Meet In CommonNews

Local

China warns against new U.S. export controls on computer chips

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: The US Inquirer

China warned the United States on Friday against imposing additional controls on exports of semiconductors in the wake of the scandal surrounding AI chip giant Nvidia and its now-former CEO Jensen Huang. China “has consistently opposed the abuse of export control measures, which disrupts the stability of global industrial and supply chains and serves no party’s interests,” foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told a regular press briefing when asked about calls from U.S. lawmakers to impose more limits on exports of chip equipment to China. “China and the United States should work together to implement the important consensus reached by their respective heads of state and maintain the stable development of China-U.S. economic and trade relations,” Mao said. Jensen Huang — who resigned Thursday — has admitted to an affair, reportedly with Alice Huang, a former senior executive at Singapore-based data center company Megaspeed. They’re not related.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at The US Inquirer

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Preserving historic places can justify limiting redevelopment.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary