The New U.S.-China Rivalry: A Technology Race(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The New U.S.-China Rivalry: A Technology Race
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/business/us-china-trade-technology-deals.html
66 comments
I found this pcmag link more enlightening than the NYT article.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/359702/us-broadcom-qualcomm-merge...
Specifically, the last paragraph,
"Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US."
It seems CFIUS wants solid assurance that this happens so the US can continue scooping up all the communications of everyone world wide.
The US government didn't appoint Qualcomm winner of the LTE market with IP protections just to let them sell it off to a company outside US control.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/359702/us-broadcom-qualcomm-merge...
Specifically, the last paragraph,
"Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US."
It seems CFIUS wants solid assurance that this happens so the US can continue scooping up all the communications of everyone world wide.
The US government didn't appoint Qualcomm winner of the LTE market with IP protections just to let them sell it off to a company outside US control.
There is something rather disingenuous about the way the article is written: it takes advantage of an inattentive reader who only reads the title and not the actual article text. Most readers will probably miss some things.
* Broadcom is a Singaporean company, not Chinese.
* The article asserts that Huawei and other Chinese chip manufacturers will indirectly benefit from the proposed merger.
* Cfius, who is looking closely at the Broadcom-Qualcomm proposed deal, looks closely at other investment / merger deals from China for national security reasons.
.... and most readers will at this point incorrectly assume that Broadcom is a Chinese company, having forgotten what was read in the first 3 paragraphs.
* Broadcom is a Singaporean company, not Chinese.
* The article asserts that Huawei and other Chinese chip manufacturers will indirectly benefit from the proposed merger.
* Cfius, who is looking closely at the Broadcom-Qualcomm proposed deal, looks closely at other investment / merger deals from China for national security reasons.
.... and most readers will at this point incorrectly assume that Broadcom is a Chinese company, having forgotten what was read in the first 3 paragraphs.
I see that as well. There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China (No judgment as to the veracity of those fears).
Definitely something to keep in mind when reading pieces like this.
Definitely something to keep in mind when reading pieces like this.
I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against.
I worry when the FBI Director claims all Chinese student organizations are under suspicion because they have evidence that one university student club accepted donations from an embassy in order to fund a Chinese New Year party. Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
I worry when the FBI Director claims all Chinese student organizations are under suspicion because they have evidence that one university student club accepted donations from an embassy in order to fund a Chinese New Year party. Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
> I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against.
Let's not draw a moral equivalence between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance. Chinese surveillance is explicit, and profoundly more invasive and pervasive than the US's. It's also explicitly used as a political tool - to enforce the will of the party, not the state. These are extremely critical differences that it is irresponsible not to continually and stridently point out. What China is doing to its citizens is infinitely more frightening than anything the NSA has ever done.
Let's not draw a moral equivalence between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance. Chinese surveillance is explicit, and profoundly more invasive and pervasive than the US's. It's also explicitly used as a political tool - to enforce the will of the party, not the state. These are extremely critical differences that it is irresponsible not to continually and stridently point out. What China is doing to its citizens is infinitely more frightening than anything the NSA has ever done.
I'm not drawing a moral equivalence.
As someone who grew up in the US and has experienced racism, I fear where this campaign could lead. Here, we have an article about a Singaporean company trying to take over a US company. And the entire narrative is about China.
As someone who grew up in the US and has experienced racism, I fear where this campaign could lead. Here, we have an article about a Singaporean company trying to take over a US company. And the entire narrative is about China.
You're not going to find any empathy here on HN. Given your experiences you should already know this. In the long run the only reliable way to avoid racism in the US is to avoid the US. The fact that you have to worry about potential racism already shows that you already know that it's an untenable position associate with US.
>Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
no imagination needed. In Russia the organizations accepting foreign resources (private or public doesn't matter) must register as "foreign agents".
no imagination needed. In Russia the organizations accepting foreign resources (private or public doesn't matter) must register as "foreign agents".
That's more like a common practice of all western media, and it's not just the past few months. I'm glad you noticed.
