Well, there certainly is a comprehension, and/or selective perception problem. Maybe you should examine your own posts. In an unusual moment of rationality and a lull in his usual anti-intel rants, Charlie himself admitted he was wrong, and I posted the direct quote. No ambiguity there.
Guys... I don't wanna accuse you both of being illiterate or trolling, but I don't really have any more ideas. You're quoting a paragraph out of an article and deliberately 'forgetting' what the article states: not just the 10nm process is a failure, but Intel dug themselves into an even deeper hole trying to spin some life into 'a kind of a 10nm' process, instead of cutting their losses, coming back in 2021-2022 with a realisticly designed and obviously very good 7nm process (it's Intel after all, ffs!), and in the meantime leveraging their amazing 14nm achievements (they are really very-very impressive).Lol he even admitted a few months later that he was wrong. He initially told 10nm is dead, he didn't differentiate between 10 and 10+ etc. The killed off first iteration of 10nm would be no news because everyone knew Cannonlake never existed really. He was dead wrong and he knows it. Also the relaxed 10+ was denied by Intel, it was wrong as well.
You know what? You're right. Charlie admitted he was wrong. Intel didn't kill their 10nm process.... they did something MUCH WORSE with it.
I also hope you're both gonna reply to my post with quoting only this: 'You know what? You're right"