Talk:CHIPS and Science Act

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

European Chips Act vs CHIPS and Science Act

The CHIPS and Science Act and the European Chips Act are both often referred to as "Chips act". Should this be clarified in the articled? Maybe a "Not to be confused with" note should be added? Also, should theCHIPS Act redirect be rethought? All opinions welcome! James Tamim 14:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a DAB page is needed for Chips Act? A 'not to be confused with' linking to European Chips Act would be good too, I think. Seloloving (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integra Technologies - Wichita, Kansas

Integra Technologies, the largest outsourced semiconductor assembly and test (OSAT) operation in the United States, wants to build a major OSAT facility in the Wichita, Kansas. This isn't a done deal yet, because they applied for federal funds from the CHIPS and Science Act act, otherwise it won't happen.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a list article for companies' investments in new facilities?

Since many sources probably don't specify whether the investment is being done BECAUSE OF the CHIPS act, or whether this investment would have been done regardless, I suggest that we move many or maybe most or all of the list of investments to its own list article, otherwise is is a HUGE amount of Original Research to lead the reader to believe that ALL of these projects/expansions are the result of the act. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding changes to the CHIPS Act impact

The criticisms by the Mercury News sources from 9 months ago are contradicted by recent reports from May of this year (Reuters' report is cited in Impact) that state that the EPIC Center in Silicon Valley will be expanded. I apologize for the unforced error of not sourcing the statement, but keep in mind that I was trying to add context to the statements, not suppress it. These are not the same things. I will add a source from now on. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarrod Baniqued: If I remember correctly, you added something to that effect and I reverted your addition because your addition failed to make the distinction between RESEARCH (which the EPIC Center is, if we are talking about the same thing) and MANUFACTURING, which is what the MercNews says will not be built in California. If you add to this section, please be sure to understand and make clear to the reader that these are NOT the same thing. (The CHIPS act attempts to encourage both). ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To further my point, many electronics products (Apple comes to mind) now say something along the lines of: "Engineered/designed in California, built/assembled/manufactured in China." That is the distinction; no FABS are expected to be built in CA, and that is probably a very widely held belief, not just whoever the MercNews interviewed. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar317 i hope in time you reconsider the stance you are taking on your percieved differences for manufacturing versus Desigining/Engineering.

Every trade industry in existence today has survived or thrived through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabless_manufacturing

Auto companies, chip manufacturers especially, especially hardware and software companys like Google, Apple, etc. It's interesting to read how distinct some cultures try to isolate the two into distinct separate fields when in America - most everything is fabless.

I cant give you a source because that would be unprofessional and probably illegal in countries like the USA..but you dont have to look hard at for the specifications OTHER companies engineered the product to be built with. Licensing and contracts dictate the proper terminology, not you or i. Polypsychosis (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News

2024-01-04 : "Biden-Harris Administration Announces CHIPS Preliminary Terms with Microchip Technology to Strengthen Supply Chain Resilience" - CNBC

$90M to improve Microchip Technology fab in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
$72M to improve Microchip Technology fab in Gresham, Oregon.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSF budget cuts

All the sources I'm reading indicate that Congress cut the NSF's annual budget by 8%, which sort of flies in the face of some of this article[1]. Seems like the government threw $50 billion at low-value assembly jobs (which matter little) while cutting funding for basic science research (which matters a great deal). Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]