＞There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China
10+ years. NYT is at the frontier of American propaganda, as we saw with their Iraq lies following 9/11
10+ years. NYT is at the frontier of American propaganda, as we saw with their Iraq lies following 9/11
The article is not misleading at all if you actually read it. It can only be considered twisted because the narrative contains non trivial details, which I don’t think the author could have avoided considering the facts at hand.
The article also omitted this crucial detail that was mentioned in the PC Mag coverage: "Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US."
Yes, I did actually read the article (unlike many commenters going on about China this or China that), which is why I found the title misleading, since Broadcom isn't even a Chinese company. I'm glad that the other commenter linked to that article because that author doesn't forget to remind the reader "However, Broadcom is not a Chinese company."
Yes, I did actually read the article (unlike many commenters going on about China this or China that), which is why I found the title misleading, since Broadcom isn't even a Chinese company. I'm glad that the other commenter linked to that article because that author doesn't forget to remind the reader "However, Broadcom is not a Chinese company."
Seriously? From the article
> The proposed acquisition by the Singapore-based Broadcom would have been the largest deal in technology history, creating a major force in the development of the computer chips that power smartphones and many internet-connected devices.
I mean, if the company is a Singapore-based company, then how is the author not reminding us it isn't Chinese? Broadcom is only mentioned twice in the article, so a 50% reminder rate isn't that bad.
> The proposed acquisition by the Singapore-based Broadcom would have been the largest deal in technology history, creating a major force in the development of the computer chips that power smartphones and many internet-connected devices.
I mean, if the company is a Singapore-based company, then how is the author not reminding us it isn't Chinese? Broadcom is only mentioned twice in the article, so a 50% reminder rate isn't that bad.
The entire narrative of the article was about China. And zero of the HN commenters prior to my comment seemed to realize Broadcom isn't Chinese.
Yes, the article was about China. No, the article didn't try to pass Broadcom of as being Chinese, it did however, mention that Huawei was Chinese, for whatever that is worth. I hardly see how the article was factually incorrect in any way, or even deceptive.
The only fact reported by this article, is that a Singapore company is trying to acquire a US company, and the author has to make it ALL about China. If people didn't read the article careful enough, they'd probably not see the word "Singapore" at all
No, read the article again. The article is reporting on the activity of the US (government panel called CFIUS), it is in the second paragraph:
> The clash erupted in public on Tuesday after the United States government, citing national security concerns, called for a full investigation into a hostile bid to buy the American chip stalwart Qualcomm — a review that is often a death knell for a corporate deal.
And the end of the third paragraph:
> But a government panel said the takeover could weaken Qualcomm and give its Chinese rivals an advantage.
If the US government panel wasn't making a fuss over this, the NyTimes would have nothing to report. The author is actually reporting the facts that exist (US concerns over this acquisition with a focus on China), they aren't making these facts up.
If you want to criticize about why this article is all about China, your beef is with the US government panel, not the author of this article.
> The clash erupted in public on Tuesday after the United States government, citing national security concerns, called for a full investigation into a hostile bid to buy the American chip stalwart Qualcomm — a review that is often a death knell for a corporate deal.
And the end of the third paragraph:
> But a government panel said the takeover could weaken Qualcomm and give its Chinese rivals an advantage.
If the US government panel wasn't making a fuss over this, the NyTimes would have nothing to report. The author is actually reporting the facts that exist (US concerns over this acquisition with a focus on China), they aren't making these facts up.
If you want to criticize about why this article is all about China, your beef is with the US government panel, not the author of this article.
it might be deeper than that, I won't be surprised if Chinese has some big hidden stake in the money involved for the merger, end of the day, money talks, politics follows. by the way this is not unique to any country, they all do this sort of things.
> I won't be surprised if ...
Do you think you would be more surprised, less surprised, or about the same, if the situation were reversed? Let's try a thought experiment.
Hypothetically, say, a Singaporean company was trying to take over a Chinese company (both companies in this case have Chinese citizen executives), and the Chinese government was trying to block it. And let's say there's news coverage apropos of nothing, that American companies would be the indirect beneficiaries, so the US was (wink, wink) behind it all. What is your level of surprise then?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you think you would be more surprised, less surprised, or about the same, if the situation were reversed? Let's try a thought experiment.
