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.

The world's first portable electrocardiograph was an 85-pound backpack, and now a 10-gram patch attached to your chest can transmit electrocardiograms uninterrupted for two weeks. The Apple Watch, which is worn by an estimated 100 million people, can send a text message to alert people when their heartbeat is irregular. Wearable sensors on the arms, wrists and fingers can now report arrhythmias, blood sugar levels, blood oxygen and other health indicators. Medical journals have also proposed a more ambitious vision - wearable devices can monitor patients with chronic diseases, eliminating the need for frequent hospital visits. They can spot potential health problems before a stroke or diabetes develops. The forces of health technology and wearables are converging. Tech giants like Apple (AAPL) and Alphabet's (GOOGL) Google are adding health features to their products. Medical technologists like electrocardiogram patch maker iRhythm Technologies or blood sugar monitor makers DexCom (DXCM) and Abbott Laboratories (ABT) are taking their devices beyond the clinic. "In the sensor world, people started on the consumer side and wanted to get into health care," said Kevin Sayer, chief executive of Decon Medical. "In health care, we're trying to be more consumer oriented, and I think all of those things are sort of colliding." Early bets favored the tech giants, with every health-related announcement from Apple, Google or Samsung Electronics hitting medical tech stocks. But changing doctors' practices will also require sustained investment in clinical trials. Big tech companies have cut back on investments in health care. Now it seems that medical technologists will be at the vanguard of the digital health revolution - with smartwatches and smart rings bringing them more customers who need to be diagnosed. Blake Goodner, co-founder of Bridger Management, a hedge fund focused on health care, said: "A group of medtech companies focused on digital health are maturing and reaching a scale where they can not only be profitable but also make investments to compete with larger tech companies." Tech giants aren't getting out of the health business. Apple's smartwatch has an electronic heart rate sensor that generates a single-point electrocardiogram, a wrist temperature sensor, and an accelerometer that can detect violent falls. Hundreds of millions of people are wearing smartwatches with health features from Apple or its rivals Samsung and Garmin.

WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - Problems with Boeing's Starliner capsule, still docked at the International Space Station (ISS), have upended the original plans for its return of its two astronauts to Earth, as last-minute fixes and tests draw out a mission crucial to the future of Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab space division. NASA has rescheduled the planned return three times, and now has no date set for it. Since its June 5 liftoff, the capsule has had five helium leaks, five maneuvering thrusters go dead and a propellant valve fail to close completely, prompting the crew in space and mission managers in Houston to spend more time than expected pursuing fixes mid-mission. Here is an explanation of potential paths forward for Starliner and its veteran NASA astronauts, Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita "Suni" Williams. THE CURRENT SITUATION Starliner can stay docked at the ISS for up to 45 days, according to comments by NASA's commercial crew manager Steve Stich to reporters. But if absolutely necessary, such as if more problems arise that mission officials cannot fix in time, it could stay docked for up to 72 days, relying on various backup systems, according to a person familiar with flight planning. Internally at NASA, Starliner's latest targeted return date is July 6, according to this source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such a return date would mean that the mission, originally planned for eight days, instead would last a month. Starliner's expendable propulsion system is part of the craft's "service module." The current problems center on this system, which is needed to back the capsule away from the ISS and position it to dive through Earth's atmosphere. Many of Starliner's thrusters have overheated when fired, and the leaks of helium - used to pressurize the thrusters - appear to be connected to how frequently they are used, according to Stich.

July 4 (Reuters) - A hacker gained access to the internal messaging systems at OpenAI last year and stole details about the design of the company's artificial intelligence technologies, the New York Times reported, opens new tab on Thursday. The hacker lifted details from discussions in an online forum where employees talked about OpenAI's latest technologies, the report said, citing two people familiar with the incident. However, they did not get into the systems where OpenAI, the firm behind chatbot sensation ChatGPT, houses and builds its AI, the report added. OpenAI executives informed both employees at an all-hands meeting in April last year and the company's board about the breach, according to the report, but executives decided not to share the news publicly as no information about customers or partners had been stolen. OpenAI executives did not consider the incident a national security threat, believing the hacker was a private individual with no known ties to a foreign government, the report said. The San Francisco-based company did not inform the federal law enforcement agencies about the breach, it added. OpenAI in May said it had disrupted five covert influence operations that sought to use its AI models for "deceptive activity" across the internet, the latest to stir safety concerns about the potential misuse of the technology. The Biden administration was poised to open up a new front in its effort to safeguard the U.S. AI technology from China and Russia with preliminary plans to place guardrails around the most advanced AI Models including ChatGPT, Reuters earlier reported, citing sources.

On June 27, the U.S. Space Command announced that a retired Russian satellite disintegrated in low Earth orbit on June 26, generating more than 100 pieces of debris, forcing astronauts on the International Space Station to hide for about an hour. The X-platform account of the International Space Station showed that shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, NASA instructed the crew on the space station to hide in their respective spacecraft for safety because NASA learned in the morning of the 26th that a satellite disintegrated near the space station. About an hour later, the crew was allowed to leave the spacecraft and the space station resumed normal operation. There are rumors on social platforms that the satellite hit six U.S. GPS satellites after the disintegration and damaged 20 Starlink satellites developed by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) led by Musk, triggering speculation that the relevant satellites were deliberately disintegrated.