231–240 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that bother you tho? Not having the moral ground changes the argument?
Because it's very obvious whataboutism.
If you can't explain why country A doing X is bad but country B doing similar thing isn't it probably means you don't have a good argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them. If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way o…
You've been all over this this thread responding with the same whataboutist comments claiming America does the same thing. And yet, I'm pretty sure America hasn't held American citizens hostage in order to force them to unwind a sale of a foreign company they founded to a different foreign company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good answer. The export controls have a strategic purpose - and Manus fits squarely within the spirit of the controls and maybe not the technicality of the rules. Consider that if this were a much smaller project, they'd run afoul of the same technicalities but would they be sanctioned? Probably not. It's very fair to make comparisons as to the arbitrary application of these rules in various regimes, lord k…
Tiktok was about only one thing and that was Israel losing the narrative war as unlike most of western social media which was deranking and censoring showing of Israeli atrocities to the world Tiktok was not.
There has been a lot of discussion here on why the founders were detained and whether this is normal for other countries. All one has to do is look at what Chinese Communist Party has done to Uyghurs to understand how far they will go to neutralize opposing thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
> After a $75 million fundraising round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in May 2025, Manus shut its China offices in July, laying off dozens of employees. It then moved its operations to Singapore. > It was not immediately clear on what grounds China was seeking the annulment of a deal involving a Singapore-based company and how, if at all, a completed acquisition transaction would be unwound. > Manus' two co-foun…
But Manus's IP was already transferred and in any case Meta is not legally doing business in China, so Manus will still live on, possibly get rebranded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day, the process itself, years of investigation, millions in legal fees, frozen assets, destroyed careers is often the punishment regardless of whether charges stick or convictions hold up. Not sure we can give any lessons to the world.
Then you probably are not fit to comment on this matter. I'm sorry to be that blunt but if you don't understand the value of rule of law, the difference in incentives, the consequences of separation of powers, I can't even grasp what kind of perspective you can build. It's genuinely baffling to me.
“No new US trials are currently planned for the Epstein cases because there has not been credible evidence“
Application of the laws genuinely depends of how much money you have.
We also see it with companies, like if you are OpenAI or Nvidia it suddenly becomes ok to copy pirated works.
Rich people pay damages, poor people go to prison.
Out-of-court settlements are prime definition of such.
Technically, yes the law is followed.
The same with gifts you can officially make to judges in Texas.
Anywhere on this planet where people who have connections can influence the outcome, no matter what is written on a paper, and the US is not exempt.
Almost a billionaire. Only 1 step left. Then, it's blocked by China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk. Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loo…
What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences: 1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested. 2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in…
1. US had wiffle waffle export control policies on what TIER of compute that was exportable. When policies were unclear and compute threshold shifted, Biden admin signalled blank understanding of "presumption of denial" in interregnum while policy figured out exact controls. Nvidia stopped exporting until clarity. That's what due diligence / compliance means.
2. Manus created AI algo in PRC and hence under PRC purview. Fired their PRC team and thought incorporating in Singapore was loophole to transfer PRC controlled tech to US for fat paycheck. PRC was signalled before sale finalizes the Singapore loophole was not some lawfare gotcha to circumvent export controls. This was PRC version of presumption of denial. Ultimately PRC gets to decide if Manus technology CREATED IN PRC is exportable, and under what conditions. PRC company in Singapore fine, using Singapore to transfer to US... not fine. The amount of signals Manus got was similarly clear. PRC writings were talking about art13 of PRC export controls being triggered long before sales. Manus did the retarded and illegal (treasonously) thing and decided to go through with sale and forced PRC hand, when due diligence meant you know, not. AKA Manus did a supermicro but more egregious.
America so friendly they have to export control PRC... prevent US talent from working in PRC semi amirite. Oh wait, turns out when it comes to national security / duo use tech both sides are wildly not business friendly and can play the same geopolitical game. This hasn't happened in America, because quite frankly US businesses are not retarded enough to flaunt US national security instruments due to US gov extraterritorial reach. Manus thought they can do so with PRC who has less extraterritorial = reach, and now PRC slapping them as example. Also no one's arrested yet, just exit ban for ongoing investigation. But would not be surprised if they do end up getting arrested, because they wildly, knowingly in the wrong.
Tit for tat. US administration thought they would contain China. Now Deepseek v4 is running on their home grown chips. US companies lost that hardware revenue and dependency instead.
Weird, why does China want GPUs then? Also, regarding that "tit for tat", how large of a "tat" is due, regarding decades of corporate espionage?
Corporate espionage isn't the only factor behind China's rise.
It is relentless hardwork.
This just PRC finally applying their version of US export controls, i.e. PRC gets to control PRC originated algos, same argument as TikTok. The founders aren't held "hostage", they're under investigation for violating export control and national security laws. PRC hinted signalled pretty clearly they would use art12 (catch all clause) of export control laws and offshore affiliate rules (to address Singapore loophole)…
[flagged]
Anyway that said, with respect to PRC export controls "barring people" is also not wrong conclusion persay. For those down in the thread wondering what PRC can do about it. PRC doesn't have US 80+ years tier of extraterritorial instrument, i.e. banking. But PRC does have fuckload of talent, i.e. 50+ of global AI, soon 50%+ of global semi.
Seems like talent is going to get controlled according to new rules on countering foreign states unlawful extraterrestrial jurisdiction measures from state council a couple weeks ago. IIRC decree 834/5. There's a reason it was front loaded before Manus announcement. TLDR make it illegal for Chinese nationals to work in any US/foreign company that PRC puts on malicious entity list.
In theory, this cuts off huge % of PRC talent willing to work for targeted companies, unless companies spend $$$ guaranteeing green cards, because PRC nationals working in these companies or affiliating with individuals (including Manus founders if their scheme worked out), i.e. Facebook, would basically be committing treason. A fuckload of greencards because need to buy out all stakeholders, i.e. it kills poaching entire PRC teams / companies, any PRC talent funnel dead for affected companies. Nevermind coercing families, many competent PRC talent has millions in RE/assets, if not personally then via inheritance, all gone. Ask where US AI or tech would be without tons of tier1 PRC talent. Of course some will argue this good thing (derisking etc).