121–130 of 223 posts
How competitive is Kirin compared to Qualcomm chips. Is it feasible for China govt. to 'motivate' Xiaomi, BBK and other local companies to use it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what your thinking is behind this. Ok, maybe you're a believer in the Trump's an idiot meme, fine, but do you actually think not a single person on Trump's trade team understands that trade wars are a high risk undertaking, that it might not be a complete cakewalk? Take Robert Lighthizer for example: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/china-japan-lighth... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/watch-robe…
I'd actually love to understand why people trust fringe opinions given that the track record of "people who hold fringe opinion in established fields" is totally abysmal. Even if you were inclined to believe them -- don't you think the responsible option would be to measure the effects of small changes (maybe you implement some degree of tariffs without going for all-out war) rather than coming in with fringe views,…
I wonder what specific meaning you attribute to the words "trust" and "opinions" in this context, and how you believe (unless I am mistaken) you happen to know how "people" "trust" "opinions".
"fringe opinions" also seems like a bit of a loaded term to me, the exact meaning of which is left as an exercise to the reader. It also seems to imply that if an opinion is not mainstream, it is wrong, something that history would disagree with.
Can you consider the possibility that some of us have evaluated the situation, taking into consideration that only a subset of the facts are available to us, and also considering that many of the "facts" are surely propaganda, and come to the conclusion that while this trade war isn't a pleasant position to be in and is fraught with massive risk, it is the "best" route to go all things considered, and also that some of us may not hold the belief that we are "absolutely right" in our decided stance?
> don't you think the responsible option would be to measure the effects of small changes (maybe you implement some degree of tariffs without going for all-out war) rather than coming in with fringe views
Given the unlimited time a dictator enjoys, certainly. In a democracy with working timespans of > and all the while believing you are absolutely right
How might you know that Trump's trade team believes they are absolutely right, versus posturing? Is there some irony here?
> And it's not a meme -- it's because people who respect experts are often experts in their own kind in other fields, and they've seen this behavior before, and hint -- it's come from the idiots.
If it's not a meme, does that mean it is a fact? Or is it something else?
[flagged]
The Blonde's administration and open support for barbaric regimes and murderers like Saudi prince, Erdogan etc. does much more evil in this world than what China did in last 10 years. Even if it would be equal, US can't have any moral high ground in today's world. They could fix tons of problems if they really wanted. But in reality Russians had to enter fight with ISIS to actually make a change. Makes you wonder if…
I believe this not only affecting the US. I still have not quite understood the deal around ARM, that will stop cooperating with Huawei. This is a UK based company, owned by a Japanese conglomerate, Softbank, but they were still affected because they have a development center in Texas. The logical conclusion would be that if you are a global company and want to keep selling to China (or to whoever will get a trade ba…
Well you dont get to be the sole superpower in the world by competing against healthy opponents with natural advantages. The reality is Americans are not so competitive, let's say, against other hungrier demographics. It's really in America's best interest to cripple the Chinese economy, as well as other big competitors cough EU which is where these policies are coming from. Otherwise you cant win against a relativel…
It's really in America's best interest to cripple the Chinese economy, as well as other big competitors coughEU which is where these policies are coming from. No, it is not in America's best interest to cripple the economies of its trading partners. That's absolutely absurd.
I am pretty sure that China is going to take a temporary hit but in the end they will emerge stronger than ever. I think China will also redouble on their efforts to be full self-sufficient in all high tech areas, even if they have to open up for a sanction relief deal, their population will so favor local competitors, that it won't matter. China's rise will continue and dominant until their demographic bubble bursts…
Yes, I'm curious what might happen if China gets to a level where they have the best tech, but are not interested in sharing it.
They are currently the best at refining rare earth metals and they are not interested in sharing it.
Have a look at the patent graph: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/3/21/v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theres a good reason why we shouldn’t use direct democracy and the Founders where very clear about that.
You mean the concern that the people might elect a demagogue...?
Bicameral parliamentary systems are even less prone to this since the prime minister is elected by the ruling coalition. But they have other problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unbelievable how Americans can be so brainwashed about their country's status in the world yet believe that they're completely "free"
America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. The electoral college did. It’s an artifact of the original founding of the country where there were checks and balances put in place to deny direct democratic rule. It’s been slowly rolled back over many years, but until we get rid of the electoral college, it always has the possibility of ignoring the will of the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. The electoral college did. It’s an artifact of the original founding of the country where there were checks and balances put in place to deny direct democratic rule. It’s been slowly rolled back over many years, but until we get rid of the electoral college, it always has the possibility of ignoring the will of the people.
Getting rid of the Electoral College would destroy America. You would basically have two large areas control the whole process. Nope, no thank you. The only reason it failed last time is Hillary failed to understand it.
Its all hyperbole overshadowing the root problem - first past the post non-proportional elections are hugely undemocratic. You need proportional legislatures where you have both multiple winners per race for better proportional distribution and alternate votes to first past the post regardless of what they are - STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc. Anything is better than what we have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"its not hard to see how $10-100 billion or more of other peoples money mostly being burned" Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. Yes you have billions being thrown at the wall and seeing what sticks, but some of it will stick, and based on past experience will more than offset what fell to the floor. The Hedge fund you mentioned, if you're right should be very successful, that will attract…
>Creative destruction is both a weakness and a strength though. I agree with this statement. >You seem to be complaining about essential features of capitalism, on one level you may be correct, just like observing that eating too much pizza will make you fat, but just like the fat, it's an inherent 'feature' that you can't really fix. I may seem that way, but I think this situation does provide benefits for those who…
Maybe? Probably. I don't see how you could 'fix' it though. Sure you could find a better local maxima. As i say, it seems to me to be an inherent feature.