Don't be ridiculous. The US alone cannot stand up to China. We can't even build ships anymore. Parity is only possible with an alliance comprising the full economic and manufacturing might of the "free" developed world, which includes Europe and the rest of Asia. Losing Europe as a close military and trading ally is suicidal all by itself, but it has knock-on effects: once you've abandoned Europe, do you think the rest of your allies are going to believe you're there for them? Why should South Korea risk its security building ships for a US military alliance, once we've signaled that the US values its military alliances at zero?
China is restricting purchases of H200s. The strong likelihood is that they're doing this to promote their own domestic competitors. It may take a few years for those chips to catch up and enter full production, but it's hard to envision any "trillion dollar" Nvidia defense empire once that happens.
PV solar is between $.97 and $1.16 per watt, so that's going to be the front line. With storage you can get from $1.60 to $2. This is already the bulk of the power generation in Europe and is only going to increase. The idea that you're going to run nuclear plants at 95% capacity factor economically is also very suspect in a continent saturated with cheap PV solar.
The difference mostly shows up in policies. Nobody is saying the top leadership of the CCP isn't enriching themselves. What they're noting is that the top leadership is small enough that this enrichment doesn't (yet) necessitate tilting the entire economy towards enrichment of its elites, at the cost of harming economic growth. The key word there is yet.
You see broadly different outcomes in many authoritarian countries, for example Russia. You might also argue that much of the short-term decision making we've seen from US industry lately is driven by the need to produce returns to stockholders, at the cost of long-term investment.
The population is achieving results. Most of these results are occurring in China, which has begun an unimaginably huge deployment of renewables and nuclear. Europe is also making progress. The rest of Asia will go next, and then (as it develops industrially) so will Africa. Even parts of North America will quickly electrify: for example, Canada just agreed to reduce tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6% from 100%.
Nuclear isn't getting built at any significant scale in the US after Vogtle. We might get a couple of plants opened up (like 3MI) but large scale new buildouts aren't happening until SMRs are available at scale. Anything else is an Internet fantasy.
It’s not a weird edge case at all. For many specific areas like building codes, states have long delegated publication and “annotation” (essentially, writing down critical elements of the law that must be known to folks who want to obey the law) to private publishers. This isn’t literally “Georgia tried to copyright its laws” but it’s close enough to be morally the same. I remember being incensed about this in the late 1990s and I’m glad the wheel of justice (finally) turned.
ETA: A critical tell here are the words “The State of Georgia sued.” Georgia essentially tried to copyright its laws by having a private firm do the copyrighting, and they didn’t even make much effort to hide behind this fiction, since they were the plaintiff. Kudos to the courts for seeing past this low-effort obfuscation.
The complaints about “free speech” I heard from conservatives over the past five years often had nothing to do with constitutional free speech, either. They were almost always directed at private companies and organizations moderating content; from time to time someone would try to claim a government nexus, but it was rare and always something like a request to take down some content (that often got rejected.) Given that we’ve spent years having a broad conversation about the principle of free speech, to suddenly demand that we restrict the conversation to one about pure First Amendment requirements seems a bit disingenuous.
Speech is important. Scientific speech more important. A government right now is using its power to selectively defund and wipe out big chunks of scientific research and communications that ultimately exist to protect your future. You should be livid and working to inform people how dangerous this is, not making poor excuses.
Obviously RC4 itself isn't the problem. The problem is that Microsoft ships a "ciphersuite" that includes a bad password-based key derivation algorithm that also happens to be tied to a whole pile of bad cryptography. And the real, real problem is that Microsoft still ships a design in which low-entropy passwords can be misconfigured for use in encrypting credentials, which is a nightmare out of the 1990s and should have been completely disallowed in 2010.
It's a little more complicated. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Trump can fire agency heads not for cause even when there is a "for cause" clause in the law. The Court then invented a new "the Federal Reserve is special" clause that prevents Trump from using that exact same power on Fed Governors. So because the Court has made a patchwork quilt out of the law (in an effort to bring about their preferred policy outcomes), Trump is now trying to muster "cause" against Cook. Early signs indicate that the case appears to have serious problems.
It isn't even about the climate anymore. The cheap EVs are going to be built; they're just going to be Chinese. China is currently at 50% BEV and PHEV and pushing upwards to 59% in some months. Imagine looking forward 10 whole years and thinking you're going to be selling new consumer ICE vehicles, shy of massive market-sheltering tariffs and the loss of the global markets.
