16 ms·
The New U.S.-China Rivalry: A Technology Race
- mtgx 9y agoThe US used to call out China over its human rights abuses. That seems to have stopped around the start of Obama's second term. Now the US has gotten to the point where its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that. My hope is the US' next president will be one that cares deeply about civil rights and will start calling China out in the future, as its human rights abuses inevitably increase under a dictator with all-seeing surveillance eyes.
- tabeth 9y agoWhat are some of these violations in your view that China should be called out on? EDIT: Removal of previous question since posters have interpreted it as trolling (though I assure you, it was not).
- Slansitartop 9y ago> Does the US really have any right to be calling out any country for human right violations? Yes, yes it does. You don't have to be a saint to point out bad behavior.
- tabeth 9y ago> Yes, yes it does. You don't have to be a saint to point out bad behavior. Sure, but no one is making that claim.
- jacobush 9y agoThen I wonder, what is your claim?
- tabeth 9y agoI am not making any claim. I just asked a question. Not everything is a debate, you know.
- s4vi0r 9y agoIts because your post reads like standard whataboutism Russian and Chinese online paid trolls/propagandists spout.
- dang 9y agoPlease keep that common insinuation off HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16532039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16532039
- wgj 9y agoYour first question does take a rhetorical position. It effectively makes a claim, by the wording of the question. Your second question suggests that one should recap decades of human rights abuses. Finally, by stating "Not everything is a battle, you know", you seek to make it a battle when no one else is. This is all classic troll behavior.
- lotsofpulp 9y agoIt could be due to a shift in power. The US isn't the only game in town now.
- GijsjanB 9y agoThe pot calling the kettle black? Aside from that, we share the hope for a US president who cares deeply about human rights!
- marnett 9y agoInterestingly enough, China answered by publishing a list of human rights violations committed by the U.S. [1] (I could not find the original transcript). [1] http://english.gov.cn/archive/publications/2017/03/09/content_281475589785800.htm http://english.gov.cn/archive/publications/2017/03/09/conten...
- factsaresacred 9y ago> its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that. I believe that was said in jest during a speech at a charity dinner.
- vatueil 9y agoThe event was described as a political fundraiser for Republican donors in all the reports I've seen, not a charity event.[NR, CNN] The part about having a President for Life in the US was definitely presented as a joke, though Trump's admiration of "strong" leaders has been a recurring sentiment.[The Atlantic] [NR]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/donald-trump-xi-jinping-joke-not-funny/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/donald-trump-xi-jinpi... [CNN]: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remarks/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remar... [The Atlantic]: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554810/ https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554810/
- dang 9y agoLet's not have yet another generic political/national argument. They're all repeats of the same few basic patterns. That makes them predictable and therefore uninteresting in HN's sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Plus they almost all turn into flamewars. Good HN discussions on large, divisive topics are not generic but specific, and engage with the actual content of an article. More on this if anyone wants it: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20generic%20specific https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- maxxxxx 9y ago"Now the US has gotten to the point where its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that." Trump really seems to have a hard on for wannabe dictators like Erdogan, Putin and now the Chinese guy. Hard to understand.
- costcopizza 9y agoI just realized this the other day. You'll hear qualms about trade unfairness and the occasional blatant copyright/knockoff culture, but hardly ever any mention of human rights.
- neonate 9y agohttps://outline.com/bq5Bd7 https://outline.com/bq5Bd7
- tabeth 9y agoPolitical tangents aside, it will be interesting to see how this race unfolds as the next recession winds up (which is inevitable, really). The seemingly limitless amount of capital, technological, human and otherwise has led to this arms race of sort, but will both countries be able to focus on this if there's a significant crisis? How much of this stuff is just a bubble?
- arcanus 9y agoA good point. Conversely, central banks and governments fight recessions with expansionary monetary policy. Thus, as a recession hits government may reduce the cost of capital to VCs, and improve R+D (at least in defense spending and government research).
