This article seems pretty alarmist for no reason. Maybe DEI requirements have slowed this, but why are we assuming that that means it’s been “killed”?

Doesn’t slow and steady win the race?

The Hill calls it the "CHIPS Act" and are outraged it has climate science stuff funded in Arizona, but other places including the linked Arizona project call it the "CHIPS and Science Act." Which one is the correct name?

On the Wikipedia page it says the CHIPS part is about encouraging semiconductor production, but the science part refers to: "It also invests $174 billion in the overall ecosystem of public sector research in science and technology, including in NASA, the DOE, and NIST."