Hypothetically, say, a Singaporean company was trying to take over a Chinese company (both companies in this case have Chinese citizen executives), and the Chinese government was trying to block it. And let's say there's news coverage apropos of nothing, that American companies would be the indirect beneficiaries, so the US was (wink, wink) behind it all. What is your level of surprise then?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
no need to over-react, unlike in china, here we do have free speech so just get used to it, and the comment is actually neutral to all countries, as it stated.
I grew up in the US. I'm accustomed to free speech, thanks. Not sure why you're offended by the thought experiment.
A thought experiment where you swap one variable and see how it sounds reversed is a very useful tool for detecting cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is a major source of racism. Racism is something I experienced growing up here, and one of my chief worries when reading articles like this.
A thought experiment where you swap one variable and see how it sounds reversed is a very useful tool for detecting cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is a major source of racism. Racism is something I experienced growing up here, and one of my chief worries when reading articles like this.
While China has real innovators, particularly in manufacturing and AI tech, if China continues on its path toward total surveillance of its people, I cannot see China continue to innovate over the long term. Innovation often entails replacing the old with new interests and stakeholders. In a total surveillance state, stakeholders would have motivation and the means to squash innovative change. So I see the future of homegrown technical innovation in China as questionable, and bear.
China's history of innovation over the also decades is also a story of supplementation by pervasive, state-sanctioned corporate espionage and theft of intellectual property from the rest of the world. If China continues on its current path, I can see actions by nation-states to boost their defenses against espionage and IP theft by China.
China's history of innovation over the also decades is also a story of supplementation by pervasive, state-sanctioned corporate espionage and theft of intellectual property from the rest of the world. If China continues on its current path, I can see actions by nation-states to boost their defenses against espionage and IP theft by China.
This is ]conjecture.
In reality the CPC are technocrats in every sense of the word. Many of them are engineers and they possess an engineer's faith in innovation. The idea of them squashing innovation is silly. Look at the enormous investments in electric cars, AI, mobile computing and genetic engineering. Westerners will deny it until it's way too late but the amount of innovation going on in China right now is mind blowing.
Which is the point -- the Chinese will more than likely win this technology "race." Because the West isn't really competing. The days of Western governments pouring real wealth into research and development is over. What you have is very few highly innovative firms and a few military contractors competing against the highly coordinated political-economic-military complex of China. The outlook does not look good.
I suspect this is why ultimately companies like Apple and Microsoft and even Tesla are so focused on getting a foothold into China. These guys know where the future is and they want to be at the table when it happens.
In reality the CPC are technocrats in every sense of the word. Many of them are engineers and they possess an engineer's faith in innovation. The idea of them squashing innovation is silly. Look at the enormous investments in electric cars, AI, mobile computing and genetic engineering. Westerners will deny it until it's way too late but the amount of innovation going on in China right now is mind blowing.
Which is the point -- the Chinese will more than likely win this technology "race." Because the West isn't really competing. The days of Western governments pouring real wealth into research and development is over. What you have is very few highly innovative firms and a few military contractors competing against the highly coordinated political-economic-military complex of China. The outlook does not look good.
I suspect this is why ultimately companies like Apple and Microsoft and even Tesla are so focused on getting a foothold into China. These guys know where the future is and they want to be at the table when it happens.
It is hardly baseless. If the CPC has done well to allow innovation, it is likely because 1)China is enjoying the easy growth of an emerging economy where outside wealth is willing to pay you to pollute your lands for trinket manufacturing. 2) The party ALLOWED free thinking at Universities, and 3) the party acted under rules of meritocracy.
Under the tightening grip of surveillance in China today, and the centralization of power by the president and his "anti-corruption" campaign against the party and businessman, I don't see how innovation will persist. If the president and his party allies get entrenched, then I do not see how the party can stay a meritocracy, and without that meritocracy, I don't see how innovation won't get squashed.
Edit: thank you for removing the word baseless.