- aaavl2821 9y agoThat could happen, but it is likely there will be a significant contraction in VC funding at least initially in the event of a recession. Firstly, the very low interests rates in the US and worldwide the last decade provide very limited room for governments to reduce cost of capital. Current fed funds rate is 1.42% after being essentially 0% since 2009. In 2007, the rate was 5.25%. In 2000 before the dot com crash, fed funds rate was 6.51% (dropped to nadir of 1% by 2004). [1] Unless interest rates rise dramatically before the next recession, the US govt will have the least monetary policy ammunition ever to respond to a recession. So there may not be that much reduction in cost of capital. Perhaps more importantly, any further fiscal tightening in advance of a recession could be very destructive to venture capital. One of the reasons VCs have so much cash now is that investors are chasing yield -- with govt debt at all time low rates (meaning high prices), and negative interest rates for some major governments, and with the stock market in one of its largest bull markets ever, investors have been investing into ever riskier asset classes. the laws of finance state than when interest rates go up, bond prices fall, and stock prices fall as well [2, 3]. yield will become cheaper (ie you can get higher return for lower risk: imagine getting 5% from a government bond today, and an expected return of 8-10% for large cap stocks: no one would invest in super risky VC in hopes of maybe 12-15% returns). with attractive returns available for lower risk, investors will cycle away from investments like VC and towards large cap stocks and bonds that's the theory, and in reality you observe a contraction in VC after recessions (post 2000s, post financial crisis). then capital leaves the VC space, so deals are less competitive and prices are lower, and the VCs that stick around make lots of money, then other people try to get in on the VC returns, prices go up again, returns go down, and the cycle goes on [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS [2] https://www.investopedia.com/investing/how-interest-rates-affect-stock-market/ https://www.investopedia.com/investing/how-interest-rates-af... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp
- chapill 9y agoIf the US blocks a Broadcom/Qualcomm merger, what's to stop ${US_Corp} making a hostile takeover of Qualcomm instead? Clearly the two giant governments are battling over control of the closed source baseband backdoors in all mobile devices.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoWhile China has real innovators, particularly in manufacturing and AI tech, if China continues on its path toward total surveillance of its people, I cannot see China continue to innovate over the long term. Innovation often entails replacing the old with new interests and stakeholders. In a total surveillance state, stakeholders would have motivation and the means to squash innovative change. So I see the future of homegrown technical innovation in China as questionable, and bear. China's history of innovation over the also decades is also a story of supplementation by pervasive, state-sanctioned corporate espionage and theft of intellectual property from the rest of the world. If China continues on its current path, I can see actions by nation-states to boost their defenses against espionage and IP theft by China.
- wpasc 9y agoAgreed with this tenfold. Innovation often implies disrupting the status quo; China in many ways is entrenching the status quo in every single way possible.
- dnomad 9y agoThis is ]conjecture. In reality the CPC are technocrats in every sense of the word. Many of them are engineers and they possess an engineer's faith in innovation. The idea of them squashing innovation is silly. Look at the enormous investments in electric cars, AI, mobile computing and genetic engineering. Westerners will deny it until it's way too late but the amount of innovation going on in China right now is mind blowing. Which is the point -- the Chinese will more than likely win this technology "race." Because the West isn't really competing. The days of Western governments pouring real wealth into research and development is over. What you have is very few highly innovative firms and a few military contractors competing against the highly coordinated political-economic-military complex of China. The outlook does not look good. I suspect this is why ultimately companies like Apple and Microsoft and even Tesla are so focused on getting a foothold into China. These guys know where the future is and they want to be at the table when it happens.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoIt is hardly baseless. If the CPC has done well to allow innovation, it is likely because 1)China is enjoying the easy growth of an emerging economy where outside wealth is willing to pay you to pollute your lands for trinket manufacturing. 2) The party ALLOWED free thinking at Universities, and 3) the party acted under rules of meritocracy. Under the tightening grip of surveillance in China today, and the centralization of power by the president and his "anti-corruption" campaign against the party and businessman, I don't see how innovation will persist. If the president and his party allies get entrenched, then I do not see how the party can stay a meritocracy, and without that meritocracy, I don't see how innovation won't get squashed. Edit: thank you for removing the word baseless.
- jbob2000 9y agoChina has been losing technical talent left right and center. If they want to compete, they need to be able to attract top talent to their country. There's a reason why their military and space hardware is Russian or Russian-derived. There is just no way someone is going to move from LA or New York to Beijing. Maybe Hong Kong. The differences in living standards is huge, I don't think you could pay people enough to get them to move.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoHK is not a tech startup place, programmers outside of banking and finance get paid very poorly compared to Shenzhen. I lived in Beijing for 9 years and found that, besides the air pollution, everything was definitely workable. I only left because when my wife and I were expecting a baby. Beijing has gotten better recently, though still too bad for the baby, while Shenzhen has always been better and comparable to Shenzhen. China has plenty of its own talent and has been attracting back those who went overseas. While I agree that they will need to attract worldwide talent in the long run to fully compete with the USA, they are not in a bad place ATM.
