Intel is the one trying to catch up to TSMC, not vice versa!
The link you give doesn't have any details of Intel's 18A process, including no indication of it innovating in any way, as opposed to TSMC with their "backside power delivery" which is going to be critical for power-hungry SOTA AI chips.
While you are correct that it is Intel trying to catch TSMC, you are wrong about the origin of backside power delivery. The idea originated at Intel sometime ago, but it would be very ironic if TSMC implements it before Intel...
Intel is not the inventor of backside power, they are the first planning to commercialize it. It's similar to finfets and GAA where Intel or Samsung may be first to commercialize an implementation of those technologies, but the actual conceptual origin and first demonstrations are at universities or research consortiums like IMEC. Example Imec demonstrating backside power in 2019 https://spectrum.ieee.org/buried-power-lines-make-memory-fas... far before powerVia was announced.
OP never said Intel wasn't trying to catch up. As far as backside power delivery, this is literally what Intel has been working on. It is called PowerVia.
Except for backside power. Intel published and had a timeline to ship at least one generation ahead of TSMC. I haven’t been tracking what happened since, but Intel was ahead on this one process improvement. And it’s not a small one, but it doesn’t cancel out their other missteps. Not by half.
This isn't a comparison of shipping processes though, it's just roadmap products. And in fact until this announcement Intel was "ahead" of TSMC on the 2026 roadmap.
Started programming in high school by modding games (2013). During that time, I built tools for game modding that are still in use today. Started my career at the age of 20 before I even graduated with my CS degree, and been solving lots of different problems since. See my resume below for details.
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Remote: OK with both remote and on-prem.
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: JS (Web and Node, all types of frameworks), Python, RabbitMQ, MongoDB, Linux, Docker, K8s, Git
Is all software developed for every democratic government open source? Weird take to call it illegal. They only got this system up a couple years ago, and they've been dealing with an invasion for the last 2 years.
All software running on citizen devices should be open source in a democracy. As they should have a noscript/basic (x)html portal, if reasonable, to lower the technical exit cost of any "app platform" and to provide a fair, low technical cost, and nearly equilavent access to any alternative platforms past present and future.
"The software industry" is full of scammers (planned obsolescence, etc). It is very hard for govs (democratic) to stay clean here.
EU started to regulate Big Tech, it is only the beginning.
Imagine a scenario where bunch of those animals brake check you, and then your insurance company calls you up and says "Hey jgalt212, we're seeing that you your forward collion avoidance system got activated too many times this year. We're going to flag you as a tailgater and up your premium by %80. Have a lovely day."
Playing devil's advocate, the answer is that brake checking only works if you are tailgating. If you increase following distance such that you cannot be brake checked, the insurance company has succeeded in making your driving habits safer.
As opposed to the jackass whose pulling high lateral G's and going 90 on the freeway. I think I can explain my way out of the insurance hike easier than the aforementioned jackass--who actually should be deemed uninsurable.
Could've just been "inflation" (read: Opportunity to jack up prices) too. Although if one car company is going to be on the bleeding edge of data collection & sharing it'd probably be Tesla. They're the most Silicon Valley of all.
Making it easier to determine who's at fault in cases like you mentioned would involve more sensors, radars, cameras etc. So we either 1984-ify everyones car or we just don't do any monitoring at all (since half-assing it can lead to false positives). I have a feeling insurance companies (and therefore governments) will slide more towards the 1984 side to save a couple dollars.
Insurance companies don’t have to, people are voluntarily installing dash cams to show who was at fault (or at least show they were not). Chances are, someone is recording your collision, and you might as well have your evidence to fight against someone else’s.
[0] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/int...