Under the tightening grip of surveillance in China today, and the centralization of power by the president and his "anti-corruption" campaign against the party and businessman, I don't see how innovation will persist. If the president and his party allies get entrenched, then I do not see how the party can stay a meritocracy, and without that meritocracy, I don't see how innovation won't get squashed.
Edit: thank you for removing the word baseless.
Could this be a good explanation why the interest rate is kept so low for so long ? as a way to encourage money to go to innovation ?
Agreed with this tenfold. Innovation often implies disrupting the status quo; China in many ways is entrenching the status quo in every single way possible.
Given that companies from all over the world have moved enormous amounts of manufacturing technology into china to take advantage of low wages, you cannot ignore the fact that a huge amount of technological knowhow has been freely given to china.
Political tangents aside, it will be interesting to see how this race unfolds as the next recession winds up (which is inevitable, really).
The seemingly limitless amount of capital, technological, human and otherwise has led to this arms race of sort, but will both countries be able to focus on this if there's a significant crisis? How much of this stuff is just a bubble?
The seemingly limitless amount of capital, technological, human and otherwise has led to this arms race of sort, but will both countries be able to focus on this if there's a significant crisis? How much of this stuff is just a bubble?
A good point. Conversely, central banks and governments fight recessions with expansionary monetary policy. Thus, as a recession hits government may reduce the cost of capital to VCs, and improve R+D (at least in defense spending and government research).
That could happen, but it is likely there will be a significant contraction in VC funding at least initially in the event of a recession.
Firstly, the very low interests rates in the US and worldwide the last decade provide very limited room for governments to reduce cost of capital. Current fed funds rate is 1.42% after being essentially 0% since 2009. In 2007, the rate was 5.25%. In 2000 before the dot com crash, fed funds rate was 6.51% (dropped to nadir of 1% by 2004). [1]
Unless interest rates rise dramatically before the next recession, the US govt will have the least monetary policy ammunition ever to respond to a recession. So there may not be that much reduction in cost of capital.
Perhaps more importantly, any further fiscal tightening in advance of a recession could be very destructive to venture capital. One of the reasons VCs have so much cash now is that investors are chasing yield -- with govt debt at all time low rates (meaning high prices), and negative interest rates for some major governments, and with the stock market in one of its largest bull markets ever, investors have been investing into ever riskier asset classes. the laws of finance state than when interest rates go up, bond prices fall, and stock prices fall as well [2, 3]. yield will become cheaper (ie you can get higher return for lower risk: imagine getting 5% from a government bond today, and an expected return of 8-10% for large cap stocks: no one would invest in super risky VC in hopes of maybe 12-15% returns). with attractive returns available for lower risk, investors will cycle away from investments like VC and towards large cap stocks and bonds
that's the theory, and in reality you observe a contraction in VC after recessions (post 2000s, post financial crisis). then capital leaves the VC space, so deals are less competitive and prices are lower, and the VCs that stick around make lots of money, then other people try to get in on the VC returns, prices go up again, returns go down, and the cycle goes on
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS [2] https://www.investopedia.com/investing/how-interest-rates-af... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp
Firstly, the very low interests rates in the US and worldwide the last decade provide very limited room for governments to reduce cost of capital. Current fed funds rate is 1.42% after being essentially 0% since 2009. In 2007, the rate was 5.25%. In 2000 before the dot com crash, fed funds rate was 6.51% (dropped to nadir of 1% by 2004). [1]
Unless interest rates rise dramatically before the next recession, the US govt will have the least monetary policy ammunition ever to respond to a recession. So there may not be that much reduction in cost of capital.
