That is the most idiotic question I have ever heard.

Look in the mirror, bro.

The GGGP stated you don't need a working EUV machine in order to build an EUV machine and you have been arguing that point for like 5 posts now.

GGGP> You dont need 2nm tech to make 2nm tech.
YOU> Citation Needed.

also you:
"That's idiotic".

Yes. I 100% agree it is idiotic.

What are you talking about?

It's a simple question. Did ASML need a working EUV machine in order to build an EUV machine?

The answer is obviously no. I don't really get why you are arguing this.

Gender is real as long as you mean it as equivalent of biological sex.

It' always good when you're arguing the brain doesn't exist. But even if we ignore that, I bet you can't even give a foolproof definition of "biological sex".

The problem is the simplified thinking that an EUV machine is just an iteration of a DUV machine and not knowing the leap in technology between the two.

Either way you don't need a working EUV machine in order to make an EUV machine.

Can you point me to a single biology class today studies why angry people have such strong yet inaccurate opinions on gender and studies thereof?

Astrology, voodoo and divination are all things that aren't real.

Are you saying gender isn't real? That's a rather extreme position I must say. Maybe someone should study why people like you adopt such extreme views on gender and why any discussion of such things makes them so angry. We could name the course "Study about gender" or something like that.

Citation Needed.

Well the alternative is the EUV 2nm machines spontaneously generated all by themselves. I think that needs a bigger citation than needing to use last gen's tech to make the next gen's tech.

Japan has an interesting system where a panel of judges and lay judges decide guilt.

Japan has a completely ludicrous conviction rate. I don't think the criminal justice system there is one to model.

and the jury is usually just a stack of prejudices and power mad individuals.

You say jury, but you sounds awfully like you're talking about judges there.

That's the problem with much of the "reform", it involves handing ever more power to a bunch of out of touch, callous, lazy dimwits.

I've done jury service, and I've had to engage with the court, and I've frankly been more impressed with juries than judges.

You appear to have awfully strong opinions on something you think should not be studied...

It's still absolutly at odds with reality to say driving and cars aren't encouraged.

Firstly roads get the majority of what the government spends on transport. Secondly you're basically saying that not being gifted free use of expensive land for storage is an active discouragement! That's wild!

The "making whole neighborhood car free zones" as you say it's firstly usually not true (more vehicle access is often allowed, but not prioritised and through traffic isn't allowed). Secondly this is you complaining that having 0.01% of space given over to areas where people aren't substantially at risk of death from drivers is "discouraging driving". That's just off the wall. You're taking absolutely minute areas where non car traffic is strongly in the majority already.

It shouldn't be either! University isn't meant to be vocational training, where you, say leave knowing exactly how to run the programming tool for the AMD(r) Xilinx(tm) Zync(TM) chips. You should know enough of the fundamentals that you can learn when you need for the job straight out of uni but also in 2,3 and 4 decades time.

Many good students now do see it transactionally as an opportunity to learn specific skills employers want and I don't think that's a good thing.

I've spent a good amount of my career informally providing on the job training to people with degrees.

Committing between suburbs is only a problem in that way if you do it by car.

I'm in suburban south London, going east/west for about 5 miles. Fortunately there's a decent bus and enough LTNs, parks, modal filters and bike lanes than I can do it on a bike without mixing it up with angry psychopaths.

I don't believe I'm concurring significantly to pollution or traffic jams, but I do see the odd gnarly one when crossing some busy roads. No wonder drivers are always so angry.

Firstly, no you don't have multitudes, don't lie.

Secondly, cities aren't loud, cars are loud. If you don't put massive stroads or motorways through the places where people are living you have way fewer problems.

Cities are only bad if you worship at the altar of the mighty automobile companies and issues cars are supreme and all else must take second place. I live in South London, edge of zone 2 if you care, just inside the south circular troll. At night it is deathly quiet.

Love in the sticks, live in as city I don't care.

Funny thing is I can't actually tell where over here is!

Motorists hate cyclists on both sides of the pond. A substantial fraction are literally psychopaths who retard cyclists as less human than themselves. And a lot of drivers are frankly fucking morons. So make will pull dangerous manuvers to overtake just to slam straight into the red light that was right in front of them.