I recently found myself reflecting on some past experiences in the industry, particularly regarding why reverse engineering is significantly more complex than it once seemed. Using my dad as an example, back in the 1980s, they made quite a bit of money pirating American and Japanese electronics without much pressure. The circuit boards were fairly standard, and the components were limited to just a few types. As a major hub for manufacturing, it was no trouble to find ways to produce products for American and Japanese companies while quietly taking a few samples for replication.

During family meals, they would boast about their impressive skills—how easily and quickly they could copy others' products. They saw it as straightforward: reducing costs seemed so simple, and they often commented on how foolish they thought the Americans were. But this is just the surface.

I could tell similar stories from various sectors, including chemicals and materials. I've encountered companies claiming to have their own R&D, but in reality, many were staffed by individuals who'd spent years working for Japanese firms, learning how to manufacture products and substituting certain materials or altering formulations while keeping the principles largely intact.

Over the years, I've noticed that many who sing the praises of the Chinese ability to outpace Western methods are often in their twenties, with their parents typically fitting that narrative. A small fraction truly understands the principles at play; the rest are merely influenced by media representation.

I am increasingly convinced that ideology and family background heavily influence one's beliefs. However, why is it that such beliefs are failing in recent years? The answer lies in nanotechnology, which doesn't operate on the same logic as traditional manufacturing processes. As I try to articulate, when you reach the nanoscale, unexpected behaviours emerge. To produce materials at that level, simply reverse engineering isn't sufficient; you need access to the entire production process. Without that understanding, replication isn't possible.

Once you delve into nanomaterials, even minor variations in production processes can lead to significantly different properties. That's why professionals in nanotechnology rarely believe successful reverse engineering is feasible—especially those with extensive industry experience. The simple fact is, if you succeed in replicating something, it's not considered reverse engineering; it would be outright copying, assuming you're privy to the production parameters. If you're not able to replicate all parameters, you'll typically end up with something similar but never quite the same. From our perspective, variations that deviate from the original by a mere 10% would be deemed entirely different.

Yet, I struggle to convince my friends and family. Many believe their experiences in production equip them with the necessary knowledge, dismissing nanotechnology as not being fundamentally complex. They acknowledge the variability in the field but don't grasp the implications. I often see them express incredulity at the challenges posed by nanotechnology, failing to appreciate its intricacies.

To illustrate my point about the complexities of reverse engineering in the nanoworld, consider this analogy: 

### Traditional Electronics Pyramid

```
     A
    /|\
   B | C
      |
      C
```

But nanotechnology is more like this:

```
       A
      /|\
     B | C
     /   |\
    D    E
   /|\   /|\
  / | \ / | \
```

Put simply, to advance from one tier to the next, you need knowledge about what is missing at other levels. The only known pathway to success follows a specific route. It's possible to reverse engineer with enough financial investment and manpower, a point my relatives struggle to understand. They believe I'm influenced by biased media sources, despite my background in the field.

If such reverse engineering is indeed feasible, why can't a powerful country simply capitalise on piracy to become the world leader? The resources needed to fill the existing technological gaps are often more than it would take to develop a completely new process. 

Even if you can glean insights from published research, fully replicating something to the point of mass production, without any issues, requires an investment of time that far exceeds the traditional path of accumulating knowledge gradually. The reality is that the accumulation of experience in nanotechnology is highly specialised. Unless you've personally navigated the process, observing how others approach it often leads to confusion.

It may appear that one can quickly amass the results of others’ endeavours through piracy, yet without understanding their methodology, you're likely stumbling in the dark unless you're working in the same lab. In other words, without truly absorbing the knowledge, all one does is copy.

I note that these insights must be experienced first-hand to be understood. Even as my relatives' children enter the tech sector, a mere inquiry reveals their lack of depth; many are simple operators but believe they belong to high-tech industries. Now, as I find myself growing older, I see them as naive, convinced they are outsmarting the system without understanding the nuances of their field.