I feel like this is a tech-problem that will have a tech-solution. No idea how that fits into an "International Trade Partner Conference".
That said, you can't outsource your complete manufacturing process only to come back later and wish for "virtual IDM" partnerships. Thats all of the benefits and none of the risk.
Rhetoric aside, Nvidia is the designer who keeps breaking transistor count records and is a dominant OEM supplier. That makes them both a technology and business leader among TSMC's customers, so it makes sense for TSMC to devote resources to them, since the experience they get in working with them can't be gained elsewhere and is applicable to their other customers down the road.
This isn't a problem, its the 'perfect moment' for a frighteningly ambitious, disruptive startup, per HN speak.
I think its clear that this would be a problem in an industry where the most used tool is a bookshelf of various common interpretations of law. It just doesn't scale.
The idea that law firms don't do IT is born of ignorance. Even the idea that the most used tool is a bookshelf of common interpretations of law is wrong, unsurprisingly all that stuff is online these days. Why on earth would anyone with two brain cells to rub together search for case histories on paper when there's Lexus Nexus which will do it in fractions of a second and is updated on a regular basis?
Yes these people are pretty conservative they're not stupid and they have money (a lot of money). Large law firms will typically have IT departments of hundreds and there's a significant market for companies specialising in supporting the legal sector.
But this is a tough problem because not only are there huge amounts of data involved but because people are actively trying to hinder your search. The law says that you have to to disclose everything relevant but it's pretty much common practice to also disclose a bunch of things that might be and a shed load of stuff you know full well isn't. This is a double win for the defending firm - not only can no-one accuse you of not providing everything they might want to see, but you get to do so in a way that makes very very difficult for them to find the stuff that matters.
Think of it this way - the problem is basically the same one Google have (already a pretty tough problem) only instead of the people providing the pages being keen that their information be discovered, they're actively trying to hide it.
Interesting, isn't it? Our direct reactions tend to be the most honest, but we don't often want to admit that to ourselves for we know that we should be aspiring to be better.
Tolerance might be the opposite of abstraction, and thats a hard reality in a field where abstraction has gained us so much.
You are linking low number of CS freshwomen to being harassed by male colleagues. The problem of that argument is obviously that the earlierst most people would be exposed to such an environment is _after_ college.
So maybe its not culture in programming, but culture in society that is to blame here.
There are legal obligations for the government to reimburse telco companies if they are asked to spy on their customers on the governments behalf. Also, obviously, if you want to use data as evidence in a trial, it needs to be stored safely by the police and sealed off, to ensure that its integrity is preserved.
So either the government needs to pay up, store the drives themselves or dismiss these thousands of harddrives from the witness bench.
Also, I cant see how the EFFs claim has any legal merit. Theres no obligation for a site to enable you to access data you sent them.
That said, you can't outsource your complete manufacturing process only to come back later and wish for "virtual IDM" partnerships. Thats all of the benefits and none of the risk.