I went to the dollar store and stocked up on some cheap shampoos and things I like to use.
I'm loaded up on TVs monitors and other stuff already.
We need to do something to shake up global supply chain, we will see what happens because the global system that the US and allies put in is going down the drain unless if we do something.
China being an authoritarian country becoming the center of everything probably won't be good for us.
Easier for us to hurt ourselves now than the Chinese to hurt us more later. We can choose where to stab ourselves instead of someone else stabbing us later on.
We did have sensible measured policy to incentivize high value manufacturing in the US: the CHIPS act and the IRA. They were working, and cost peanuts relative to the damage to the economy this administration's policy has already done.
>Easier for us to hurt ourselves now than the Chinese to hurt us more later. We can choose where to stab ourselves instead of someone else stabbing us later on.
I think most people go their whole lives without ever having to stab themselves or be stabbed. Stabbing yourself, as a human or metaphorically as country, seems like a pretty bad idea, even when you might suspect that someone (or another country) might maybe do it in the future.
People do this exact thing all the time. Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram whenever Facebook's cash and marketable securities was only $9-10 billion, even though Facebook already had a mobile social media app.
I couldn't remember, thanks for raising that point. So, I searched and found this CNET article[0] which states Facebook ended up only paying $715 million: "Although Instagram's original price tag was $1 billion, Facebook ends up paying $521 million in cash and $194 million in stock for the popular photo-sharing network."
I guess not mostly stock, but still half a billion cash, although not $1 billion. I guess my original point still stands, though it isn't quite as impactful an example. :)
WhatsApp is not profitable yet. At least not as October 2024.
YouTube had the advantage of being able to post pirated videos something that I'm not sure Google would have been able to do. YouTube gained traction in ways Google couldn't duplicate.
Sites like Amazon and probably aliexpress/temu require a documented shipment before you can write a review. Shippers sometimes send extremely inexpensive stuff like seeds to random US/overseas addresses and launder the shipping receipt into a fake review for something more expensive.
This sounds fake. Why send seeds, of all things? Why not some equally cheap item like electrical wire insulation off-cuts, a piece of scrap bubble wrap or just a note (or just nothing)? Seeds are likely to set off alarm bells for biosecurity at many borders for no benefit.
I hear this a lot, but in my experience this isn't true at all.
A Versal AI Edge FPGA has a theoretical performance of 0.7TFLOPs just from the DSPs alone, while consuming less power than a Raspberry Pi 5 and this is ignoring the AI Engines, which are exactly the ASICs that you are talking about. They are more power efficient than GPUs, because they don't need to pretend to run multiple threads each with their own register files or hide memory latency by swapping warps. Their 2D NOC plus cascaded connections allow them to have a really high internal memory bandwidth in-between the tiles at low power.
What they are missing is processing in memory, specifically LPDDR-PIM for GEMV acceleration. The memory controllers simply can't deliver a memory bandwidth that is competitive with what Nvidia has and I'm talking about boards like Jetson Orin here.
FPGAs are neither here nor there and will always be niche. If you need the same thing many times you make dedicated silicon. If you need many different things available all at once you use a normal CPU. Only if ASICs are too expensive and CPUs are too slow the FPGA can shine.
They're competitive on perf/watt because they're designed to do one thing. But they're much more expensive than an ASIC, which, if also designed to do one thing would be better than the FPGA.
The rich have always blamed others for the growing wealth gap.
Americans often point to outside forces instead of holding the government accountable.
Years of messaging have trained people to support tariffs, spending cuts, and even anti-immigrant policies—despite the need for labor.
The real issue isn't spending, it's taxation. And we've let China ignore WTO rules for too long. Trump should've targeted tariffs at China alone—but he is the president, not me.
China's WTO compliance record is often criticized for several reasons, including violations of market orientation principles, state-led industrial planning, excessive subsidies, and non-transparency regarding subsidies. Furthermore, China's policies on forced technology transfers, intellectual property protection, and governmental procurement have also faced scrutiny.
