English Video: China Just POPPED The US AI Bubble! (China AI maybe 6 months behind but 90% Cheaper that won’t break your bank) Silicon Valley Panics. 影片有中英文字幕: 中國剛剛戳破了美國的AI泡沫！（中國AI或許落後6個月，但便宜90%，不會讓你破產）矽谷陷入恐慌
Silicon Valley has a multi-trillion dollar problem, and it’s not a lack of “safety”—it’s that they are being outcompeted by open source. Today, we react to the massive shift in the AI landscape as China’s new GLM 5.2 model matches the best American tech at a fraction of the cost.
While Washington tries to “regulate the math” with export controls, China is open-sourcing the future. We dive into the spectacular irony of the US embargoing its own companies, why figures like Kevin O’Leary are using “breakfast cereal” scare tactics to protect data center investments, and the undeniable economic reality: 80% of US small businesses are already choosing Chinese AI.
Is the US “beating” China, or are we just watching the walls of a digital monopoly crumble?
In this video:
The “Beating China” Delusion: Why “beating China” is a marketing slogan for monopoly pricing. The Fable 5 Irony: How US export controls created a perfect vacuum for Chinese models. Kevin O’Leary’s Scare Tactics: Exposing the financial interests behind the “China threat” narrative. Price-to-Performance Reality: Why Airbnb, Coinbase, and Notion are switching to Chinese AI. Elon’s $200 Budget: The unsustainable reality of the US AI business model. Which AI philosophy do you think wins in the long run? Enhancement or Replacement? Let me know in the comments.
This may be the perfect time for Chinese American to return to their motherland. The foster home in US no longer welcome them! South China Morning Post: A new Chinese Exclusion era in the US: what’s the future for Chinese-Americans? 這可能是美籍華人回歸祖國的最佳時機。美國這個寄養家庭不再歡迎他們《南華早報》：美國迎來新的排華時代：美籍華人的未來何去何從？By Ling Xin
This week I was in Las Vegas, where nearly 1,000 Chinese-Americans from 41 states gathered under the shimmering desert heat for a high-stakes summit. 這週我人在拉斯維加斯，來自41個州的近千名美籍華人聚集在閃爍的沙漠熱浪下，參加一場高風險峰會。
Inside the massive Caesars Palace conference centre, the Chinese American Convention 2026 was under way. Civil rights lawyers, entrepreneurs, researchers, educators and artists all packed the same halls. The corridors hummed with Mandarin in various regional accents, a comforting kind of chaos. 在龐大的凱撒宮會議中心內，2026年美籍華人大會正在進行。民權律師、企業家、研究人員、教育工作者和藝術家齊聚一堂。走廊裡迴盪著夾雜各地口音的普通話，呈現出一種令人安心的混亂氛圍。
Attendees from 41 US states arrive at the grand opening of the 5th Chinese American Convention at Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, on June 29.
But beneath the warm reunion vibe was real anxiety: as America approaches its 250th anniversary, what does the future hold for its Chinese diaspora?
From the stage, though, the news was largely grim. Speaker after speaker described how Chinese-Americans have become political scapegoats – increasingly singled out and restricted from buying property, running businesses or even holding certain jobs. Some are calling it the start of a new Chinese Exclusion era.
It’s already happening. Florida and Texas have banned Chinese citizens who lack green cards from buying property near military bases and critical infrastructure, or any real estate beyond a single-family home.
In Iowa, a law taking effect today explicitly bars any citizen of the People’s Republic of China, including green card holders, from “owning, establishing, or operating healthcare facilities”.
“The lawmakers in Iowa offered no justification for this,” Haipei Shue, president of the United Chinese Americans (UCA), told me at the conference. “If they can lock us out of healthcare, how long before the bans extend to agriculture, construction or any other sector? What’s left for us?”
These bills don’t even pretend to be subtle. Another proposed Iowa bill sought to ban Chinese H-1B visa holders from teaching at any public, private or community college.
Community organisations showcase activism and history books while artists and entrepreneurs connect.
