Has the mass media interviewed any American who escaped from Biden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal to see how their trip home went, hoe it was arranged and their thoughts?
++++++++++
An article by the daughter of a dear friend and fellow memo reader. Edlyn also happens to be married to the principal of CFS who discussed his company at our home.
Semiconductors: The US should be asking how we can lead
BY EDLYN LEVINE, WILLY SHIH AND H.-S. PHILIP WONG, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Amid a global semiconductor shortage impacting everything from appliances to smartphones, lawmakers will consider how the U.S. can gain ground. They shouldn’t stop there.
The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will hear from Intel, Micron Technology, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Purdue University on Thursday. As the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act makes its way through Congress, the main focus is on catching up with Asian semiconductor competition. Most of the investments being talked about exploit existing technologies and knowledge, like building more fabrication plants. These have short time horizons and lower risk.
The committee should ask how do we uncover new materials, devices and manufacturing methods that will bring us the next generation of performance and energy efficiency, with radically different device structures or process technologies. This means embracing risk, fostering competition of ideas, and enabling the best new ones to get a toehold. It means adopting disruptive approaches when the future semiconductor trajectory requires ground-breaking innovations.
Why more risk-taking? Because the industry today has every incentive not to take bold risks. The costs of making a wrong technology choice are enormous. Financial pressures foster incremental steps that exploit existing know-how, rather than exploration of riskier alternatives. Rather than allocate constrained fabrication capacity to new materials or processes, it is easier to feed skyrocketing demand with tried-and-true processes. Why take risks on the unproven?
Stanford Professor James March called out this dilemma four decades ago in one of the seminal papers on innovation when he compared “exploration and exploitation.” Exploration is about new possibilities, new ideas and ways of doing things, while exploitation is about established certainties — refining existing products and processes. Because the returns from exploration tend to be long-term and have a high amount of risk, while the returns from exploitation are shorter term and likely more predictable, exploitation tends to crowd out exploration.
In semiconductors, we should not let catching up (a strategy used by many developing countries) distract us from our real goal, leading the way. Building onshore fabrication plants is necessary, but not sufficient. The learning that comes from operating them is essential to ensure that new ideas are not un-manufacturable pipe dreams. But a new fabrication plant will become obsolete in four years if there is no R&D to sustain its relevancy. Manufacturing and R&D go hand in hand, in the same way that doing R&D without manufacturing is akin to building a bridge to nowhere. Exploitation of established certainties is not enough.
We can secure American leadership by fostering bold exploration and risk-taking. How do we get new devices ideas like magnetic memories (MRAMs) into high-volume production? Or create new materials and processing methods? Here are some ideas:
Foster competition and a marketplace of ideas
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has done this successfully for decades, with an idea-driven and outcome-oriented culture. It seeks out and funds researchers who compete with each other to bring new concepts forward. DARPA program managers feed competing approaches and are adroit and tough minded in their selections. And it works, DARPA invented the digital protocols that made the internet possible.
Reduce the formidable barriers to commercializing new process technologies in the U.S.
Replicating a DARPA-like process is not enough, we need to commercialize and manufacture new innovations in volume. We could make domestic facilities available to test commercial viability by buying space, capacity and capability in existing or planned fabrication plants. Startups are often times stymied by a chicken-and-egg problem. Without prototyping capacity they struggle to demonstrate commercial viability. Without demonstrated viability, they can’t get into fabs.
Underwriting some of the risk of technology development
The federal government has done this in other areas, notably in NASA’s Commercial Crew and Aircraft Energy Efficiency programs, and in underwriting of clinical trials and early stage manufacturing for COVID-19 vaccines not knowing whether a vaccine would gain emergency use authorization. They bet on a range of approaches, recognizing that many would not bear fruit.
Seek leaders who are not “captured” by incumbency
If we create a new bureaucracy to coordinate these investments, let’s make sure it is not bound to the status quo. This means leaders who are willing to take risks, and ensuring that “accountability” doesn’t lead to risk aversion. Many R&D ideas don’t pan out. Success comes from having a smart portfolio of bets.
We should make the U.S. the place people and companies come to try new ideas. We should welcome immigrants — would we give a visa these days to the next Andy Grove of Intel, from Hungary, or Satya Nadella of Microsoft, from India? American universities and research institutes attract the best and the brightest. We should encourage more people to come, not stymie those who might bring us future capabilities. We should make the U.S. a magnet for the best people and ideas.
The committee should remember that these things are historically what the U.S. does best. Let’s play to our strengths.
Edlyn Levine, Ph.D., is a research associate with the Department of Physics, Harvard University.
Willy Shih is the Robert & Jane Cizik professor of management practice at the Harvard Business School.
H.-S. Philip Wong is the Willard R. and Inez Kerr Bell professor in the School of Engineering, Stanford University.
