4 ms·

To steelman some of the points youve posted >You don't need a crazy fast connection for most of this automation stuff, because it has to be able to operate off

by rzerowan 11mo ago

To steelman some of the points youve posted >You don't need a crazy fast connection for most of this automation stuff, because it has to be able to operate offline successfully to start with As i mentioned youre looking at it as a consumer, this is industrial systems.Its not about speed primarily but latency - costs of deployment and maintainance.Your COTS router is not being installed wher million dollar assembly lines are operating, and for any serious business concern low opex/capex are first and foremost as well as reproducibility for expansion. KUKA robot arms are not being connected to TPlink routers.Together with the nature of Just-In-Time manufacturing , instant data for maintainance and logistics is crucial. Ditto for the automated ports [1] >There is nothing 5G or 6G provides that is worth letting the CCP control your networks. Aside from just spying or hacking The two standards are currently accelerating both consumer and industrial changes worldwide.There are some networks in GlobalSouth countries whose speed/latencies will rival even those deployed in major US cities. Its a question of leveraging future infrstructure for productivity and improving living standards. As for espionage and hacking that was stillthere even with dialup modems and fax machines. Regarding countries using their leverage via multicorps abroad , you really should read up on the US CLOUD act, patriot act etc and cast a cursory glance at entities as benign sounding as Nestle(child slaves in W.Africa) Chiquita(Death Squads in S.America) PullMan Cigarettes (suing to block ati cigaratte ads in SE.Asia) ,not adding historical ones like Swiss CryptoAG. In short multicorps are immoral profit extracting entities and on the global stage they act sometimes directly with their parent county to further whatever agandas they have. Thus far no Chinese companies have been implicated in any such shenanigans - as im pretty sure if it had happened it would be published about in banner headlines 24/7/365. As it stands all the accusations are simply alllegations of a future scenario , which most people specify any sensible person should be able to mitigate with good security architecture and practices. [1]https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-huaweis-5g-solutions-have-made-operations-in-tianjin-port-smoother-and-more-efficient https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-huaweis-5g-solut...

Retric 11mo ago
If you want to steel man the argument it’s worth acknowledging that China is also concerned with backdoors in what they import. > allegations of a future scenario There’s been plenty of CCP aligned hacking, backdoors, and industrial espionage people can point to. Expecting a bad actor to continue there behavior is a little more than allegations of a future scenario.
CMay 11mo ago
The dollar value of the assembly lines isn't as important as the scale and architecture of the information that has to move. I could see scenarios where there is a high level of variability on the line and it requires a very large machine learning model to process the many possible variations, so maybe you send a realtime video feed or still images to a server and try to optimize for the fastest response time rather than paying to run all that compute at each station. Maybe you're doing this for 5000 stations. You can also imagine small instructions needing to arrive with very low latency where bandwidth isn't the issue really and straight line of sight wireless should presumably be the lowest latency. Neither of those problems require or justify Huawei anything and those are not likely to be most factories. > Its a question of leveraging future infrstructure for productivity and improving living standards. As for espionage and hacking that was stillthere even with dialup modems and fax machines. You don't improve the lives of future generations in your country by letting an adversary control your infrastructure. That is easy. Why would you even consider that? There's a list of priorities. You aren't starting at the top. > Regarding countries using their leverage via multicorps abroad No doubt, people should always push back against any companies proven to be doing things that are problematic. It doesn't only apply to countries. Still, I restate my point about trust. A lot of these companies (and countries) legitimately care about their reputations, not only because a destroyed reputation can hurt their profits (if you believe that's all they care about, which is very cynical), but because many people would rather do the right thing than the wrong thing if given the choice. Sometimes these organizations are so big, they don't even know all the details about what's happening at the ground level until it gets reported on by 3rd parties. In terms of US government influence over networks, the US government is structured very differently. In the US, it's a national tradition to not excessively trust the government, because the history of the world says that's a bad idea. If the US abuses its trust to a critical degree, it can face pushback in a real way that isn't even allowed in China. I believe in the feedback mechanism loop within the US more than what China has, by far. Your argument comes across very empty to me in this regard.
corimaith 11mo ago
Why don't you steelman your own intial argument?

Retric 11mo ago

If you want to steel man the argument it’s worth acknowledging that China is also concerned with backdoors in what they import. > allegations of a future scenario There’s been plenty of CCP aligned hacking, backdoors, and industrial espionage people can point to. Expecting a bad actor to continue there behavior is a little more than allegations of a future scenario.

CMay 11mo ago

The dollar value of the assembly lines isn't as important as the scale and architecture of the information that has to move. I could see scenarios where there is a high level of variability on the line and it requires a very large machine learning model to process the many possible variations, so maybe you send a realtime video feed or still images to a server and try to optimize for the fastest response time rather than paying to run all that compute at each station. Maybe you're doing this for 5000 stations. You can also imagine small instructions needing to arrive with very low latency where bandwidth isn't the issue really and straight line of sight wireless should presumably be the lowest latency. Neither of those problems require or justify Huawei anything and those are not likely to be most factories. > Its a question of leveraging future infrstructure for productivity and improving living standards. As for espionage and hacking that was stillthere even with dialup modems and fax machines. You don't improve the lives of future generations in your country by letting an adversary control your infrastructure. That is easy. Why would you even consider that? There's a list of priorities. You aren't starting at the top. > Regarding countries using their leverage via multicorps abroad No doubt, people should always push back against any companies proven to be doing things that are problematic. It doesn't only apply to countries. Still, I restate my point about trust. A lot of these companies (and countries) legitimately care about their reputations, not only because a destroyed reputation can hurt their profits (if you believe that's all they care about, which is very cynical), but because many people would rather do the right thing than the wrong thing if given the choice. Sometimes these organizations are so big, they don't even know all the details about what's happening at the ground level until it gets reported on by 3rd parties. In terms of US government influence over networks, the US government is structured very differently. In the US, it's a national tradition to not excessively trust the government, because the history of the world says that's a bad idea. If the US abuses its trust to a critical degree, it can face pushback in a real way that isn't even allowed in China. I believe in the feedback mechanism loop within the US more than what China has, by far. Your argument comes across very empty to me in this regard.

corimaith 11mo ago

Why don't you steelman your own intial argument?