What's changed in 2025 is that the Trump administration has illegally postponed the ban passed by Congress four times, despite the fact that the law does not allow the President to extend the ban. And, naturally, the fact that this is to facilitate purchase by a coalition of political allies.
US nuclear submarines consume highly-enriched uranium, that's nearly as (and sometimes more) pure as the weapons-grade version. That doesn't mean oceanic reactors aren't possible, it just means that military subs are a bad example.
I'm in my late 40s, don't remember ever having chickenpox as a child, and I have a choice between getting the chickenpox vaccine now, or waiting til I'm eligible for Shingrix. Having seen friends get Shingles before turning 50 (and boy was it bad), plus watching some of their close family members get chickenpox from contact with them, I kind of want to avoid that stuff. But there's not a ton of expert guidance on whether the right move is to gamble on 50/Shingrix or to get vaccinated now! And when you toss in these dementia concerns, I'm even more confused. I think this would be a different calculation if I was younger, but I honestly don't know what the right move is for someone in my cohort. I decided to wait.
ETA: Someone in comments above points out that the data is still coming in on this question. It looks like the best move is not to ever be exposed to varicella (maybe me?), and the second best move is to be vaccinated with chickenpox, and possibly the ultimate best move is to get Shingrix, but there's a lot of missing data and some timing problems here.
I looked into a chickenpox vaccine a while back, but it turns out the current varicella vaccine uses a live virus. So if you're fortunate enough not to have been exposed to chickenpox, taking the vaccine could put it into your body. The Shingles vaccine, on the other hand, has no live virus at all. But you can't get that til 50.
ETA: Since someone downvoted this: I'm not criticizing vaccination, and you should absolutely get your kids vaccinated! But for someone (like me) at the age where you've seen friends with Shingles (ugh), adding live chickenpox virus to your body feels like a risky idea, even before this news.
If you look at some of the more controversial bills being passed in the states, they're also being more or less lifted out of national political action committees and think tanks. Extreme in-state gerrymandering (supported by national party organizations) has effectively nationalized big parts of state politics in those states.
You're never going to make a system that prevents the ultra-wealthy from augmenting it with private services. You might, however, reduce the power of the ultra-wealthy.
But that's not at all how things have worked out, even here within the US. Waze does not compete with Google Maps. WhatsApp and Instagram do compete with Facebook, each of these companies were simply acquired. We've learned that new social media companies have a very hard time spinning up the network effects required to make them prominent, and in the rare cases they do, they quickly get bought out or their products cloned by incumbents. There's an excellent chance this would have happened in China without state intervention.
The most prominent recent exception to this rule is TikTok, which spun out of an already-successful Chinese tech company. Its owners resisted acquisition until legislation forced their hand.
Define "better off". Companies like Meta and Google are enormous behemoths that make their money through advertising. One advantage of their size is that they have lower costs, but a greater advantage is that they have much larger market power: they can purchase competitors and demand higher rents for advertising space. Is society genuinely better off from this kind of concentrated market advantage? One might argue that there are different kinds of 'efficiency' at play here, and not all of them are in society's interest.
Nations don’t outsource critical national security industries even though economists might say that’s more efficient. The question is whether they should outsource critical tech infrastructure to huge quasi-monopolistic US firms that can turn it off or abuse European data at will. I don’t have the answer to that question, but I have to imagine it’s a worthwhile debate. The data we have cuts both ways: China applied protectionist policies to its own Internet companies, and it’s hard to argue that this has been economically devastating for them.
We’ve had “legitimate” for-profit firms supplying authoritarian governments with phone malware that they allegedly used to spy on and sometimes murder their dissidents. The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, we’ve seen what happens if it isn’t guarded.
I would go farther. Privacy laws seem like an excellent way to tighten the internal European market and develop homegrown competitors, which (one might argue) Europe really needs. If Europe is loosening up those laws, does that help Europe? Or does it help Meta and Google and Microsoft?
Seller agrees to sell ticket at PRICE. Monopoly intermediate provider sells it at $PRICE+$markup. Monopoly intermediate provider sells it to a reseller, which artificially limits the supply available to buyers at any given moment. Buyers have to go to resellers, who then pay $markup2 back to the monopoly provider to transfer the ticket to the ultimate buyer. This may even repeat several times, resulting in the monopoly provider reaping more in markup fees than the seller receives for the actual product.