3 ms·

As a regular consumer I've pretty much decided I'll buy China's tech if they start competing in the western market. There's a lot of talk about China dumping i

As a regular consumer I've pretty much decided I'll buy China's tech if they start competing in the western market. There's a lot of talk about China dumping into western markets and warnings that we'll be left with nothing at some point, but I'm sitting here right now with... nothing. I'll buy RAM from the devil if it's the difference between running local AI vs becoming dependent on a cloud provider.

SXX 2mo ago
If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights. I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do inside their country, but China is net positive for the world. Refreshing considering how more and more of western countries are controlled by populists and / or delussional billionare overlords who reject global warming, vaccines, nuclear energy, etc.
- AuthAuth 2mo ago
  if not for China emissions wouldnt have gone past the point of no return.
  - orangeboats 2mo ago
    The majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.
    - AuthAuth 2mo ago
      So what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.
      - orangeboats 2mo ago
        I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China? Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
        China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
        orangeboats 2mo ago
        It is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Per captia data is not useful because they have so many people who live rural lives without tech. Their urban class was doing well and causing a ton of pollution just like the US does. They then scaled up even more in the least emission efficient ways complete disregard for the damage it would do.
  - Arnt 2mo ago
    Would not have done so yet you mean. The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.
    - AuthAuth 2mo ago
      You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.
      - Arnt 2mo ago
        Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration. It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before. Blaming China here is disingenious.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Give me the argument why China should be able to hockey stick their emissions graph after 2014 when the world had their climate accords. Now also apply that logic to india and africa.
        Arnt 2mo ago
        Sorry, no. What I'm saying is that we'd pass the point of no return independently of what China did, or India, or Africa. The countries that started emitting CO₂ earlier went on emitting, and that's enough for us to pass the point of no return. Everyone has to stop emitting CO₂. China's behaviour just changed the date a bit. Changed the date both directions, I'd say — China's building all those coal plants shifted the date in one direction, and China's building all those solar panels shifted the date in the other. The world's biggest change for good is IMHO the Chinese solar panels.
  - deadfoxygrandpa 2mo ago
    yeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor
    - AuthAuth 2mo ago
      At the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.
  - showmexyz 2mo ago
    Comulative CO2 emissions tell a different story. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions
    - AuthAuth 2mo ago
      emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.
      - digitalPhonix 2mo ago
        What does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"? The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions. If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
        digitalPhonix 2mo ago
        So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear? I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
hakfoo 2mo ago
Western manufacturers really shot themselves in the crotch with this one. Foot isn't strong enough here. Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. But now you have an audience that is desperate to the verge of soldering up banks of 74LS74 flip-flops to make their own RAM. It's not even like they're offering a reasonable "there's a domestic product but it's marginally more expensive" alternative. And it's all their fault. I sort of wonder if someone was actually saying "we'd better keep some supply around just to avoid burning our bridges with Dell/HP/Apple/etc." when the deals went down. The US might try to go protectionist/China-baiting to keep CXMT products off their market, but I expect they'll sell just fine everywhere else.
- donmcronald 2mo ago
  > Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. I agree with this. Off-brand NVMe and SSDs are really in your face right now and as people buy them out of desperation they’re learning they work just fine. Western manufacturers have done massive damage to their long term brands for some short term profits.

SXX 2mo ago

If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights. I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do inside their country, but China is net positive for the world. Refreshing considering how more and more of western countries are controlled by populists and / or delussional billionare overlords who reject global warming, vaccines, nuclear energy, etc.

AuthAuth 2mo ago
if not for China emissions wouldnt have gone past the point of no return.
- orangeboats 2mo ago
  The majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.
  - AuthAuth 2mo ago
    So what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.
    - orangeboats 2mo ago
      I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China? Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
      - AuthAuth 2mo ago
        China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
        orangeboats 2mo ago
        It is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Per captia data is not useful because they have so many people who live rural lives without tech. Their urban class was doing well and causing a ton of pollution just like the US does. They then scaled up even more in the least emission efficient ways complete disregard for the damage it would do.
- Arnt 2mo ago
  Would not have done so yet you mean. The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.
  - AuthAuth 2mo ago
    You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.
    - Arnt 2mo ago
      Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration. It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before. Blaming China here is disingenious.
      - AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Give me the argument why China should be able to hockey stick their emissions graph after 2014 when the world had their climate accords. Now also apply that logic to india and africa.
        Arnt 2mo ago
        Sorry, no. What I'm saying is that we'd pass the point of no return independently of what China did, or India, or Africa. The countries that started emitting CO₂ earlier went on emitting, and that's enough for us to pass the point of no return. Everyone has to stop emitting CO₂. China's behaviour just changed the date a bit. Changed the date both directions, I'd say — China's building all those coal plants shifted the date in one direction, and China's building all those solar panels shifted the date in the other. The world's biggest change for good is IMHO the Chinese solar panels.
- deadfoxygrandpa 2mo ago
  yeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor
  - AuthAuth 2mo ago
    At the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.
- showmexyz 2mo ago
  Comulative CO2 emissions tell a different story. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions
  - AuthAuth 2mo ago
    emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.
    - digitalPhonix 2mo ago
      What does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"? The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.
      - AuthAuth 2mo ago
        Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions. If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
        digitalPhonix 2mo ago
        So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear? I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
        AuthAuth 2mo ago

hakfoo 2mo ago

Western manufacturers really shot themselves in the crotch with this one. Foot isn't strong enough here. Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. But now you have an audience that is desperate to the verge of soldering up banks of 74LS74 flip-flops to make their own RAM. It's not even like they're offering a reasonable "there's a domestic product but it's marginally more expensive" alternative. And it's all their fault. I sort of wonder if someone was actually saying "we'd better keep some supply around just to avoid burning our bridges with Dell/HP/Apple/etc." when the deals went down. The US might try to go protectionist/China-baiting to keep CXMT products off their market, but I expect they'll sell just fine everywhere else.

donmcronald 2mo ago
> Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. I agree with this. Off-brand NVMe and SSDs are really in your face right now and as people buy them out of desperation they’re learning they work just fine. Western manufacturers have done massive damage to their long term brands for some short term profits.