351–360 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if you had to provide a source every time you claimed The Holocaust happened.
What a weird argument to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here bud https://old.reddit.com/r/China/comments/yzol6h/
Those aren't from The Economist, the articles mentioned there are from Vox, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-...
^ they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA"
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-chi...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/03/t...
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/12/w...
FFS none of you actually read The Economist yet I'm the one who has to google for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
No they're exactly the same, except Manus more retarded than Nvidia and Supermicro. 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 dili…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a weird argument to make.
Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
If by "common knowledge" you mean "previously agreed between the sides", sure. But that is not the case, evident by the reply thread. If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those aren't from The Economist, the articles mentioned there are from Vox, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera.
Are y'all seriously still on this? Here you go. The top results from a google search https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-... ^ they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-chi... https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/03/t... https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/12/w... FFS none of yo…
The first, from 2015 (year of the 2015-2016 Chinese stock market turbulence), is an analysis of the response of the other countries to the aforementioned issue. With that context, its cover seems to be the usual attention grabbing shit other journals do, lest you want to conclude that the Economist also has a vendetta against USA for some of its covers.
The other articles simply show specific issues they noted: the second is about the effect of the trade war and how that will slow China but it'll be fine otherwise; the forth is repeating a concern of some authrorities, but it has no tone of "this will end China".
The third one is the closest, being about discrepanciea between the numbers reported by the top officials and the local governments. It mentions the possibility of being worse than it appears, but, at the end, it also posits whether it actually is given the lack of worry from party officials.
In all, doesn't seem that different from the average doomerism you see for other countries (including the US). They, to me, appear much more likely to be clickbaits than actual propaganda pieces.
Given the dates of these results, I suspect you specifically searched for the Economist saying anything negative about China's economy. If so, not exactly a good starting point for measuing bias. Now, to be fair, Google results can be different from user to user and you did at least post some actual the Economist links, in contrast to that bogus Reddit post you linked.
What's actually impressive is how you are baffled for doing the bare minimum. "That's common knowledge" is just a cheap excuse for ending discussions. But I'll elaborate on that on the other chain.
Now, for comparison, here are my 3 top results from searching "The Economist china" in Google:
1) https://www.economist.com/topics/china
2) https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...
3) https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/29/...
So far, it just looks like the usual news media shenanigans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they're exactly the same, except Manus more retarded than Nvidia and Supermicro. 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 dili…
The U.S. restrictions on Nvidia compute were clear and extremely widely reported on for years prior to Supermicro's sales. That's why Nvidia created special Chinese-market versions of their GPUs, e.g. the H800 and H20, which Supermicro was free to sell at the time (although eventually those were banned as well, which was similarly widely reported on and well known). The rest of your post is, similarly, basically nons…
Your grasp of subject matter and timeline is actually, complete nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "previously agreed between the sides", sure. But that is not the case, evident by the reply thread. If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading. Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I ca…
You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.
This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.
Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.
If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).
I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.
Manus is saved, 2 billion is such an undervaluation considering much worse companies like minimax is valued at 30 billion.
Manus is just a joke. MiniMax develops one of world's leading open source LLMs. You comparison is an insult to MiniMax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don’t agree with your tone, and I’m sure an unbiased reading of history also wouldn’t agree with your tone… Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia ?
Anyone of those would be better than the US