- Gustomaximus 9y agoThis is changing. China are actively pursuing top scientists that have left the country and giving them large budgets on return with more freedom to spend as they see fit. Many people interesting in the science and opportunity to create will lap this up. And not sure if you have been to China but outside pollution, they have very good living standards of you have the income, though obviously this is subjective to what is important to you. But say for example, go stand on the Bund in Shanghai. It feels like London meets NY in China.
- coldtea 9y ago>China has been losing technical talent left right and center. If they want to compete, they need to be able to attract top talent to their country Well, they have a 1.4 billion pool to draw from, from themselves alone. >There's a reason why their military and space hardware is Russian or Russian-derived. Because they're starting out on those things. But their stuff at least works -- analogous us endeavors of late have been failing after spending tons of money (F35 for one).
- qiqing 9y agoThere is something rather disingenuous about the way the article is written: it takes advantage of an inattentive reader who only reads the title and not the actual article text. Most readers will probably miss some things. * Broadcom is a Singaporean company, not Chinese. * The article asserts that Huawei and other Chinese chip manufacturers will indirectly benefit from the proposed merger. * Cfius, who is looking closely at the Broadcom-Qualcomm proposed deal, looks closely at other investment / merger deals from China for national security reasons. .... and most readers will at this point incorrectly assume that Broadcom is a Chinese company, having forgotten what was read in the first 3 paragraphs.
- mlb_hn 9y agoI see that as well. There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China (No judgment as to the veracity of those fears). Definitely something to keep in mind when reading pieces like this.
- qiqing 9y agoI've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against. I worry when the FBI Director claims all Chinese student organizations are under suspicion because they have evidence that one university student club accepted donations from an embassy in order to fund a Chinese New Year party. Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
- trhway 9y ago>Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving? no imagination needed. In Russia the organizations accepting foreign resources (private or public doesn't matter) must register as "foreign agents".
- douglaswlance 9y agoCould a technological race between warring tribes of primitive homo sapiens be responsible for the human intelligence explosion?
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoNo, it was more likely the diffusion of technology (agriculture, writing, the wheel, and so on), not the competition between civilization, that led to humanity’s intelligence explosion.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoDo you have evidence for this claim?
- analogic 9y agoWell first one got idea to use bone to bash heads from mysterious black box, the rest, as they say, is history.
- atmanthedog 9y agoIt seems much more likely to just be invention of fire and control of fire. Turning cellulose into energy that promotes some sort of evolutionary advantage is pretty limited in the macroscopic biological world. Sure, cows and the like do it, but only by enlisting the aid of bacteria and having four stomachs, etc. This excess energy and exclusive ecological niche then allow for more complex social systems, feeding into some sort of positive loop selecting for intelligence. That's all conjecture from me, but it seems to make sense from basic principles.
- Sephr 9y agoNYT is portraying this issue as a technology race when it's really just a surveillance infrastructure conflict of interest. Qualcomm and Broadcom make closed source basebands, which are used (backdoors) and abused (zero-day exploitation) for spying via wireless ISPs on behalf of their respective parent governments. If Broadcom acquires Qualcomm, it may become easier for some governments to locate firmware vulnerabilities which can either be fixed to prevent U.S. surveillance or exploited to expand local surveillance powers.
- chapill 9y agoI found this pcmag link more enlightening than the NYT article. https://www.pcmag.com/news/359702/us-broadcom-qualcomm-merger-may-pose-national-security-risk https://www.pcmag.com/news/359702/us-broadcom-qualcomm-merge... Specifically, the last paragraph, "Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US." It seems CFIUS wants solid assurance that this happens so the US can continue scooping up all the communications of everyone world wide. The US government didn't appoint Qualcomm winner of the LTE market with IP protections just to let them sell it off to a company outside US control.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoWho will be most technologically valuable to humanity?
- JudasGoat 9y agoThere is a technology race we have lost due to Chinese government investment. 2018 will be the year China passes the US in 300mm wafer production. https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6608-could-china-take-lead-installed-300mm-capacity-q.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6608-could-china-take...