10 ms·

I am really relaxed about the US primacy in tech. It has all the systemic advantages and no fluke discovery would change that. I am also quite relaxed about th

I am really relaxed about the US primacy in tech. It has all the systemic advantages and no fluke discovery would change that. I am also quite relaxed about this preprint. As far as I am concerned the issues pointed out in this post on an actual physics forums with regards to the famous LK-99 preprint still stand with regards to this new paper: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/room-temperature-superconductor-paper-published.1054360/#post-6917393 https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/room-temperature-super...

h0l0cube 3y ago
I wasn't talking specifically about this paper. If there's some merit to this line of inquiry, and it yields something revolutionary, I think the Chinese government would be foolish not to turn it into leverage. Especially given the recent adversarial climate in trade relations and access to advanced equipment
- admissionsguy 3y ago
  Any technology will have a very long way from the initial discovery to widespread application. A swarm of tinkering US startups will beat any Chinese megaproject. You propose that it is developed covertly to such an extend that it becomes a game changer that disrupts the current power balance before the US realises. I strongly disbelieve that such things can happen outside of fiction. For example, Manhattan project was known to the Soviets very early.
  - hobs 3y ago
    Startups dont do massive infrastructure investment. The Manhattan project was not a startup, but one of the most expensive things the US government ever did.
  - h0l0cube 3y ago
    You could be right, but it's hard to know how history would play out if a 'new cold war' with China started today, and with such a unique technological asymmetry (as room temperature superconductivity), and with a country that has a great deal more technical capability, self-sufficiency, and scruples than the former USSR.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      The thing that brings China all those boons is that they make and sell things to the rest of the world. Absent free trade, their advantages dwindle. So the current "just shy of declared adversarial relationships" is optimum for them. Pushed further, say by retaining exclusive access to a game changing technology, and they start losing trade relationships (arguably, already have as manufacturing reallocated to SE Asia).
      - h0l0cube 3y ago
        The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. The withholding of ASML lithography equipment is a case in point. That said, in spite of tarrifs from the west, China still has plenty of skin in the game, and the hypothetical suggests that trade would still be open enough for China to profit
        SkyMarshal 3y ago
        >The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. That's very arguable when it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. And what did the US get in return? Currency manipulation, large scale economic espionage and mercantilist behavior, protectionism of Chinese markets and industries, fentanyl, militarization of South China Sea and bullying the countries there, largest and fastest military buildup since 1930s Germany, supporting Russia vs Ukraine, threatening war over Taiwan, etc. "Unrestricted warfare". The US didn't cause China to do any of that, that was all the CCP's decision. Responses like economic derisking/decoupling (aka trade war) are completely legitimate and unsurprising.
        p_j_w 3y ago
        >it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. This is hilarious revisionism. We didn't do any of that out of generosity, we did it for profit. We saw a huge pool of cheap labor and decided we wanted to let our companies exploit that. We rubbed our hands together and grinned while selling them the proverbial rope.
  - robocat 3y ago
    > A swarm of tinkering US startups will beat any Chinese megaproject. I like your fervent almost religious belief in the US. Is it reality? What boundaries: software, environmental. Shenzhen felt like the most capitalist place I have ever been. It didn't seem to have big boy VC capital. However every single person seemed to be running a small capitalist business. Want to see a swarm of businesses? Let one small business in Shenzhen be seen to make a profit, and watch how many competitors and supply chain businesses pop up and how quickly. I don't know if it is a no/low beaurocracy zone but I am guessing they don't have to worry too much about IP roadblocks. I imagine the biggest problem is too much competition? I suspect young adults grok capitalism better there because as children they were embedded in the culture of endeavour, unlike westernized countries. I wasn't there for long enough, but would love to hear what others think of business startup in Shenzhen.
themerone 3y ago
China has one big advance over the US. A government willing to throw unlimited funds and specific science or engineering problems. To get that kind of commitment you the strong backing of senators from a dozen different states. It rarely happens in non military projects, and when it does it's a boondoggle. Look to the SLS project, $12 billion spent to recycle space shuttle engines from the 70s and 80s.
- azan_ 3y ago
  And do they actually solve more science or engineering problems than US?
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    Not yet but the US has a big head start. The gap is closing every day.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I'd argue it helps them more with engineering and manufacturing/building problems than science ones. The latter, under any government type, don't have a great track record of massive government investment accelerating progress. Proof of concept level grants, sure! But it doesn't seem to scale past that. IMHO, a free market is a better GTM-stage+ capital allocator.
    - btown 3y ago
      It's worth noting that, at least on the electronics manufacturing side (which is indeed what we're talking about here) the undeniable success story of TSMC was very much a government-led capital structure from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History Government can often be a failure-prone capital allocator, but it can also result in improved alignment when an entire industry with wide socioeconomic implications is about to be born.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
hn8305823 3y ago
> I am really relaxed about the US primacy in tech "Resting on your laurels" always ends badly. > It has all the systemic advantages Then let's take full advantage of them. We must remain extremely hungry for science/tech progress/breakthroughs or we will eventually get run over.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  > "Resting on your laurels" always ends badly. And history is littered with examples of technological disruption ending empires
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Name some examples.
    - 0xf00ff00f 3y ago
      Byzantine Empire? Lasted over a thousand years, fell to the Ottoman cannons.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        I agree with you - but there are counter examples. Germany made some amazing developments that were superior to allied tech, and they didn’t win.
        philwelch 3y ago
        This is almost entirely a myth. If you set aside all of the fantastical prototypes, there are a few plausible examples but none that are truly “amazing”. For example, Germany did develop some of the earliest jet engines, but then again, so did Britain. The Me 262 and Gloster Meteor were introduced within months of each other, and while the Messerschmidt had its advantages, it also required scarce materials and couldn’t be manufactured at scale. Manufacturing issues were also present with the later German tanks, which were also significantly less maintainable and less reliable than Allied tanks. One place where they were significantly ahead was in large scale rocketry. By the same token, they were significantly and consistently behind the United Kingdom and United States in cryptography, computing, radar, electronics, atomics, and manufacturing—all of which had much more significant strategic impacts.
whimsicalism 3y ago
The number one most systemic difference going forward is population. China already has hundreds of millions living the equivalent of a middle-class US lifestyle. That is a massive prosperous population to draw scientists, etc. from.

