I think your comment is valuable and insightful, but
> China is demanding more.
I have yet to see evidence of that beyond propaganda. Naming someone who reportedly gets a harsh sentence is not evidence.
> China is demanding more.
I have yet to see evidence of that beyond propaganda. Naming someone who reportedly gets a harsh sentence is not evidence.
And if I show you official statistics you will say statistics out of China can’t be trusted.
Folks like yourself will only realise when it’s too late
Their power grid runs at a huge margin of excess capacity and they easily bring more online because they can still do infrastructure projects.
They are rapidly overtaking the United States in domestic, sovereign, and secure semiconductor fabrication. They're a couple of nodes behind but Kirin SoCs and multi-terraweight LLM inference on Aspire look pretty hot shit to me and no one can yank them around like a dog on a leash that it'll get turned off.
Government is dramatically more participatory than the western caricature. It is substantially at the local and regional level that it is directly participatory (so, the size of the whole US). At the very top it is representative in the sense that a party guy in Beijing is considered incompetent (they care about that) if the needs of the region are not on the agenda. When's the last time you called your congressman and got change?
Innovation is plural, research is open, the university system is in the loop, the public benefits.
Real wages are going up.
The PRC gets jumped in with Putin's Kremlin by lazy Americans who don't talk to Chinese people.
It's not the Kremlin. It's JFK in a Chairman Mao hat.
That's a bunch of words, but if we didn't know before LLMs and before the Internet, we know now: words are cheap and valueless without other properties. What distinguishes those words from propaganda? Why should someone believe it's true?
Throwing insults at people who disagree or question you makes it less likely there is substance to the words.
> easily verifiable claims.
I disagree that they are verifiable, not being factual statements. But if you think so, then verify them. I'm not going around HN verifying the claims in everyone else's comments.
The EV claims are the most trivially verifiable, the rest go down from there. Some of them have more nuance but you did not engage with that. Don't worry, reality will catch up eventually, you being convinced is strictly optional.
It's the opposite: If you post claims then others will absolutely cast doubt and it's up to you to verify them. No way other people should do it for you (that's also very inefficient - you already know how to verify them and also it's redundant for everyone else to do it). Even better, you'll see people cite their claims before anyone asks.
In any serious field, you don't make claims and then require others to verify them. Imagine a scientist or courtroom lawyer doing that. It's up to you and if you don't, then it's nonsense by default.
> It's a comment section
Not just any comment section; HN plays by different rules. Look at how others interact. Just spouting claims doesn't get you far.
You are awfully contrarian for someone whose response to an argument is "that's not proven to my satisfaction" and when asked what citations would satisfy you replies "it's not my job to define what citations I will and won't admit".
You do you king, but it's not exactly the incandescent childlike wonder of the perpetual student's mind.
I'll wager your mind was made up before we started having a conversation.
That exchange never happened - maybe you're thinking of someone else?
> I'll wager your mind was made up
You can see how empty the Sinophile side is: they will talk about anything, say anything, but provide actual substance as a basis for their claims.