Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 07:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 09:16:25 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> 
>> We meet the agreed roles. We don't care about the spending targets, as
>> we (the nato) did not agree to those. The target was then calculated as
>> 2.1%, and we did a huge effort to finally achieve that one.
>>
>> (most of it not purchasing things from the USA, of course)
> 
> I just realized ... when Trump makes a big noise about NATO members
> spending more on defence, he was likely expecting that a lot of that
> expenditure would go to benefit the US arms industry ...
> 
> You naughty country, you 🇪🇸, not living up to his expectations ...

You're a bit slow. Do you realize that advocating that Europe weans itself 
from cheap Russian gas has done wonders for US LNG sales? The LNG deal is 
interesting. Due to the Jones Act of the 1920's goods between US ports 
have to be transported on US flagged vessels. US LNG tankers being sadly 
lacking, Texas LNG can't be shipped to Boston, for example, but can be 
shipped to Hamburg. LNG is fungible but there was some embarrassment a few 
years back when it was realized the gas delivered to Boston was originally 
sourced from Rosprom.

It's all about the Franklins, baby. The rumor that Trump is dangling F-35s 
in front of Erdogan has Israel's shorts in a bunch. Screw qualitative 
military edge if there is money to be made.