h0l0cube 3y ago

I wasn't talking specifically about this paper. If there's some merit to this line of inquiry, and it yields something revolutionary, I think the Chinese government would be foolish not to turn it into leverage. Especially given the recent adversarial climate in trade relations and access to advanced equipment

admissionsguy 3y ago
Any technology will have a very long way from the initial discovery to widespread application. A swarm of tinkering US startups will beat any Chinese megaproject. You propose that it is developed covertly to such an extend that it becomes a game changer that disrupts the current power balance before the US realises. I strongly disbelieve that such things can happen outside of fiction. For example, Manhattan project was known to the Soviets very early.
- hobs 3y ago
  Startups dont do massive infrastructure investment. The Manhattan project was not a startup, but one of the most expensive things the US government ever did.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  You could be right, but it's hard to know how history would play out if a 'new cold war' with China started today, and with such a unique technological asymmetry (as room temperature superconductivity), and with a country that has a great deal more technical capability, self-sufficiency, and scruples than the former USSR.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    The thing that brings China all those boons is that they make and sell things to the rest of the world. Absent free trade, their advantages dwindle. So the current "just shy of declared adversarial relationships" is optimum for them. Pushed further, say by retaining exclusive access to a game changing technology, and they start losing trade relationships (arguably, already have as manufacturing reallocated to SE Asia).
    - h0l0cube 3y ago
      The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. The withholding of ASML lithography equipment is a case in point. That said, in spite of tarrifs from the west, China still has plenty of skin in the game, and the hypothetical suggests that trade would still be open enough for China to profit
      - SkyMarshal 3y ago
        >The trade war between the US and China (and the precipitating outcones) were instigated by the US. That's very arguable when it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. And what did the US get in return? Currency manipulation, large scale economic espionage and mercantilist behavior, protectionism of Chinese markets and industries, fentanyl, militarization of South China Sea and bullying the countries there, largest and fastest military buildup since 1930s Germany, supporting Russia vs Ukraine, threatening war over Taiwan, etc. "Unrestricted warfare". The US didn't cause China to do any of that, that was all the CCP's decision. Responses like economic derisking/decoupling (aka trade war) are completely legitimate and unsurprising.
        p_j_w 3y ago
        >it was the US who led the world in opening up to China in the 90s/early 2000s, opening its markets to China, bringing China into the WTO, etc. (all at great cost to middle class Americans). China was an economic basket case and incapable of developing on its own. No country in history has been more generous to another. This is hilarious revisionism. We didn't do any of that out of generosity, we did it for profit. We saw a huge pool of cheap labor and decided we wanted to let our companies exploit that. We rubbed our hands together and grinned while selling them the proverbial rope.
- robocat 3y ago
  > A swarm of tinkering US startups will beat any Chinese megaproject. I like your fervent almost religious belief in the US. Is it reality? What boundaries: software, environmental. Shenzhen felt like the most capitalist place I have ever been. It didn't seem to have big boy VC capital. However every single person seemed to be running a small capitalist business. Want to see a swarm of businesses? Let one small business in Shenzhen be seen to make a profit, and watch how many competitors and supply chain businesses pop up and how quickly. I don't know if it is a no/low beaurocracy zone but I am guessing they don't have to worry too much about IP roadblocks. I imagine the biggest problem is too much competition? I suspect young adults grok capitalism better there because as children they were embedded in the culture of endeavour, unlike westernized countries. I wasn't there for long enough, but would love to hear what others think of business startup in Shenzhen.