Here's a more detailed look at the specific WTO rules China has been criticized for ignoring:
Market Orientation and State-Led Industrial Policies:
China's approach to economic development, characterized by state-led industrial planning, is seen as inconsistent with the WTO's principles of market orientation and non-discrimination.
Subsidies and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs):
China's extensive use of subsidies for domestic industries, including SOEs, and its failure to make timely and transparent notifications of these subsidies, are major points of contention.
Forced Technology Transfers and Joint Venture Requirements:
China has been criticized for requiring foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese firms as a condition for market access, which violates WTO principles of fair trade and market competition.
Intellectual Property Protection:
China's record on protecting foreign intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, has been a long-standing issue, with concerns about theft and lack of enforcement.
Discriminatory Trade Practices:
China's policies on governmental procurement, discriminatory standards for technology, and restrictions on market access in services sectors have been criticized for hindering fair competition and market access for foreign companies.
Failure to Reciprocally Open Government Procurement:
China has been criticized for not fully reciprocating the government procurement concessions it pledged as part of its WTO accession agreement.
Retaliatory Use of Trade Remedies:
China's use of trade remedies, such as anti-dumping and safeguard measures, has sometimes been seen as retaliatory and inconsistent with WTO princip
(They were also supposed to let Visa and Mastercard in)
Also Capital Controls are a big one. You can't get your money out and I have read several times people are forced to spend more money in China to get part of their money out.
More Google AI
China maintains strict capital controls, limiting the flow of money in and out of the country. These controls affect both individuals and companies, with restrictions on repatriating profits and capital. While there are annual limits for individuals, businesses also face specific procedures and conditions before they can repatriate profits, according to INS Global Consulting.
Elaboration:
For Individuals:
Annual Limits:
Chinese residents have an annual limit of $50,000 USD equivalent for transferring money out of the country, says Wise.
Currency Exchange:
RMB cannot be transferred directly; it must be converted to foreign currency, notes INS Global Consulting.
Work Permit:
Individuals must have a work permit and be employed in China to be eligible for repatriation, according to INS Global Consulting.
Required Documents:
Applications for repatriation require documents like passports, employment contracts, and tax bills, says INS Global Consulting.
Exchanges and Fees:
Individuals can use banks or exchange agencies (like Western Union and MoneyGram), but fees will vary, says INS Global Consulting.
For Companies (FIEs - Foreign Invested Enterprises):
Capital Account Regulations:
China's "closed" capital account means companies must comply with strict rules when moving money in or out, according to CNN.
Profits Repatriation:
Companies can only repatriate profits after specific conditions are met, including tax compliance and a company's annual audit.
Surplus Reserve Fund:
Companies must allocate a portion of their after-tax profits to a mandatory surplus reserve fund, which can impact the amount available for repatriation, notes China Briefing.
Withholding Tax:
Dividends repatriated to foreign investors are subject to a 10% withholding tax, says China Briefing.
State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE):
The SAFE regulates capital account transactions and requires foreign investors to open separate accounts for current and capital accounts, notes China Briefing.
New Controls:
Increased government oversight and security measures have been introduced to scrutinize outbound investments, according to China Briefing.
In Summary:
China's capital controls are a complex system that limits both individual and corporate capital movements. While there are some recent efforts to relax controls, they remain a significant factor for businesses and individuals operating in China, requiring careful planning and compliance with regulations before any money can be moved out of the country.
Soon, critical thinking may vanish from education for most kids. The wealthy will keep real teachers, while poor students get limited AI holograms—all to cut costs and keep taxes low for the top 0.01%.
I'm loaded up on TVs monitors and other stuff already.
We need to do something to shake up global supply chain, we will see what happens because the global system that the US and allies put in is going down the drain unless if we do something.
China being an authoritarian country becoming the center of everything probably won't be good for us.
Easier for us to hurt ourselves now than the Chinese to hurt us more later. We can choose where to stab ourselves instead of someone else stabbing us later on.
reply