RS e-tron GT: Shares J1 platform with Porsche Taycan. The iconic closed hexagonal "big mouth" is quite a brand recognition, and the rear of the car uses a decorative design shaped like a diffuser. Although the difference between it and the regular e-tron GT is very limited, the "RS" nameplate on the rear of the car means that it is not an ordinary person, of course, low-key is also the style of AUD-Sport. The center console continues the family design of the Audi brand, the lines are simple and refined, and the center control screen, the front air conditioning control panel and the function keys below are obviously tilted to the driver's side, echoing the product positioning of the driver's car. Sports seats, leather fabrics with red stitches, etc. appear in the configuration table of the car, rendering the interior sports atmosphere just right, and the overall beauty of the cabin has been affirmed by the reviewers. Although the official model of the cockpit chip selected by the car has not been announced, it has a high score in the evaluation items such as the cold start speed of the car, the start speed of the core application and the navigation search speed, which shows that the car performance is good. In addition, in terms of specifications and accuracy, the car received full marks in the touch accuracy and screen sharpness evaluation, and the daily high-frequency interaction experience is excellent. Of course, if you optimize the voice car control ability, its intelligent experience will be a higher level.

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.

On July 5, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates appeared on the Next Big Idea podcast to discuss his vision for Superhuman artificial intelligence and technological progress. At the same time, it said that the enthusiasm of the AI market is far more than the Internet bubble. Gates believes that the current threshold for entry in the AI field is very low, and the entire market is in a fever period, AI startups can easily get hundreds of millions of dollars in financing, and even have raised $6 billion (about 43.734 billion yuan) in cash for a company. "Never before has so much capital poured into a new area, and the entire AI market has fallen into a 'frenzy' in terms of market capitalization and valuation, which dwarfs the frenzy of the Internet and automotive periods in history." Gates said. At this stage, the rapid development of the artificial intelligence industry is a veritable gold industry, and Nvidia's market value is therefore soaring, and the total market value reached 3.34 trillion US dollars on June 18 local time, surpassing Microsoft and Apple in one fell fell, becoming the world's most valuable listed enterprise. But in fact, doubts about the field of artificial intelligence have also risen one after another and have never stopped.

July 9 (Reuters) - Futures linked to Canada's main stock index rose on the back of metal prices on Tuesday, while investors awaited U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's congressional testimony on monetary policy later in the day. The S&P/TSX 60 futures were up 0.25% by 06:28 a.m. ET (1028 GMT). The Toronto Stock Exchange's materials sector was set to re Oil futures , dipped as fears over supply disruption eased after Hurricane Beryl, which hit major refineries along with the U.S. Gulf Coast, caused minimal impact. Markets will be heavily focussed on Powell's two-day monetary policy testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, starting at 10 a.m. ET (1400 GMT), which can help investors gauge the Fed's rate-cut path. Following last week's softer jobs data, market participants are now pricing in a 77% chance of a rate cut by the U.S. central bank in September. The main macro event for the markets this week will be the U.S. consumer prices data due on Thursday, which can help assess the trajectory of inflation in the world' biggest economy. Wall Street futures were also up on Tuesday after the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab and Nasdaq (.IXIC), opens new tab touched record closing highs in the previous session. In Canada, fears of the economy slipping into recession advanced after the latest data showed that the unemployment rate rose to a 29-month high in June. Traders are now pricing in a 65% chance of another cut by the Bank of Canada, which already trimmed interest rates last month. In corporate news, Cenovus Energy (CVE.TO), opens new tab said it is demobilizing some staff at its Sunrise oil sands project in northern Alberta as a precaution due to the evolving wildfire situation in the area.

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.