←back to thread

521 points hd4 | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.761s | source | bottom
Show context
muddi900[dead post] ◴[] No.45644484[source]
[flagged]
1. dotnet00 ◴[] No.45644917[source]
This is such a popular coping tactic from Americans when it comes to facing actual competition, especially from China. Everything they do must either be a lie or just stolen American technology, as if there's something inherently special about Americans that no one else has.
replies(4): >>45645295 #>>45645502 #>>45645534 #>>45646323 #
2. lossolo ◴[] No.45645295[source]
It comes from what people are taught in schools and from their own self perception. When those beliefs about American exceptionalism are challenged, cognitive dissonance kicks in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

replies(1): >>45645541 #
3. muddi900 ◴[] No.45645502[source]
That is a great respomse to something I did not say.
replies(1): >>45647206 #
4. throwacct ◴[] No.45645534[source]
Interesting. So, we're going to deny that most of the IP theft from China up to this moment? Do you even think China is this advanced just because of chinese innovation? C'mon man.
replies(1): >>45650911 #
5. muddi900 ◴[] No.45645541[source]
Did y'all not read the last sentence?
6. serf ◴[] No.45646323[source]
It's easy to guess that an opponent that is focusing on information control and theatre above all else is doing so for reasons.

> Everything they do must either be a lie or just stolen American technology

as an aviation enthusiast for 30+ years this claim , while deliberately blunt, is not far from the truth -- the truth being that half of their hardware was stolen Russian design, too.

Let's consider : The KJ-600, the J-31, J-10, H-6, Z-20, J-7, J-15, J-11.

If it isn't a direct shape-to-shape knockoff like the J-31 it's either a licensed reproduction from Russia or something derived from a reverse engineering effort like the Su-33 prototype they got from Ukraine. Similar story with their Ghost Bat knockoffs.

There are very few novel designs. I'm not faulting the methodology -- the shape of the thing w.r.t. aircraft is half (if not more) of the struggle.

It's a tremendous advantage to start from a known good shape and go from there. If I were the boss I would do exactly the same thing when trying to bootstrap an aerospace industry.

>as if there's something inherently special about Americans that no one else has.

the US has proven numerous times that this is exactly the case.

7. zahlman ◴[] No.45647206[source]
It's a response to the most obvious motive for you saying it. Why are you bringing up the possibility, in such an inflammatory manner (in particular, making reference to "state media"), otherwise?
replies(1): >>45657994 #
8. dotnet00 ◴[] No.45650911[source]
The comment I replied to was dismissing a research paper describing innovation from a chinese company wrt more effective use of their hardware, by insinuating that it must be propaganda with no supporting reasoning.

Of course China has copied foreign technologies, I didn't say they haven't. My point is that you guys love to hang on to that as an excuse to dismiss everything from China even when they're obviously plenty capable of doing R&D in many fields, even with it having gotten its start off "stolen" IP.

America "stole" plenty of rocket technology from Germany, yet it's well understood that they eventually innovated on it and made it their own. But somehow whenever China's involved, you guys come out with your unsubtle bigotry.

replies(1): >>45650934 #
9. muddi900 ◴[] No.45657994{3}[source]
Your presumptions are not always obvious to the rest of the world.