeans are at lol
The most frustrating thing is how successful populist politicians have been at convincing voters that the US is actually going to shit and needs radical change. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when said politicians start chipping away at the underpinnings of our prosperity. Wake up America, you actually have it pretty good.
The US is very rich, but Europe is not poor. Europe is richer than basically anywhere on the planet _except_ the US. Like even compared to Canada or Japan, Europe is (generally) as rich or richer. Poland just overtook Japan in GDP per capita! Both the UK and France are richer than the oil-rich UAE.
> where the heck does everyone have the money to buy all this stuff
Borrowing money from the future.
Yes there have been post-Covid layoffs, but unemployment is 4.3%, roughly at the "full employment" level, and only up 1 point from the post-Covid low.
And we are only talking about 'the' layoffs here because a bunch of tech people got laid off. It wasn't anything special for the overall economy. Some industry or other is always laying people off, and others are hiring.
> Can people here help answer where the heck does everyone have the money to buy all this stuff? Especially post COVID with all the layoffs?
The US economy is doing fine.
The US is about 40-60% richer than Europe and the US probably has half the world's disposable income plus a voracious appetite for conspicuous consumption.
Some of that consumption is stupid from a sustainability perspective. For example:
Car dependency means that:
- both the initial cost of transportation
- and the ongoing cost are higher
- while the quality of life and health outcomes are worse
than for decent active transportation.
However no one can deny that the money is there in the US.
There are many cases of "money for the sake of money" in the US (healthcare and ultra processed foods being other examples), but again, the US is good at making money. Large, educated workforce on top of a humongous chunk of prime global real estate.
Its pretty impressive and brings you into macroeconomics and monetary policy
Its a long answer but there are many winners in every financial environment in America, while the short answer is that nobody knows how they have money en masse to buy stuff
and the whole system is based on incentivizing them to move that money around the economy, as opposed to collect and save it in a bank account
America is rich as fuck dog.
Well, the question is more like why everyone sell a phone for equivalent of lunch money in US. No one makes a phone at local equivalents of $45, nevertheless it happens and seem to drive some Americans crazy.
> America is rich as fuck dog
Literally this.
Median household income in America is US$8,000 per month.
Half of Americans make MORE than that.
No, half of American households make more than that, and a typical household has 2.5 people.
> No, half of American households make more than that, and a typical household has 2.5 people.
And 2.5 Americans per household will say “they make more than that”
Kids say “my dad is rich” and wives say “we make $70k/month”
Americans also have record levels of debit so a lot of that money is going to pay off credit cards and payday loans.
Most countries are surplus countries and to maintain that competiveness they do alot of things that ultimately weaken their consumption to go into investment instead. They also a buy alot of US treasuries, giving USA alot of credit.
Because of this, the US dollar is the reserve currency and quite strong, which combined with strong credit means that Americans are quite incentived to spend. Another point is that this dynamic concentrates jobs in high paying roles like Finance, leading to a "winner takes all" economy. Which is relevant because 50% of consumption is done by the top 10% of the population.
It's wild but true. History provides a partial explanation. In 1960 the US was 40% of the world economy while only being 5% of the world population. It's still about 25% of the world economy today.
The thing is that WW2 decimated most of the advanced economies outside of the US, and for decades afterwards many of them simply weren't managed for growth (i.e. the Soviet bloc). So the US had a huge head start and never stopped running. To this day you still don't really see many other countries being as fixated on juicing consumer spending as the US is. The big play of the last few decades has been all these emerging economies getting good at exports and making a lot of money that way, which has cut into the US' lead, but once they have the money they tend to be less aggressive about getting it circulating internally - it accrues to a fairly small number of people and/or they just sit on a lot of it.
part of the problem is that to get yourself to export competitiveness, you have to essentially underpay workers through restrictions on capital and credit; and once you have done so, these export businesses become so central to the economy and to economic identity that it is politically tricky to reorient the economy.
Add on moralizing about how people should be making and not spending and you've got yourself a recipe for an export-oriented slowdown, since at some point the world won't be wealthy enough to keep raising your economy through only exports. We saw this in Japan, South Korea, and more recently Germany and China.
Of course cost is an issue. If costs are higher than in Asia, everybody else in the world is going to buy Asian chips, not American ones.
Get ready for your 8 year repayment plan with TMOBILE!
everyone pays the premium now not just the USA.
this would represent an additional cost on top of that that only USA consumers pays.
Why would they not be competitive?. Intel makes state of the art cpus in the us and they are competitive on price. It's weird that we seem to forget Intel when this issue comes up.
Is America's semiconductor boom real?
How much capacity are we building?
What processes? What types of semiconductor products? High end? Middle? Low?
How much capacity?
Can we substitute or replace Taiwan in the future in the event of conflict?
I can't watch the video right now, but I'm curious about its claims. Or any additional HNer context.
This video has lots of details, but conspicuously absent is exactly WHAT chips are being made in Arizona. I guess it's still a closely-guarded secret for some reason.
It's not the high-end type. Otherwise they would announce it.
I think it's N5/N3 or so, current state of the art.
If you haven't already, I encourage you to subscribe this guys channel - Asianometry. How he finds the time to reserach in such detail such a wide range of tek-related subjects is beyond me.
He probably has a team who helps him. He makes bank so not unrealistic
I think he still has a dayjob actually, or at least until recently. So I'm not sure wether he has staff.
Mr Gemini and Mrs Claude
he's started making videos way before LLMs were able to aid in researching content. He's just good at doing what he does, no tricks there.
If you know about a topic well, his videos are not as accurate as he may try to make you believe
That’s a good point, he did a video in my space recently and while it sounded impressive it was clear he only had a surface level understanding of the domain. Still impressive, but I find it hard to trust folks that represent themselves as experts on topics they’re not really experts in.
When does he represent himself as an expert?
He's fairly transparently doing the work of what you'd perhaps call a 'pop sci journalist' or so.
Do you mind sharing which specific video it was?