6 ms·
> since it wasn’t made by God, we can definitely make it ourselves. This implies copying what someone else did. Rather than inventing something new. I know it'
by vasco 11mo ago
> since it wasn’t made by God, we can definitely make it ourselves.
This implies copying what someone else did. Rather than inventing something new. I know it's not what you meant but if it wasn't made by God it's because it's already made by someone else. The sentence says to me more about copying than some relentless pursuit. The people who invented the thing to copy, those were more relentless presumably.
And then again the Chinese invented plenty over the years. These generalizations are bit meh.
- yosefk 11mo agoThe Chinese are ahead at too many things at this point to think they're only good at copying
- Ekaros 11mo agoAnd it is not like making a copy for cheaper isn't something that requires skill and innovation. Or then iterate on that copy. Didn't Roomba just fail to these copies. If west was truly so much more innovative and better shouldn't they as company be infinitely ahead still?
- _heimdall 11mo agoThat depends heavily on where the cost saving came from. For a long time China made cheap copies with extremely cheap labor, though that may no longer be the case as it seems they're innovating on the manufacturing process these days.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- vasco 11mo agoI never said that, or that there's something wrong with copying. I just said the sentence implies copying. Which it does. And in fact this meme Chinese only copy is crap as I point out in my last paragraph. Over the centuries the Chinese were the first at quite a few things. But the sentence says what it says.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- dleeftink 11mo agoAll is copied in one way or another, progress in a vacuum is truly artificial and those who've been singularly credited for certain inventions likely have so because of the luck of the draw.
- yanhangyhy 11mo agoYou’re not wrong to think that way. But now there’s less and less left for China to “copy,” and it’s hard to argue that many things aren’t being invented by China itself. Perhaps the real question is this: why is it that places that used to be technologically advanced no longer produce new, original inventions? Is it fear of China copying them? Did the U.S. decide not to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet because it was afraid China would copy it? Did it stop working on battery technology because it feared China would copy that too?
- krona 11mo agoCan't wait to see the first Nobel prize in physics being awarded to a scientist who is actually a product of Chinese academy. Any moment now.
- jampekka 11mo agoNobel prizes in physics are awarded typically with lag of 20-30 years. In early 2000s China was still a relative backwater economically (and academically). In 2000 US R&D spending was over 8 times China's. Now China has likely surpassed USA. It surpassed EU already in about 2014. Working in academia, the rise of China academically is palpable. There's an avalance of Chinese research published, and a reasonable chunk of it very high quality, and getting better. https://www.statista.com/chart/20553/gross-domestic-expenditures-on-r-d/ https://www.statista.com/chart/20553/gross-domestic-expendit... https://itif.org/publications/2025/06/30/china-outpacing-us-rd-spending-new-report-urges-nsf-tip-funding/ https://itif.org/publications/2025/06/30/china-outpacing-us-...
- CuriouslyC 11mo agoNobel prizes are almost as sus as Oscars now. Corina Machado tells you all you need to know.
- jabl 11mo agoThe peace price is different, and it's been a bit of a hit and miss at least since Kissinger got it. And the economics prize, though it's not officially really a Nobel prize. But the core science prizes, AFAICT, are pretty spot on. Of course there are always many worthy contenders of a prize and one can quibble should this or that person really deserve to get it instead of another person, but I haven't heard of any outright frauds or some trivial advancement getting the prize.
- kavalg 11mo agoAnd that copying was largely enabled by our greedy western bean counters that outsourced so many things in the first place.
- nosianu 11mo agoWhich in turn was fueled by the consumers' desire for cheap stuff, and for their portfolios to earn them a lot of money to be able to retire early and live comfortably while letting a cheaper workforce far away do more and more of the dirty and dangerous jobs. The "bean counters" are under pressure just like everybody else. They didn't come up with their targets and incentives out of nowhere.
- kavalg 11mo agoThat's a fair point! I am myself wondering how much of this is policy and how much is the "natural way".
- heavyset_go 10mo agoThat's what happens when wages are relatively stagnant compared to increases in productivity.
- mensetmanusman 11mo agoTo be fair, they were uncoordinated actors in a prisoner’s dilemma competition. This was the role of government to manage but there weren’t enough non-lawyers at positions of power to understand fixes. Now with the massive fraud seen in local states, civilians will rightfully trust institutions less and the downward trend will continue.
- never_inline 11mo agoIf I was in china's position and so much is at stake, how can I go towards engineering all the tech from scratch when I can reverse engineer existing tech from west?
- vasco 11mo agoYou wouldn't and you shouldn't. You should copy. It's what I would've done also. It's just what it is.
- everfrustrated 11mo agoIt's also the foundation of the US economy. Look up the cotton gin patent some time. And the early days of Hollywood.
- mrguyorama 11mo agoAnd textile production and the industrialization of New England.
- kaycey2022 11mo agoI don't see why copying is unnatural or even bad. Maybe within a single economy or a group of economies which share a common understanding and laws, chosing to discourage copying to incentivise other citizen innovators makes sense. But in the global context, between adversarial nations, or even countries that don't see each other as equal, it is absolutely foolish not to copy. Since everything is framed in terms of game theories, what is even the benefit of not copying and being a "good boy" country? In fact in this situation a country's IP is almost its liability and not its asset. Because it should cost the holding country money and resources so their citizens' IP is protected. And these resources are better off preserved for more crucial knowledge. None of this even makes the copier's actions bad or immoral. They have a moral imperative to succeed.
- mensetmanusman 11mo agoSome copying creates a first mover disadvantage in game theory in regards to capital resource allocation. It requires second order thinking to understand, but it’s not super complicated.
- Urahandystar 11mo agoYes but thats not the copyers problem is it? Risk is inherent in all things the second order requires that you keep advancing by attracting resources.
- mensetmanusman 10mo agoIt depends on the sophistication of your analysis. What are possible problems you can imagine a copyer having?