Perhaps more importantly, any further fiscal tightening in advance of a recession could be very destructive to venture capital. One of the reasons VCs have so much cash now is that investors are chasing yield -- with govt debt at all time low rates (meaning high prices), and negative interest rates for some major governments, and with the stock market in one of its largest bull markets ever, investors have been investing into ever riskier asset classes. the laws of finance state than when interest rates go up, bond prices fall, and stock prices fall as well [2, 3]. yield will become cheaper (ie you can get higher return for lower risk: imagine getting 5% from a government bond today, and an expected return of 8-10% for large cap stocks: no one would invest in super risky VC in hopes of maybe 12-15% returns). with attractive returns available for lower risk, investors will cycle away from investments like VC and towards large cap stocks and bonds
that's the theory, and in reality you observe a contraction in VC after recessions (post 2000s, post financial crisis). then capital leaves the VC space, so deals are less competitive and prices are lower, and the VCs that stick around make lots of money, then other people try to get in on the VC returns, prices go up again, returns go down, and the cycle goes on
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS [2] https://www.investopedia.com/investing/how-interest-rates-af... [3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capm.asp
Can you give someone clueless about this recession stuff some pointers or material to mull over? How to estimate timeline and magnitude? Why inevitable?
Well, personally, I subscribe to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis
I won't mislead you by pretending to be an economist or expert, but you should look up the "business cycle". As the name implies these booms and busts happen pretty periodically. In the past it's been approximately every decade.
As for the magnitude, I can't really speak to that much. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
As for the magnitude, I can't really speak to that much. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
If the US blocks a Broadcom/Qualcomm merger, what's to stop ${US_Corp} making a hostile takeover of Qualcomm instead?
Clearly the two giant governments are battling over control of the closed source baseband backdoors in all mobile devices.
Clearly the two giant governments are battling over control of the closed source baseband backdoors in all mobile devices.
There is a technology race we have lost due to Chinese government investment. 2018 will be the year China passes the US in 300mm wafer production. https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6608-could-china-take...
Could a technological race between warring tribes of primitive homo sapiens be responsible for the human intelligence explosion?
It seems much more likely to just be invention of fire and control of fire. Turning cellulose into energy that promotes some sort of evolutionary advantage is pretty limited in the macroscopic biological world. Sure, cows and the like do it, but only by enlisting the aid of bacteria and having four stomachs, etc. This excess energy and exclusive ecological niche then allow for more complex social systems, feeding into some sort of positive loop selecting for intelligence.
That's all conjecture from me, but it seems to make sense from basic principles.
That's all conjecture from me, but it seems to make sense from basic principles.
Well first one got idea to use bone to bash heads from mysterious black box, the rest, as they say, is history.
No, it was more likely the diffusion of technology (agriculture, writing, the wheel, and so on), not the competition between civilization, that led to humanity’s intelligence explosion.
Do you have evidence for this claim?
The US used to call out China over its human rights abuses. That seems to have stopped around the start of Obama's second term. Now the US has gotten to the point where its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that.
My hope is the US' next president will be one that cares deeply about civil rights and will start calling China out in the future, as its human rights abuses inevitably increase under a dictator with all-seeing surveillance eyes.
My hope is the US' next president will be one that cares deeply about civil rights and will start calling China out in the future, as its human rights abuses inevitably increase under a dictator with all-seeing surveillance eyes.
Let's not have yet another generic political/national argument. They're all repeats of the same few basic patterns. That makes them predictable and therefore uninteresting in HN's sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Plus they almost all turn into flamewars.
Good HN discussions on large, divisive topics are not generic but specific, and engage with the actual content of an article. More on this if anyone wants it: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Good HN discussions on large, divisive topics are not generic but specific, and engage with the actual content of an article. More on this if anyone wants it: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Interestingly enough, China answered by publishing a list of human rights violations committed by the U.S. [1] (I could not find the original transcript).
[1] http://english.gov.cn/archive/publications/2017/03/09/conten...
[1] http://english.gov.cn/archive/publications/2017/03/09/conten...
> its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that.
I believe that was said in jest during a speech at a charity dinner.
I believe that was said in jest during a speech at a charity dinner.
The event was described as a political fundraiser for Republican donors in all the reports I've seen, not a charity event.[NR, CNN]
The part about having a President for Life in the US was definitely presented as a joke, though Trump's admiration of "strong" leaders has been a recurring sentiment.[The Atlantic]
[NR]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/donald-trump-xi-jinpi...
[CNN]: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remar...
[The Atlantic]: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554810/
The part about having a President for Life in the US was definitely presented as a joke, though Trump's admiration of "strong" leaders has been a recurring sentiment.[The Atlantic]
[NR]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/donald-trump-xi-jinpi...
