I agree with you that HN is often getting distracted by the endless cycle of "debate about nothing" in which people debate things in abstract terms pushing in a

I agree with you that HN is often getting distracted by the endless cycle of "debate about nothing" in which people debate things in abstract terms pushing in abstract directions. And I see now, that my post has generated more debate about nothing and very little usefull discussion. So to the point. I don't think that international credibility is a metric that means much to China. They have never sought it. They have had a quality problem for a very long time and done nothing to improve their image in manufacturing. However, all would agree that they have become a manufacturing powerhouse. This is because it matters more that they can deliver a good to the hands of consumers than what the consumers think of the manufacturer. If they invent a way to instantaneously communicate over long distances [1] or to make meta-materials with surprising properties [2] , they can exploit these results. Whether "the West" beleives those results or not is probably not of much interest to them. Indeed, it might be in China's interest that we don't beleive in Chinese science. Perhaps, China will become a magician to us, a box which produces goods which we do not understand. An alien civlization. Would that not be in their interest? They already do medical research which the west does not have the stomach to discuss. Genetic research on live subjects and fetuses. We don't even have a framework for replicating that research and medical students in "the West" do not learn from the results. But someday rich people will fly to China and beg for their magical cures. "Oh yes. Mr. Jobs, we have nanobots that can cure your cancer. Just give us a stake in Apple." And we won't even understand the medicine, we won't consider it to be real science. We'll call it "Eastern medicine". But it will work. And people will pay their life savings for it. I think that the NYT is writing to an audience what the audience wants to hear. Their headline is tabloidesque, which is odd for The Times which prides itself with measured professionality. And their reasons for publishing this article seem to have more to do with my overall claim than actual newsworthiness. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/teleportation-china-earth-orbit-quantum-internet-2017-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/teleportation-china-earth-orb... [2] https://phys.org/news/2009-10-chinese-scientists-metamaterial-black-hole.html https://phys.org/news/2009-10-chinese-scientists-metamateria...