 If I may, since this is the world policy conference and quite frankly speaking, I'm not qualified to be making any policies, but I think President Macron has a forum, which is Tech for Good. And if you look at the positive aspects that our industry can create and solve so many challenges in the society that we are going to be facing, from climate change to food shortage to challenges for curing cancer and health disease, honestly, yes, I'm the ambassador for the semiconductor industry, so I should speak good about it, but I think it's incumbent to all the leaders that are gathered here to have a policy about semiconductors because of the good that it can bring to their societies, besides the economic and the sovereignty issues, the value that it can bring by educating the workforce to have a stake in their future. Because the future more and more is being mapped by technology and by the way semiconductors are changing different applications from agri-food to life sciences, as Hendo very well mentioned. I think between genomics and proteomics, we are getting a complete map of the human body and honestly without semiconductors, that would have never been possible. So I think it's incumbent to all the leaders to think and craft a policy that is holistic for innovation and semiconductors and not too many people in venture and financing are as versed in semiconductors as the two of you, so I'm glad that we are loaning some of our talent to the finance industry to help. Thanks Max. I think it's a very good transition to maybe open the door for questions in the floor. I would like to stop here a little bit and see if you have questions that we could take on. Good morning, Stan Kuzmo, Capgemini. Yesterday we heard about China and Taiwan. This morning we heard that TSMC is an important player in this industry. So two questions. What would be the potential consequences on your industry, on this industry? Should China take control of Taiwan, number one? And number two, what is being done to anticipate? Number two is? I didn't hear number two either. Number two is what is being done to anticipate that potential scenario? Okay. So we want to start. Hendo, you want to start? Did you get the question? Sure. Thank you. I hear the question. The reality is that if something negative happens to supply chain from Taiwan, the consequences are dramatic and drastic. And the reason is that if you look at the advanced technologies, TSMC has 90% of the market. And yeah, we do have attempts right now by Intel, by Samsung to build capacity. But if you look at the total capacity of TSMC in 5 nanometers and below, it's 300,000 waifus a month. 300,000 waifus a month. So CHIPS Act will not solve that problem. The activities in Europe, frankly, will not solve that problem. So there's really nothing significant being done today if there is drastic reduction in supply chain from Taiwan in the next three to five years. And that's a problem. And we think that the cost of addressing that can be up to $200 billion. But again, we think it's important to prevent it from happening, which requires diplomacy. And we do see lack of diplomacy in many areas at the present time, unfortunately. So since this is a World Policy Council, maybe there you have some smart people that can actually address this problem and provide diplomatic solutions. Because there are really no solid economic solutions in place at the present time. Yeah, I think I want to answer that question. Leading edge, what's so-called leading edge technology, about 15 years ago, there was 10 plus companies who were competing for who's the first on leading edge. And the semiconductor technology develops in so-called nodes, it takes steps. And every step of the way, two to three of the companies fell off the wagon. They weren't able to keep up with the speed of development in the semiconductor industry. And that has led to the point where now it is three or some say two and a half, I don't care, three companies left that are really fighting for leading edge and TSMC is clearly leading the pack. Why do I say that? If somebody would have wanted to prevent the current situation, somebody would have needed to step in 20 years ago, at least 20 years ago. We haven't done that. And that's why we are where we are. Now a lot of things are done, probably the most effective one is bringing TSMC's capability into several other places. Several things are done, but it takes years, three to five at least, to be somewhat less dependent on the currency as compared to the current situation. So that's just a matter of the fact. And all we can do is do whatever we can to really grow our independence or become less dependent from the current situation. And a lot of efforts are done. And I agree with, I wouldn't probably formulate it as drastically as Handel does, as to the chips acts are not going to cut it, but they will be a contribution, but they will not be sufficient. It needs a lot more than that to really grow that independence or come, you can formulate it more positively to strengthen the capability of the rest of the world in comparison to what is in Taiwan. By two cents, first of all, I encourage you to believe in the good of people. I'm a naturally optimistic person, even though bad news sells better commercials, I hope you can focus on the good. Yes, if you're going to scenario plan and scenario for the worst case scenario, if there is a disruption in supply from Taiwan on the most advanced nodes, considering that the most advanced node production in Taiwan sums up to 80 plus percent. Yes, we will have globally a problem. That said, I agree with Helmut, the chips acts intention is to remedy that. And let's hope that that's a remote possibility that the chips act just remedy that. Farthermore, you have to realize how did we get here. Semiconductor industry was maximizing cost for the last 40 years. And as a result, you wake up in the United States, I live in San Francisco, the birthplace of integrated circuit, and we found ourselves with absolutely zero manufacturing in California. Well, it was because we wanted to optimize for cost. Today, the optimization needs to be based on other factors. And the industry with veterans like you guys are working on reshifting it without truly sacrificing the cost and the benefits that it's brought with it. So we are working in the