Do you know that Chinese GFW only applies to domestic numbers and services? If you have an out of country number and roaming it doesn't apply to you. I don't know anything about Iran though.
American analyses of Chinese political machinations are almost always entertainingly off the mark because they are really superficial position papers to appease the funding agencies, whether they raise the alarm or preach calm.
Chats have contexts. While search engines try to track you it is spookier because it is unclear to the user how the contexts are formed. In chats at least the contexts are transparent to both the provider and the user.
In the beginning of course everyone wants to use mature components unless it is something you can differentiate yourself with. Once there are clear winners on the system side the winners will want to control critical supplies as well.
Your arguments are not supported by what is actually happening. They just rolled out child payments and I support that. Pensions grew very fast for 体制内 people and there is scant evidence that stimulates spending other than burdening local finances. 大病保险 reimbursement rate is also up a lot while office visit costs are kept very low and while I think that is good there's little evidence that it stimulates consumption.
Your attack on my analysis as annecdotes is ridiculous. For one to induce change one needs differential data to get the derivatives on proposed changes and your citation of national bulk statistics at a point does nothing of that sort. Secondly on the ground experience can provide directions that inform experimentations. Government finance is tight. You don't want to get another 100% GDP in debt with little to show (as in Japan). Thirdly this is not an academic forum and I am not an expert. If you feel like you are one you can write papers on your ideas. Attacking me isn't going to achieve anything.
China's median age is now 40. 20 years ago the college enrollment and urbanization rates were much lower. That's why the numbers alone don't tell the whole story for a fast changing economy like China's. You need to look at disaggregated numbers if you want to make predictions.
Also the number you quoted lumped housing together with other costs.
China has very high home ownership and home prices are very elevated. Much public services and transport infrastructure builds are funded through government land sales and therefore through home sales. That could also skew the data.
Another problem with the national median data is the great variations in development levels and therefore cost of livings across geographic regions.
It's not easy to change the spending habits of the older adults. Consumption is also work. It's about increasing utility, not just spending. Consider the time after the Fukushima when misinformed consumers hoarded salt. It would be hard to argue that consumption increased utility. You want consumers to be informed, you want spending to discriminate against incompetent manufacturers and bad services. If older adults get more utility from watching their bank accounts grow than doing the work to consume without regrets, just shoveling more money indiscriminately isn't going to stimulate consumption much.
Consumption habit is much more dependent on personal experience and has little to do with the safety net. Older retired people with state pensions still have little desire to spend or don't even know how to spend in the new online economy, while young people who never experienced hardship are happy to spend every penny. If you want to increase spending you need to steer income to young people (child credit e.g.). Healthcare is mostly accessed by old folks. Generous pension and healthcare benefits are not going to lift spending.
They do provide a safety net but you have to move into the cities. They can't afford to build a comparable one for the rural areas too as rural productivity is too low and they can't realistically induce skilled people to move into impoverished rural areas.
These numbers were easily supported by those who attempted to replicate the RL portion of their work. The foundational model training is harder to verify but is also not central to the paper.
Sorry I have to say that the cited writeup is disappointingly shallow. For example it doesn't explain why other countries with equal or better access to the Western markets didn't all industrialize, so globalization may be necessary but is clearly not sufficient. Also its narrative on Chinese agriculture ignores the fact that Chinese agriculture also developed rapidly both in production and in value of output. It became the largest importer of food because the consumption of protein skyrocketed outpacing almost every other country.
Basically when a rock solidifies from lava or a lifeform dies they cease to exchange materials with their environment and the concentration of unstable isotopes will decay and deviate from that of the environment. The difference can be used to date how long the exchange has stopped.
When their EV transition is complete most of the old gas car lines will be obsoleted. As these are not the same owners and the EV factories are trying to accelerate the ICE carmakers' demise, it doesn't make sense to add the two capacities together. Interestingly the ICE makers are mostly JVs between foreign brands and Chinese SOEs, so the process of driving out the foreign brands also hurts the big SOEs.
On the open source library part, you can ask DeepWiki the questions yourself and feed the answers to the LLMs by hand. DeepWiki gives you high quality answers because they are grounded in code and you can check the veracity yourself.
Unfortunately the writer's own understanding of statistics is flawed. For example sample size has not much to do with population size but a lot to do with effect size. For example to demonstrate that a chemical is fatal often a sample size of 1 is sufficient. Population comes into play if there is a large variance of the effect relative to the average size of the effect. You need a good statistical sampling of the population to study the variance but even here sample size if not determined by population size.
Interests you pay is not necessarily all financial services revenue. Only the net interests the industry receives count as revenue. There's a lot of netting going on in finance.
They have to show that they are doing something I guess, but really they are way more vunerable to sea drones themselves since they are very dependent on ocean shipping for supplies. So it is interesting that this technology is described as a savior instead of the threat that it truly represents.
It is to be expected if you limit trade to what you want to sell instead of what others want to buy. I am not even necessarily talking about technology. For example American tourists can feel quite at home in Europe due to the widespread use of English. Beside the language issue, Europe (other than some shop owners) weren't particularly happy when there was a surge of Chinese tourists. Even Hongkong wasn't happy.
If you have a foreign number roaming into China you shouldn't need proxies. Only Chinese numbers go through the great firewall. On the other hand, your speed might depend on your carrier's roaming arrangements.
In this case it's purely technical even if the title can be misunderstood as if the cleanup is a bad thing. Instead the takeaway should be that it would be reassuring if the majority of the acceleration can be explained by a cleanup effort, because it implies that this is a limited process and the acceleration should go away after the cleanup is over.
Taking away strict accuracy also takes away reproducibility, which makes debugging much harder. As an example, I am struggling to understand how my younger one is turning out.
Kind of ironic how yesteryears's successful influence operations (imagine US officials attending similar programs in China!) become nowadays' evidence of disloyalty, to some.
One can imagine that for remote sensing like real time tracking of moving objects it is more efficient to have the nano sats with optics flying at lower orbits and have processing done in sats in higher orbits. This way the resolution is higher with the same optics while the compute resources can be pooled in larger, more powerful sats in more durable orbits.
If you are referring to Apple's sending engineers to work out problems and enforce standards you should know that this is not unique to Apple. Huawei does the same with its own suppliers. In my opinion it has much more to do with the fact that Apple and Huawei can afford to pay their engineers much better and hire people with good problem solving skills. It is not that they have some secret sauce and have to teach the factories how to make things. That would be a strange interpretation.