When Shue and other advocates went to the State Capitol to challenge it, lawmakers told them bluntly: “We do not trust CCP-educated kids to teach our kids.”
That bill was eventually killed after hundreds of professors from the University of Iowa and Iowa State signed protest letters and marched on the statehouse. But the sentiment behind it hasn’t gone anywhere.
Lawmakers justify most of this with “national security”, and the arguments quickly become absurd.
Keynote data: nearly half of the Chinese-Americans surveyed said they carry legal documents daily due to federal scrutiny fears.
Nearly 30 states have now banned Chinese nationals from buying private farmland. Texas State Representative Gene Wu pointed to one of the wilder theories floating around statehouses: that Chinese buyers will hoard land and refuse to grow corn, threatening the US food supply.
It’s economically absurd, Wu said. Corn is a globally traded commodity; the US is a massive net food exporter and one unplanted plot isn’t going to threaten anyone’s dinner. But logic doesn’t stand much of a chance against a good scapegoat.
On the second morning, news broke that a controversial executive attempt by the Trump administration to end birthright citizenship had been struck down. The meeting room erupted.
Outside the conference rooms: a glimpse of the sprawling Caesars Palace pool complex and the shimmering Las Vegas desert heat.
From the podium, the moderator reminded everyone: birthright citizenship’s landmark legal precedent traced back to a Chinese-American man – the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
While Wong Kim Ark made just one dollar a day as a cook, San Francisco Chinatown’s Zhonghua Huiguan – the unofficial city hall of the Chinese-American community – stepped in to fund his astronomical $10,000 legal battle, turning a single man’s fight into a collective effort that built a lasting civil rights milestone for the nation.
That history cuts against a belief common in the diaspora: that civil rights were something Black and Hispanic communities fought for and won, while Chinese-Americans just quietly benefited.
Cross-community solidarity in the desert: Chinese, African, Jewish and Indian leaders explore preserving cultural roots at a panel discussion.
As Paula Madison, a member of the Committee of 100 and a former NBC journalist whose grandfather was Hakka, said, the Confucian humility of “keep your head down, don’t make waves” does not work in American society.
When your rights can be legislated away, staying quiet won’t protect you. Only showing up will. Representatives from 61 Chinese-American organisations and over 200 youth leaders at the Vegas conference made one thing clear: staying quiet is no longer an option.
As California-based civil rights attorney Clay Zhu put it: “We must stand up and speak up in one voice – this is our land. We belong here.”
Also happening in fabulous Las Vegas: iconic casinos hum with life just steps away from the summit.
BBC News video: Why cancer patients are flying to China for treatment – Australian MD seek cancer treatments in China and was successful cost US$64,000. Same treatments in US, Canada & EU would cost 10x more or US$640,000 and it would takes much longer! BBC新聞影片有中英文字幕：為何癌症病患飛往中國求醫 – 澳洲一名醫生赴中國尋求癌症治療，結果成功治癒，花費6萬4千美元。同樣的療程在美國、加拿大及歐盟，費用會高出10倍，達到64萬美元，而且等待時間也會長得多!
China is emerging as a medical tourism destination offering cutting-edge CAR-T cell therapy that can be faster, cheaper and more accessible than many Western countries.
For years, Asian medical tourism has been associated with destinations such as Thailand and South Korea.
But a growing number of patients are now travelling to China for advanced cancer treatment, often at a fraction of the cost than in their home countries.
China is rapidly developing new CAR-T cell therapies, a type of treatment that involves modifying a patient’s immune cells to find and attack cancer cells more effectively.
Originally developed in the United States, the therapy has primarily been used for blood cancers that return despite frontline treatments like chemotherapy.
China now leads the world in the number of CAR T-cell clinical trials and its biotech companies have developed ways to rapidly speed up the process.
In this episode of Asia Specific, host Mariko Oi speaks to Amanda Harvey, an Australian patient and doctor who travelled to Shanghai for CAR-T therapy after several rounds of chemotherapy treatment for multiple myeloma.