industry very diligently. I just came from Hendole, Iowa in Honolulu two days ago in a conference of CEOs. We are as an industry focused on making sure we plan for the worst case scenario, but we are also conscious that some of the geopolitical tensions are outside our control. Thank you. Maybe there is another question in the middle. Good morning, Jean-Pierre Cabisson from Hong Kong Baptist University. I have a question to the whole panel, maybe more to Hendole. Do you think the restrictions introduced by the Biden administration in terms of semiconductors transferred to China will help the U.S. to keep an edge over China? That's my first question. The second part of the question is about the European manufacturers or designers of semiconductors. How much Europe can stay away or stay outside of these restrictions and what the U.S. is doing to prevent China from catching up? Hendole, do you start? Thank you for the question. I think the U.S. CHIPS Act has some positives. It basically does recognize the importance of semiconductors. The amount of funding for manufacturing is like 39 billion. There are 500 applicants, though, for funding. I think it's really good that the leaders understand the importance of semiconductors. We see the same thing in Europe, basically again, an understanding of the importance of semiconductors. What China is doing is accelerating development of mature technologies and trying to do what companies do in advanced technologies in more mature technologies. An example is the May 60 of Huawei, which was done pretty much with full China technology. It's 7 nanometers. Apple right now is a 3 nanometer, so two or three generations behind. China is putting big emphasis into trying to be as self-sufficient as possible. We think of the next three or four years that's going to work. Among the term, though, there will be problems. I think it's really good that the world really understands the importance of semiconductors. What we do see in Europe, and we actually do work with some European companies, we do see a high level of innovation. Right now, ST, Micro, is the leader in silicon carbide. This is for autonomous vehicles. They're actually a leader by a significant amount. The difference between number two and number one is pretty big. Maybe Infineon might dispute that, but again, that's our opinion. Europe is also very strong, as I said, in sensors. Sensors are really important in terms of applications. I think it's really very good that we are getting this political attention, but the costs, though, of participating in advanced technologies are so high. An example for you is that to put in capacity of 50,000 wafers a month in 2 nanometers costs $30 billion. For 28 nanometers, 10 years ago, it was $3 billion, 10x. The cost of participation is going up. The rewards, though, also go up because, of course, you get big revenue. I'm very positive in the fact that we are recognizing the problems, and there are specialty areas that do not require advanced technologies that basically have very high growth. In addition to silicon and carbide, we see gallium nitride having high growth. Basically, the sensors, as I mentioned, have high growth potential. I think the recognition, and I agree, we should have looked at this problem 20 years ago, but we are looking at it now. Hopefully, we can not have significant political supply chain disruptions, because, frankly, if there is disruption from Taiwan, it's going to be bad for China as well as for the US and also for Europe. It's going to be bad globally. Hopefully, same minds will not result in catastrophe, but again, I think when you plan certain things, you have to look at different options, the optimistic, realistic, pessimistic, and very pessimistic. Again, hopefully, we won't have catastrophe, but again, I think, as Helmut said, we should have planned this 10 years ago or maybe 20 years ago, but we are now doing things. Maybe in the future, we'll be in better shape. Thank you. Maybe the last question. Yes, the last question. Yes, we are talking about semiconductor, but where are we with a superconductor? Are we still very far from or are we almost there? Well, first of all, as it was mentioned before, this industry has been, it should get the Nobel Prize for genius inventions over the last four years. So, we are diligently working on new materials. I was with the CEO of Intel two weeks ago, and he was not joking, saying that we are using only one third of periodic table. We still have two thirds to go, and we will definitely go there. I think supercomputers goes as Francois is working on it, his quantum computing platform. Right now, the latest and the greatest is about 100 qubits that is being produced, but quite honestly speaking, I think Francois team is counting on 50 to 100 qubits, and sandbox is one of the best out there. We are working as an industry to bring supercomputers because right now what sandbox is doing on drug discovery, what would have taken a number of years, it's being done in less than four hours with that number of qubits. So, the industry is making humongous progress, but what is needed for the progress is to have an environment that innovation can happen, and the geopolitics is only getting in the middle of it, creating redundancies across the globe, getting in the middle of it, not being able to collaborate with the best minds, gets in the middle of it, but as an industry, since I'm an optimist, I would say stay tuned to this channel. Yeah, and maybe as a quick conclusion, I mean, I think that you will understand that this industry is really supporting the next 20, 30, 40 years in terms of applications that will be around us, and we have all these verticals that are really supporting by semiconductors, and clearly innovation is at the bottom of it. Innovation brings leadership, and there is a new parameter today, I mean, this leadership is also equivalent to sovereignty. So, if you want to play even in the policy world, I mean, it's very important now to be very, very active into this industry. There is room, okay, there is room because this industry is now, as we said, transforming itself. We are moving from globalization to regionalization, and we believe that the Gulf region has a big place to take on this race. So, that's the end of it. Thank you very much for attending this. Thank you, everyone.