100% tariff and political threats -- implying that they'd find a way to mark them as "unsafe", despite the fact that Canada and Europe tend to have higher safety standards than the US and already have BYD presence.
You can see the political groundwork being laid here.
If these concerns are so pressing, why do we allow any electronics at all from China?
It smells like air cover for a de-facto ban on BYD. To force US consumers to buy from politically blessed car makers instead of letting us choose the highest quality car available (at a given price point).
Some level of protectionism is in the best interest of national security. How is the local electronics industry that you referenced in the US doing? What is the ramification of eliminating the job market for engineers or discarding all of the US manufacturing know how? The CCP knows the answer to that question
The reason I called out Lada in my original comment is because it's a counterpoint to what you just said. The Lada was the result of too much protectionism. Produced from an empire that was too inward looking and feared interacting with the rest of the world on equal terms.
BYD keeps performing well in the rest of the world. If we hold US consumers hostage to prop up companies like Tesla, we risk allowing them to stagnate.
what has become of America where we are now scared shitless of China... oh well, i is what it is... America our ancestors built would have been like bring it on bitches and here we are "oh please, lets not let China in, our companies are subpar and we stand no chance against such a foe...
America was always like that. The posturing of "bring it on bitches" does not imply reality of it. Ameruca had that attitude when it was more developped then competition. Ot was protectionist when it was less developped.
And always used diplomacy and superpower status to push other countries into buying more american.
Perhaps but how did America get “more developed than competition”? Bangladesh cannot “use diplomacy and superpower status” to push other countries around…
Let me tell you a highly stylized version of the American story.
In the beginning, there was a startup called the United States, which we’ll refer to by its stock-ticker symbol, USA. It was young, scrappy, and hungry and needed to figure out how to deliver value to its citizens users.
So it did a bunch of things: It created a central bank. It expanded its territory. It established mass communications (the postal service) and roads and public education. Eventually, it took the painful step of expunging slavery.
This startup grew in size and productivity and market cap. Its user base became enormous. After about 160 years, USA became the biggest company on the planet, at which point it achieved a bunch of important network effects. Because USA benefited from free trade, it developed a military that could enforce a globalized system of free trade. Capital—both human and financial—flowed into USA. People—both users and clients4—loved USA. And for another 70 years it delivered good results for both. Its stock couldn’t have been higher.
But then USA went down the road toward enshittification...
Global automakers typically make small modifications to vehicles for different markets. Cars, like most engineered products, are built to a list of design criteria. BYD, like every large automaker that does this, has capable engineers that can target any regulatory specification you give them. They already do it for all of the other markets they sell in, just as every global automaker does.
Chinese cars don't exist in the US because of laws specifically designed to prevent their sale here. The tariff for Chinese EVs was increased to 100% a couple of years ago when it was rumored that BYD was going to move to the US market. And currently, there is a bill circulating to ban them entirely.
I cannot answer your question but I visited China last year and the amount of different EVs they had was staggering. And really nice vehicles, I was very impressed with that.
This shallow comparison could apply to any car. Are Toyota cars just Ford cars with a different logo?
Back when people used to buy Teslas, the company was notorious for how long it took to get repairs done. Even if BYD was exactly like Tesla theres many ways they could differentiate themselves if they were allowed in the US
You’ve just agreed with the vapid take, and added no new information of any value. All we know now is that YOU think all cars are basically the same, and that you think the people who disagree (the vast majority) are all idiots. But you’ve yet to make a case.
No, I said the Internet is trash for these sorts of discussions because it's dominated by people with an agenda who blow things out of proportion.
These products are intentionally designed to be neck and neck. They're different, don't get me wrong. But they're all very close. Like a kid guessing the right answer on a math test. Things aren't the same, but the dumb fanboys who think that every Camry goes 500k on oil changes, every Tesla gets stuck in the shop forever, every American car handles like poo, etc, etc. Those idiots are wronger. You'd never be able to tell how different the cars are on those sorts of axis without fairly rigerous methods. And those people dominate the discussion.
A BYD seal is between $35k and $50k USD in various non US, non China countries that I checked Mexico, Germany, australia, Thailand.
Competition is great but it doesn't mean that the cars in America are bad. The lada was a failure of a car compared to other similar cars available elsewhere. That is not the case here.
I have one of the first runs of model 3s. It still runs perfectly. Great battery life. I'm happy with it. Nevertheless, I find it frustrating that I can't even consider buying a BYD as my next electric daily driver. Because when Tesla and BYD enter markets together Tesla is often getting creamed. That makes me curious as to why. This de-facto ban of BYD in the USA does nothing but encourage stagnation.
The why part is easy - Tesla is about as outdated of a car as it gets, it is practically same car and there are only few options. I own 2014 Model S and my neighbour has 2025 Model S - it is the same car when you look at it. We also got Model 3 (from many years ago) which was then blown up a little into Model Y and we have X from a decade ago. These are ancient cars. The tech inside may have improved but the offering is basically for my grandparents now.