Mariko is also joined by Bloomberg Health reporter Karoline Kan, who has been reporting on China’s growing reputation for advanced medical care to discuss how China became a leader in CAR-T therapy, why treatment can be much cheaper, and whether China could become a major medical tourism hub in the years ahead.
This podcast discusses cancer treatment and patient experiences and is for information only. It should not be considered medical advice. If you have concerns about your health or treatment options, please seek guidance from a qualified healthcare professional.
Three years ago, Washington bet that restricting China’s access to advanced semiconductors would preserve American technological dominance. That bet is not paying off the way its architects imagined. A February 2026 analysis in American Affairs Journal found that China’s semiconductor manufacturing equipment sector has reached a level of maturity that would have seemed implausible just a few years ago.
Huawei is building advanced fabrication facilities in Shenzhen targeting 7-nanometer commercial-scale production as early as this year. SMIC, the state-backed foundry, has repeatedly pushed foreign equipment past its rated specifications to achieve manufacturing nodes that the export controls were specifically designed to prevent. This is the uncomfortable logic of economic coercion: the more you restrict, the more you incentivize the other side to build what you’re withholding.
To be clear, the export controls imposed since 2022, and progressively tightened through 2025, have had real effects. They disrupted China’s semiconductor supply chains, caused price spikes, and delayed access to the most advanced fabrication nodes by multiple years. Independent analysts broadly agree that the United States retains a meaningful lead in frontier chip design and production.
But a May 2026 CSIS assessment found a consistent pattern: every tightening of restrictions has prompted China to double down on state-backed domestic investment. China’s target is roughly 50 percent self-sufficiency in semiconductor equipment by 2025, up from 13.6 percent in 2024. Export controls have not halted that trajectory. By some measures, they’ve accelerated it.
Semiconductors generated $627.6 billion in global sales in 2024. China is one of the largest single markets. American chipmakers barred from selling there lose revenue that would otherwise fund the research and development cycles that keep them ahead. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s economic modeling found that sustained revenue losses reduce R&D investment, slow innovation cycles, and weaken the long-term competitive position of US firms. The controls are designed to protect American technological leadership. But by cutting into the revenues that fund American chip research, overly broad restrictions may erode the very lead they claim to be defending.
China’s state-backed firms do not face the same constraint. Beijing can backstop losses that market forces would punish. This is not a neutral observation. It points to a structural asymmetry in how the two sides are playing the game, where blanket commercial restrictions impose real costs on private firms while doing relatively little to slow a state-directed industrial policy with a decades-long time horizon.
Washington has begun to recognize this. A December 2025 policy reversal included a significant concession: allowing NVIDIA to resume shipping H200-class chips to China under a case-by-case licensing review, reversing the blanket denial posture that had been in place. National security hardliners objected. But the move reflects a pragmatic acknowledgment that restricting commercially available chips with broad civilian applications carries limited security benefit while imposing real costs on American industry.
What the walk-back reveals is that the original policy was not as carefully calibrated as its architects suggested. Controls that made sense for cutting-edge military-relevant systems were bundled with restrictions on hardware with legitimate commercial uses. The result was a blunt instrument presented as precision policy.
The semiconductor question does not exist in isolation. In healthcare, Chinese manufacturing is deeply embedded in supply chains for medical devices, pharmaceutical ingredients, and diagnostic equipment. A 2025 disruption in active pharmaceutical ingredient supply underscored just how much of American drug manufacturing depends on Chinese chemical production. No export control regime has addressed this dependency.
In AI and digital infrastructure, Chinese firms are deploying sector-specific models in logistics, healthcare diagnostics, and manufacturing across Southeast Asia and other fast-growing markets. They are competing not on headline model performance, but on embedded, industry-specific integration. The technology competition is not only about who has the largest model. It is about whose systems are most deeply woven into the infrastructure of the world’s fastest-growing economies. No chip export control addresses that either.
