←back to thread

521 points hd4 | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.462s | source | bottom
Show context
hunglee2 ◴[] No.45643396[source]
The US attempt to slow down China's technological development succeeds on the basis of preventing China from directly following the same path, but may backfire in the sense it forces innovation by China in a different direction. The overall outcome for us all may be increase efficiency as a result of this forced innovation, especially if Chinese companies continue to open source their advances, so we may in the end have reason to thank the US for their civilisational gate keeping
replies(17): >>45643584 #>>45643614 #>>45643618 #>>45643770 #>>45643876 #>>45644337 #>>45644641 #>>45644671 #>>45644907 #>>45645384 #>>45645721 #>>45646056 #>>45646138 #>>45648814 #>>45651479 #>>45651810 #>>45663019 #
dlisboa ◴[] No.45643770[source]
History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.

In many senses there's hubris in the western* view of China accomplishments: most of what western companies have created has had significant contribution by Chinese scientists or manufacturing, without which those companies would have nothing. If you look at the names of AI researchers there's a strong pattern even if some are currently plying their trade in the west.

---

* I hate the term "western" because some "westeners" use it to separated what they think are "civilized" from "uncivilized", hence for them LATAM is not "western" even though everything about LATAM countries is western.

replies(20): >>45643893 #>>45643978 #>>45644016 #>>45644041 #>>45644087 #>>45644258 #>>45644757 #>>45644769 #>>45644893 #>>45645743 #>>45645759 #>>45646420 #>>45646546 #>>45646864 #>>45647139 #>>45647493 #>>45647537 #>>45648987 #>>45649151 #>>45665056 #
1. zawaideh ◴[] No.45644016[source]
Re: Western. A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.
replies(3): >>45644828 #>>45644844 #>>45646085 #
2. newyankee ◴[] No.45644828[source]
Essentially countries that were developed prior to 1990 or so , although South Korea is a tricky case today going by this definition, as are Taiwan, Hongkong and Singapore
3. tsunamifury ◴[] No.45644844[source]
Yes community refers to whose who participate in community.

How is this hard to understand?

Broadly speaking coast de ivory and the like is not a participant in the international community.

replies(1): >>45648198 #
4. nicoburns ◴[] No.45646085[source]
> A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.

Wait, really? I thought "international community" meant all countries.

replies(2): >>45646740 #>>45648168 #
5. acaloiar ◴[] No.45646740[source]
That's because you're reasonable.

Sometimes it's used in the expected way, but (more?) often, "international community" euphemistically refers to whomever is currently one of, or an ally of the above mentioned countries.

6. tsimionescu ◴[] No.45648168[source]
There was a particularly memorable use of this sense some time ago, when the UK representative to the UN explained that they abstained from a vote in the General Council that passed with something like 200+ members voting for it because "the international community is still divided on the topic".
7. tsimionescu ◴[] No.45648198[source]
China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many many other countries that are very active members of the international community are not counted among members of THE "international community". Hell, much of Europe isn't either, including some of the former colonial empires, on some topics.
replies(1): >>45649079 #
8. tsunamifury ◴[] No.45649079{3}[source]
China, Russia, India are certainly referred to when using this term. Iran and Saudi Arbia may or may not be. Usually not Pakistan, so I really dont know what in the hell you are saying.