The modern discourse is quite rough -- people have been making these equivalencies for quite some time -- but as the US behavior becomes worse and worse, these equivalencies become more and more true. And as they become truer, the people who have always been pushing them only feel vindicated.
It's quite unfortunate, but I can't say I blame them. From their perspective the tiger is finally showing its stripes.
1. Protecting your interests by building a dynamic strategy. You protect your interests by enhancing your strengths and building on them.
2. Protecting your interests by playing “defense” against your decline.
We all know which country chose which path.
Chinese party leadership is stacked with literal engineers. They’ve prioritized development of industries crucial to their success. For example, they know they’re never going to be a big oil producer and that fighting wars over oil is expensive and futile, so they have developed their path to energy independence with their solar and wind industry along with electrified transit of all types.
Meanwhile, in America, our leadership is stacked with grifters who only have experience in shifting money around. We are all stuck with oil and car dependence that nobody’s willing to address with long-term infrastructure development reforms.
We are trapped fighting wars over oil because $6-7/gallon gasoline in middle America would trigger a major recession. Our government actively incentivizes wasting oil via automotive regulations written by industry lobbyists. That big F-150 parked at the Old Navy that doesn’t need to follow CAFE regulations is totally a “work truck.”
We don’t strive to build the most competitive industries, instead we use sanctions and tariffs to prevent foreign competition from reaching our shores.
And before you talk about China disallowing foreign competition, I’ll note that Chinese citizens can go to the mall in China and buy a Tesla, an iPhone, an Audi, Levi’s jeans, Coach bags, do a web search on Bing, deploy applications on AWS servers in Beijing, etc.
> 1. Protecting your interests by building a dynamic strategy.
"Dynamic" is doing a hell of a lot of work there. I guess what you mean is steal technology from the west, undercut pricing on foreign goods and dump products in their markets to destroy the competition, end up being the last one standing, because you freely violate trade agreements (as a member of the WTO) and other treaties.
> " so they have developed their path to energy independence with their solar and wind industry along with electrified transit of all type"
They have more coal power than the rest of the world combined, and are building more. Their "path to energy independence with their solar and wind" is purely propaganda.
>they know they’re never going to be a big oil producer
They're literally the sixth largest, just behind Iraq and ahead of Iran. I'm pretty sure people consider Iraq a "big oil producer", right? They also have the 13th most proven untapped oil reserves, and likely more than that since they're not in the business of oversharing.
Your first point is ironic considering Western tech companies are being taken to court for training AI off of pirated intellectual property. I’m not trying to be pro-China but I think this idea that “stealing” technology is exclusive to China is naive. There’s a whole classic Silicon Valley story about the development of the GUI at Apple and Microsoft on the subject. Steve Jobs was furious with Bill Gates when Windows debuted especially since Microsoft was a premier Macintosh developer.
It’s also a little bit ignorant of the existence of different cultural views of copying. Americans who love the second amendment wouldn’t want Europeans telling them to follow European gun laws, why should China follow Western IP laws?
The culture of copying and iterating in the Chinese hardware industry has proven to be incredibly good for innovation and healthy competition, just like open source has been incredibly good for the US software industry.
One example of Western IP ideology being stifling: 3D printing was artificially held back from consumers by patents on FDM printing. The moment those patents expired, prices dropped by two orders of magnitude. It’s easy to argue that Western IP laws result in oligopolies and monopolies forming as an inevitability.
Even if you don’t agree with that, the fact remains that many technology transfers to China are done willingly for payment (e.g., IBM PC division sold to Lenovo, Motorola Mobility sold to Lenovo, high speed rail technology was sold to China. Nobody twisted Volkswagen’s arm and demanded that they build factories in China and train local workforces on automotive production, that was done for the same profit-seeking reasons Toyota came to America and taught GM the Toyota Production System).
Leveraging their coal power for today and building wind/solar/battery for tomorrow is a smart strategy that pragmatically considers their current resource mix. Trump administration canceling already approved wind projects because he doesn’t like how his Scottish golf course has a view of them is not smart strategy.
China is not a big oil producer relative to their size and population. In that sense countries like the US, Canada, and Russia are far more energy secure.
> We are trapped fighting wars over oil because $6-7/gallon gasoline in middle America would trigger a major recession.
Our gasoline risks hitting $6-7/gallon because of a war we needlessly started to distract from our leader's seemingly rapidly progressing dementia, his approval numbers that are the lowest since I think LBJ, oh, and him being named repeatedly in the files of a notorious pedophile and child sex trafficker.
In the world of Chinese media I suppose? To me this all looks like the same hand-wringing angst we went through in the 1980’s with the industrialization of Japan bearing massive fruit.
I would certainly expect a country with 4x the population of the US, which is used as the center of global manufacturing, to need a lot of power.
I’m not sure that’s something that anyone should be concerned about from a geopolitical point of view. Likewise expecting Japan to have ever done the same is… silly.
Not in the same sense the US or Russia. The Sino-Vietnamese war was brief, about a month. Compare that to US or Russian wars. Now, Im not saying that China won't start wars since they've become a lot stronger. Just looking at it through a historic perspective.
