palmetieri2000

Remember my original comment is within the context of exceptionalism and pride drawn from nationalistic achievement recognition, I think you are conflating credit with funding which are separate issues. A corporation or country is perfectly legitimate in saying 'We have been researching this and would like to receiving funding so we can continue" but a a country would not be correct in saying that "because this occurred here, it can only occur here and thus we are responsible for the discovery and thus exceptional".

Take the story of Newton and the Apple, (I know its probably not accurate historically, but bare with me a moment). Are we concerned with if Newton was in London/Sicily/Barcelona/Paris when the proverbial apple fell? How about who owned the apple tree? No, the observation could have been made in any location. The variable which caused the "innovation" was the observer, not his location.

But, I can also see the perspective of some builders in SE Asia coming up with a way to make much more money from doing work they already have the skills to do by filming it and that I think I could forgive the fibbing if they just acknowledged how the builds were done, some of them are pretty awesome even if they aren't hand-dug.

Might as well read: "why do I need research, evidence or information when I could just take anecdote and opinion?"

Because no one cares about your opinion and your anecdotes lead you to draw incorrect conclusions. You have countered precisely 0 of my points because you are conflating opinion with facts.

Well first I linked you a whole wikipedia page full of them. Second, I would never ask that question because it is nonsense and any answer given can only be because of confirmation bias. Just because something WAS invented in the US does not mean it could have only been invented under those exact circumstances.

"Recently" is an arbitrary term you are throwing in there to be able to define the timeframe that suits you. If you really believe that the only things Russia has ever produced is "bad news" I think you could really get a lot out of exploring Russian art, literature, design, architecture and technology from any period you like between say 1900-present and I'm certain you will find something innovative.

Note that I never say a single thing about Australia being perfect or model citizens, that is your fabrication which you interpreted as 'US Bad and Parochial, Australia Good". Very zero sum of you, which fits exactly into the type of personality I am talking about. Find as many flaws in Australia as you can, it wont offend me because unlike you I dont see my country as beyond reproach.

I did not invent American Exceptionalism, I did not write the article we are discussing, Americans are the ones who refer to their country as the best or greatest.

Feel free to explore that and I'm certain you can dig up plenty more examples of fields in which Chinese scientists have worked on or released significant projects.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the value of the innovations China has produced, although 'making stuff invented in the West cheaper' is hardly a disqualifier for counting as innovation. Many US companies only claim to fame is doing the same thing, innovating a process to provide something that was once expensive at a lower cost.

Further, (and once again, I am not in any way pro-China) it is incredibly misguided and the perfect example of my point about US parochialism to dismiss Chinese innovation because you don't think it 'counts' compared to Western innovation.

And lastly, we haven't even explored any of the less extreme examples. Many of the countries in the EU have less of what people in the US identify as makes them 'free' yet it would be simply nonsensical to say that they have not contributed to global modernization through science and innovation.

Nah, I disagree. First, individuals who were educated across the globe, money from across the globe, and access to global resources are all necessary (and a fundamental part of the history) of Silicon Valley's success.

There really is no argument that Silicon Valley-like innovation do occur in distinctly non-free environments. For example; The Soviet Union's part in the Space Race, the current entrepreneurial and technological development in China, the British component of the Industrial Revolution.

Each of these demonstrate scientific innovation in otherwise less-free societies than California. I'm sure there are many more examples if you wanted to extend the historic timeline further.

Not an endorsement of the CCP.

The article entirely misses the problem non-US people have with the US faffing on about greatness or its exceptionality.

Which is that individuals from the US seem to see this as an indication of their own superiority and develop a parochial point of view regardless of their almost total insignificance to the accomplishments of the US.

Most US citizens have done precisely nothing to increase the 'greatness' of the US other than pay their taxes (which they oppose doing). Many non-US citizens have done much more, the success of the USA is the result of a combined effort from many countries but the parochialism of many Americans refuses to acknowledge this.

Even if your country is exceptional, which is immeasurable nonsense (I'm sure every country is exceptional in some ways), you should not take pride from this because you have done incredibly little to achieve it.

I expect precisely 0 Americans to agree with me, but my PoV is not uncommon in Australia at least.

PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-7...

https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-test...

https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-tr...

Now, I have cherry picked them in the sense that they stood out to me from their more typical motoring news or promotional material which makes up most of their content. So I don't think they are inherently worthless but they are certainly pretty low on the journalistic effort side of things.

My assumption is that it typically goes about as well for them as if the police tried to kill them and they weren't armed, at 'best' they take someone down with them, but feel free to prove me wrong.

People arguing your point love to bring up Afghanistan and Vietnam like the state of those countries during their respective wars was something other than abysmally horrific with a massive scale of death and destruction. Imagine if a similar level of conflict occurred in just one region of the US. Further, what is the state of those countries post war? Comparable to the US? They also seem reluctant to acknowledge that the existence of citizen-combatants in both of those countries are a contributing reason to the extensive murder of noncombatant civilians by the US army in those areas. Ie, because the guerilla warfare was so extensive the larger military was more willing to engage in broader targeting of the citizenry. Any reason you think this wouldn't happen in the US if we assume a rogue US military?

They go into extensive detail of their methodology, but I'll give you a very brief summary that I think might explain why article says they 'take data' from all those folks.

1. Use environmental data to create layers which are superimposed onto the map and represent different concepts such as: water levels, creeks & rivers, topography, and terrain visibility (visual prominence).

2. Divide the map into a grid of 500sqm squares. Attribute these squares with value based on estimated caloric expenditure to traverse and the layer information created earlier.

3. Using a 25 year old woman as the agent, simulate the route of least caloric expenditure and plot it on the map.

(justification: Men travelled further, but often did so without families and thus are less suitable for migratory analysis)

So while strictly true from the ABC, the paper does take data from those sources, I totally agree with you calling that quote vague, its a very clickbaity interpretation of how data is used in the paper.

Really dumb take.

I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items, if the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny then why aren't the citizens allowed the appropriate arms to do so? How are the laws that allow the US gov to exclude citizens from owning these not 'un-constitutional'? I imagine the answer probably lies somewhere in the "too much risk for accidents or deliberate hostile use" territory.

I hope this isn't inflammatory, not my intention, given what we continue to see re mass shootings, and the gun control proposals that happen afterwards it seems a bit like you have the worst of both worlds.

Put differently, there are enough citizen firearms with enough firepower to facilitate individuals attacking soft targets with horrendous effect but not enough firearms or firepower for civilians to actually have any remotely likely potential of defeating a tyrannical US military (or even police force).