+++++++++++++++++++
Riley at his brilliant best:
Waukesha Killings Make the Media Colorblind Again
The contrast with the Kyle Rittenhouse case illustrates the double standard.
By Jason L. Riley
In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death last year, employers offered black workers time off to deal with the news, and UCLA suspended a professor who refused to grade his supposedly traumatized black students more leniently than their nonblack peers.
Such gestures may have been well-meaning, but they were also nonsensical and reeked of condescension. Are black psyches really this fragile, and are blacks so starved for exemplars that miscreants must be treated like martyrs? Should Floyd’s death matter more to them than the huge number of black homicides that don’t involve police? And why would people who aren’t black be any less disturbed by a video showing a police officer kneeling on the neck of a defenseless suspect for nine minutes?
The protests that followed Floyd’s death rested on two assumptions. The first is that Floyd, a career criminal and drug addict, was somehow representative of black America, which is not only false but deeply insulting. The second is that police acted out of racial animus, which has never been proven. This is what happens when racial identity becomes the centerpiece of politics and public life in a multiracial society.
The political left often pretends to pine for a postracial America, but that’s the last thing it really wants. I recall a guy who ran for president a little while back after talking about how there’s no black America or white America or Asian America, just a United States of America. And then he became president and stopped talking like that. Instead, he started talking about racist policing and black voter suppression, and he embraced divisive racial provocateurs like Al Sharpton. All the colorblind talk went out the window.
People who are interested in a postracial America don’t name their organization Black Lives Matter or welcome racial propaganda like the “1619 Project” into elementary schools. They don’t advocate racial preferences in college admissions or racial quotas in hiring. And they don’t call for white people who were never slaveholders to pay reparations to black people who were never slaves.
The Biden administration has picked up where the Obama administration left off. The unwarranted racialization of the Kyle Rittenhouse saga, which concerned one white man shooting three other whites, was a clumsy attempt by President Biden and his allies to further a narrative about bias in the criminal justice system. To their credit, jurors stuck to the facts of the case and Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted, but liberals and their friends in the media are playing a dangerous game when they selectively invoke race to advance a political agenda.
The same press outlets that portrayed Mr. Rittenhouse as a white supremacist have had remarkably little to say about the racial identity of Darrell Brooks, the black suspect in Wisconsin who is accused of plowing his car through an annual Christmas parade last month and killing six people, including an 8-year-old boy, all of whom were white. Given the suspect’s history of posting messages on social media that called for violence against white people and praised Hitler for killing Jews, you’d think that his race and the race of his victims would be relevant to reporters. Race is all anyone would be talking about if a white man had slammed his vehicle into a parade full of black people. Yet suddenly the left has gone colorblind.
Liberals want us to believe that racial disparities in police shootings and incarceration rates stem from a biased system and have little to do with racial disparities in criminality. They want to talk about so-called hate crimes that involve white assailants and black victims, but not those involving black assailants and white or Asian victims. They want headlines to read “White Cop Shoots Black Suspect,” even when there’s no evidence that the encounter was racially motivated. This is playing with fire.
“Once we go down this road and get into the habit of racializing such events, we may not be able to contain that racialization,” said Brown University economist Glenn Loury in a recent speech for the Manhattan Institute. “Soon enough, we may find ourselves in a world of instances where black thugs killing white citizens come to be seen though a racial lens as well. This is a world no thoughtful person should welcome since there are a great many such instances.”
The political left’s hyperconsciousness about race might help Democrats turn out their base, but at a steep cost. National cohesion in a country as large and ethnically diverse as this one has always depended on our ability to focus not on our superficial differences but instead on what unites us as Americans. The sooner we start choosing political leaders who understand this—and punishing the ones who don’t—the better off we’ll be.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I am going to list several things the Obama Biden Presidencies and Administrations have done and had I not identified them you would think I was describing , in several instances, Germany under Hitler's Gestapo. and certainly not America.
1) Investigated several journalist-reporters and took their articles.
2) Circumvented treaty requirements by calling it something else.
3) Conducting government by presidential edict to avoid submitting legislation that would not pass because probably unconstitutional and/or would not collect enough votes.
4) Broke virtually every major campaign pledge.
5) Was found guilty of constantly lying.
6) Caused sever racial division in the nation.
7) Pacified our adversaries to the detriment of our national security.
8) Appointed radicals to various agency and cabinet posts.
9) Supported educational efforts that besmirched our nation and was not factual.
10) Supported adversaries of Israel.
11) introduced energy policies that weakened our nation.
12) Were aware of lies used to impeach Trump
13) Used IRS, FBI, and other agencies to intimidate citizens because they held conservative views.
14) Knowingly jumped the gun to encourage radical discord against police, alleged defendants etc.
15 Opposed certain Constitutional Rights and spoke against certain inalienable rights of America Citizens pertaining to worship, free speech and assembly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment