From the perspective of the two major markets of the United States and China, the autonomous driving industry has fallen into a low tide in recent years. For example, last year, Cruise Origin, one of the twin stars of Silicon Valley autonomous driving companies and once valued at more than $30 billion, failed completely, its Robotaxi (driverless taxi) operation qualification was revoked, and autonomous driving models have been discontinued. However, as a new track with the deep integration of digital economy and real economy, automatic driving is a must answer: on the one hand, automatic driving will accelerate the process of technology commercialization and industrialization, and become an important part of the game of major powers; On the other hand, autonomous driving will also promote industrial transformation and upgrading by improving the mass travel service experience, seeking new engines for urban development, and injecting new vitality into the urban economy.

On July 1, former Microsoft CEO and President Steve Ballmer surpassed Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates for the first time on the Bloomberg list of the world's richest people to become the sixth richest person in the world. According to the data, as of the same day, Ballmer's net worth reached $157.2 billion, while Gates's wealth was $156.7 billion, falling to seventh place. The latest figures, as of July 6, show that Ballmer's wealth has grown further to $161 billion, and Gates' wealth is $159 billion. This is the first time Ballmer's net worth has surpassed Gates', and it is also the rare time in history that an employee's net worth has surpassed that of a company founder. Unlike Musk, Jeff Bezos and others, Ballmer's wealth was not accumulated through entrepreneurial success as a business founder, but simply because he chose to hold Microsoft "indefinitely." As Fortune previously reported, Ballmer is the only individual with a net worth of more than $100 billion as an employee rather than a founder.

According to AndroidAuthority, the Linux kernel used by Android devices is mostly derived from Google's Android Universal Kernel (ACK) branch, which is created from the Android mainline kernel branch when new LTS versions are released upstream. For example, when kernel version 6.6 is announced as the latest LTS release, an ACK branch for Android15-6.6 appears shortly after, with the "android15" in the name referring to the Android version of the kernel (in this case, Android 15). Google maintains its own set of LTS kernel branches for three main reasons. First, Google can integrate upstream features that have not yet been released into the ACK branch by backporting or picking, so as to meet the specific needs of Android. Second, Google can include some features that are being developed upstream in the ACK branch ahead of time, making it available for Android devices as early as possible. Finally, Google can add some vendor or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) features for other Android partners to use. Once created, Google continues to update the ACK branch to include not only bug fixes for Android specific code, but also to integrate the LTS merge content of the upstream kernel branch. For example, the Linux kernel vulnerability disclosed in the July 2024 Android security bulletin will be fixed through these updates. However, it is not easy to distinguish a bug fix from other bug fixes, as a patch that fixes a bug may also accidentally plug a security vulnerability that the submitter did not know about or chose not to disclose. Google does its best to recognize this, but it inevitably misses the mark, resulting in bug fixes for the upstream Linux kernel being released months before Android devices. As a result, Google has been urging Android vendors to regularly update the LTS kernel to avoid being caught off guard by unexpectedly disclosed security vulnerabilities. Clearly, the LTS version of the Linux kernel is critical to the security of Android devices, helping Google and vendors deal with known and unknown security vulnerabilities. The longer the support period, the more timely security updates Google and vendors can provide to devices.

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.

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.