If the goal is genuinely to protect American technological capacity—rather than to perform strategic anxiety through trade restrictions—three things need to change. First, export controls should be calibrated by actual security risk, not by the nationality of the buyer. A Chinese civil engineering firm purchasing legacy semiconductors for infrastructure control is not the same security concern as the People’s Liberation Army acquiring GPU clusters for weapons simulation. Policy that treats them identically is not rigorous but reflexive.
Second, domestic investment in research capacity needs to be sustained—and scaled. CHIPS Act funding was a meaningful start. But it cannot substitute for the revenue base being eroded by overbroad restrictions on the very firms it is meant to support. One cannot simultaneously cut the funding streams and promise to out-innovate.
Third, the framework needs to distinguish between managed engagement and capitulation. In legacy semiconductors, industrial AI, and healthcare technology, U.S. and Chinese capabilities are often genuinely complementary. Treating all technology trade as an extension of military competition forecloses arrangements that could serve both economic and stability interests.
The semiconductor rivalry between the United States and China is real, consequential, and will shape the technological landscape for the next decade at minimum. CSIS analysts argue that the United States holds genuine leads in frontier chip design, advanced manufacturing equipment, and the research ecosystem that generates next-generation capabilities. The question worth asking is whether current policy is protecting that lead—or gradually undermining it by cutting revenues, accelerating Chinese domestic investment, and conflating commercial competition with existential threat.
A November 2026 policy deadline offers an opening to move from reactive restriction to something more strategic: a framework that distinguishes between the technologies and transactions that genuinely threaten security and those that simply compete. The difference matters. So far, U.S. policy has not consistently made such a distinction.
Video: Is AI Really Crashing? No — This Is a Smoke Screen Big Money Is Dropping Before They Buy. Day Traders may love this video as it enforces the ideas that AI stocks prices continue to go up indefinitely despite losing 10s of billions every month! 視頻有中英文字幕: AI真的在崩盤嗎？不, 這是一道煙幕，是大錢在進場前刻意放出的迷霧. 當沖交易者可能會喜歡這部影片，因為它強化了這樣的想法：即使每個月虧損數百億美元，AI 股價仍會持續無限上漲！
China’s remarkable contribution to the clean energy movement was highlighted in a new chart by Jostein Hauge of Cambridge University in the UK, released last night.
“China now manufactures 89% of the world’s solar panels, 70% of the world’s wind turbines, 83% of the world’s batteries, and 75% of the world’s electric vehicles — all at a lower cost than the West,” he said.
After posting the chart on X, he received the usual hostile comments that China still uses coal.
The simple response to that is that every major economy still uses coal – the question is whether they are following targets to ween themselves off it and create alternative energy sources.
China, clearly, is.
Other countries? Well, some have spotty records, while others are going in reverse.
People concerned about the future of the environment will recall the works of Rachel Carson, a scientist-author credited with triggering the start of widespread awareness of these issues, with a 1961 book called Silent Spring.
The movement she inspired grew in the west in the 1960s, and is now global. Everyone has now heard of the need to move to cleaner energy.
But some do a lot of talking, while others actually make the switch.
After the overeating last few days, I cooked something simple, 3 dishes, soup and dry scallops congee for dinner tonight. 前幾天大魚大肉之後，今晚我簡單煮了一頓，有三道菜、一碗湯和乾貝粥作為晚餐。
My boss (Carmen) tells me how many coming to dinner tonight, all I have to say is yes boss! Anyone been to Chef competition in Asia! The best are invited, usually 10-15. The host right before the competition tell them to prepare their best dishes! They have to work with the ingredients provided. Therefore you need to be very creative and quick thinkers! You also working within a restricted time frame, usually 2 hours! I was honored with the best chef in Asia, the best judges and the Dean of UH hotel school. Carmen was with me. We were put up at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. After the competition, we were hosted by at least 10 best restaurants only open the very exclusive clientele. French Laundry in SF is nothing in comparison! We met with the head of tourism and many VIPs! In terms of the best of the best! US is a 3rd world country.
Johnson Choi Biz 