themerone 3y ago

China has one big advance over the US. A government willing to throw unlimited funds and specific science or engineering problems. To get that kind of commitment you the strong backing of senators from a dozen different states. It rarely happens in non military projects, and when it does it's a boondoggle. Look to the SLS project, $12 billion spent to recycle space shuttle engines from the 70s and 80s.

azan_ 3y ago
And do they actually solve more science or engineering problems than US?
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  Not yet but the US has a big head start. The gap is closing every day.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I'd argue it helps them more with engineering and manufacturing/building problems than science ones. The latter, under any government type, don't have a great track record of massive government investment accelerating progress. Proof of concept level grants, sure! But it doesn't seem to scale past that. IMHO, a free market is a better GTM-stage+ capital allocator.
  - btown 3y ago
    It's worth noting that, at least on the electronics manufacturing side (which is indeed what we're talking about here) the undeniable success story of TSMC was very much a government-led capital structure from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History Government can often be a failure-prone capital allocator, but it can also result in improved alignment when an entire industry with wide socioeconomic implications is about to be born.
    - ethbr1 3y ago

hn8305823 3y ago

> I am really relaxed about the US primacy in tech "Resting on your laurels" always ends badly. > It has all the systemic advantages Then let's take full advantage of them. We must remain extremely hungry for science/tech progress/breakthroughs or we will eventually get run over.

h0l0cube 3y ago
> "Resting on your laurels" always ends badly. And history is littered with examples of technological disruption ending empires
- philwelch 3y ago
  Name some examples.
  - 0xf00ff00f 3y ago
    Byzantine Empire? Lasted over a thousand years, fell to the Ottoman cannons.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      I agree with you - but there are counter examples. Germany made some amazing developments that were superior to allied tech, and they didn’t win.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        This is almost entirely a myth. If you set aside all of the fantastical prototypes, there are a few plausible examples but none that are truly “amazing”. For example, Germany did develop some of the earliest jet engines, but then again, so did Britain. The Me 262 and Gloster Meteor were introduced within months of each other, and while the Messerschmidt had its advantages, it also required scarce materials and couldn’t be manufactured at scale. Manufacturing issues were also present with the later German tanks, which were also significantly less maintainable and less reliable than Allied tanks. One place where they were significantly ahead was in large scale rocketry. By the same token, they were significantly and consistently behind the United Kingdom and United States in cryptography, computing, radar, electronics, atomics, and manufacturing—all of which had much more significant strategic impacts.

whimsicalism 3y ago

The number one most systemic difference going forward is population. China already has hundreds of millions living the equivalent of a middle-class US lifestyle. That is a massive prosperous population to draw scientists, etc. from.