I'm sure that the people of Tibet at the very least would feel strongly about the notion of a peaceful, non-expansionist China. You could ask the people of the Philippines as well, or for an admittedly more complicated answer the people of Japan and the RoK.
China is also happily supporting Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, which makes the "not waging war" distinction a bit academic.
I never said they were peaceful and non-expansionist, just that it's unlikely they'd turn to war for those gains.
They also have fought wars, and my wording was admittedly bad. They haven't fought a serious war in a long time, and their military activity in general has been limited to a few border standoffs which I certainly wouldn't take as an indication of its willingness to fight for something like expansion
I don't know what definition of AI you're using, but plenty of ML algorithms operate deterministically, let alone most other logic programmed into a computer. I don't see how your statement can be right given that these other software systems also operate in the real world.
It's funny how Paul is recommending people use PR firms, while in more recent videos michael seibel and others have strongly recommended against using them. It's interesting how things shift in ~20 years
There's been a lot of talk about "toxic masculinity" over the years but I've heard of and would worry about the female equivalent if I were considering a role in nursing as a man. Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances. Seems awful
> Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances.
In other words, men in nursing are treated to the same indignities that women experience in most jobs?
Or it might simply be that there is a lot of unreported or unacknowledged mistreatment of men. I recall reading a study about harassment in the restaurant industry. Both genders were harassed but harassment towards men was largely ignored in the analysis because it didn't fit the focus or narrative of the authors.
As a man who has worked in a predominantly female workplace, my experience has taught me that harassment is less about gender and more about power. Those in power will always feel entitled to behave poorly, regardless of gender.
Rather, I am pointing out that irony in the hope that men, dismayed by the treatment of men in certain professions, but find within themselves the empathy to appreciate what women go through and to adjust their behavior accordingly.
You seem to be assuming that the men who exhibit toxic behavior toward women are the same people as those who find such behavior appaling when it’s toward men. Do you have any evidence for that?
I feel that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said in an effort to fit your own agenda. I never said anyone should put up with toxic behavior. What I said is that men should stop being toxic. That's what "adjust their behavior" means.
To be fair your message sounded provocative and it came through as suggesting that to me too. But i guess this is the problem with text, not easy to deliver the tone
My agenda is against the obviously discriminatory stance that “men should stop being toxic”. It seems like a lot of people “deliberately” misinterpreted you, so maybe the problem is actually you.
Out of that list only sexual advances apply to men. So no its not the same. Having worked in mostly female workplace i can confirm the pissing matches there are on a whole new level.
What you're doing here is part of the problem. "Suck it up, buttercup!"
Many men would rather not work and deal with the financial and social consequences of that than deal with the toxicity both in the workplace and later on if they talk about it.
Yes, the main difference being we have no systems in place to deal with that for men. Or, the broader societal context: men have never had a progressive movement.
sarcasm? most of the people i hang with are nurses and instances of female bullying at the workplace is annoying at worst where their more sinister stories are about men stalking and making sexual advances. both male and female nurses telling me these stories at parties
I've been doing this with my kids, at least to some extent. It offers first rung on a ladder to understanding that complex things can be understood as cooperation among simpler parts. We'll see how it works out but so far it seems to be working.
It's actually great since a lot of older technology is cheap and still readily available. My little ones love listening to old records, control the playback speed and hear the music go up in pitch if the RPMs are set too high. We look at the tracks on the vinyl under a microscope at talk about how the music is written on it that way. VHS an audio cassettes offer their own talking points.
For computers, we don't literally use a Commodore 64 but we run simpler, old software on new hardware. Mostly because a lot of newer education software is somehow also funded by injecting ads into the games (awful). But there is also some good "modern" educations software worth checking out. I highly recommend gcompris.net.
That’s quite different, BlockChain was a buzzword label for existing tech. AGI is a label for something we famously haven’t achieved, and which would be revolutionary if we had.
This seems more like calling your spaceship company, I dunno, “Interplanetary Passengers” or something.
AGI is a buzzword too, it's just differently applied.
In this case it's a word that means the thing we're all developing towards apparently, but that no one actually knows how to get or even how to measure whether or not we've already gotten it , and no one really knows what will happen when it's achieeved, if it hasn't already been.
It's a bit like an even wackier more-corporate version of The Quest for the Holy Grail.
And the honest one true test for "is it a buzzword?" : Did a corporate group brand a flagship with it?
"RISC architecture is going to change everything!"
Run trading bot looking for news feeds with specific terms. Buy stocks based on this. Understand your fellow humans are lazy and stupid. If you can’t read past the first word of a news article maybe that person shouldn’t be allowed to trade stocks.
"Informally, from the point of view of algorithmic information theory, the information content of a string is equivalent to the length of the most-compressed possible self-contained representation of that string. A self-contained representation is essentially a program—in some fixed but otherwise irrelevant universal programming language—that, when run, outputs the original string."
Where it gets tricky is the "self-contained" bit. It's only true with the model weights as a code book, e.g. to allow the LLM to "know about" Slack.
"[T]here is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language."
"Specifying" is the load-bearing term there. They are describing what they want to some degree, how how specifically?
reply