[CNN]: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remar...
[The Atlantic]: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554810/
It could be due to a shift in power. The US isn't the only game in town now.
I just realized this the other day.
You'll hear qualms about trade unfairness and the occasional blatant copyright/knockoff culture, but hardly ever any mention of human rights.
You'll hear qualms about trade unfairness and the occasional blatant copyright/knockoff culture, but hardly ever any mention of human rights.
The pot calling the kettle black? Aside from that, we share the hope for a US president who cares deeply about human rights!
"Now the US has gotten to the point where its president praises China's new permanent president for being so brave to do that."
Trump really seems to have a hard on for wannabe dictators like Erdogan, Putin and now the Chinese guy. Hard to understand.
Trump really seems to have a hard on for wannabe dictators like Erdogan, Putin and now the Chinese guy. Hard to understand.
What are some of these violations in your view that China should be called out on?
EDIT: Removal of previous question since posters have interpreted it as trolling (though I assure you, it was not).
EDIT: Removal of previous question since posters have interpreted it as trolling (though I assure you, it was not).
> Does the US really have any right to be calling out any country for human right violations?
Yes, yes it does. You don't have to be a saint to point out bad behavior.
Yes, yes it does. You don't have to be a saint to point out bad behavior.
> Yes, yes it does. You don't have to be a saint to point out bad behavior.
Sure, but no one is making that claim.
Sure, but no one is making that claim.
Then I wonder, what is your claim?
I am not making any claim. I just asked a question. Not everything is a debate, you know.
Your first question does take a rhetorical position. It effectively makes a claim, by the wording of the question.
Your second question suggests that one should recap decades of human rights abuses.
Finally, by stating "Not everything is a battle, you know", you seek to make it a battle when no one else is.
This is all classic troll behavior.
Your second question suggests that one should recap decades of human rights abuses.
Finally, by stating "Not everything is a battle, you know", you seek to make it a battle when no one else is.
This is all classic troll behavior.
Its because your post reads like standard whataboutism Russian and Chinese online paid trolls/propagandists spout.
Please keep that common insinuation off HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16532039
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16532039
China has been losing technical talent left right and center. If they want to compete, they need to be able to attract top talent to their country. There's a reason why their military and space hardware is Russian or Russian-derived.
There is just no way someone is going to move from LA or New York to Beijing. Maybe Hong Kong. The differences in living standards is huge, I don't think you could pay people enough to get them to move.
There is just no way someone is going to move from LA or New York to Beijing. Maybe Hong Kong. The differences in living standards is huge, I don't think you could pay people enough to get them to move.
HK is not a tech startup place, programmers outside of banking and finance get paid very poorly compared to Shenzhen. I lived in Beijing for 9 years and found that, besides the air pollution, everything was definitely workable. I only left because when my wife and I were expecting a baby. Beijing has gotten better recently, though still too bad for the baby, while Shenzhen has always been better and comparable to Shenzhen.
China has plenty of its own talent and has been attracting back those who went overseas. While I agree that they will need to attract worldwide talent in the long run to fully compete with the USA, they are not in a bad place ATM.
China has plenty of its own talent and has been attracting back those who went overseas. While I agree that they will need to attract worldwide talent in the long run to fully compete with the USA, they are not in a bad place ATM.
>China has been losing technical talent left right and center. If they want to compete, they need to be able to attract top talent to their country
Well, they have a 1.4 billion pool to draw from, from themselves alone.
>There's a reason why their military and space hardware is Russian or Russian-derived.
Because they're starting out on those things. But their stuff at least works -- analogous us endeavors of late have been failing after spending tons of money (F35 for one).
Well, they have a 1.4 billion pool to draw from, from themselves alone.
>There's a reason why their military and space hardware is Russian or Russian-derived.
Because they're starting out on those things. But their stuff at least works -- analogous us endeavors of late have been failing after spending tons of money (F35 for one).
This is changing. China are actively pursuing top scientists that have left the country and giving them large budgets on return with more freedom to spend as they see fit. Many people interesting in the science and opportunity to create will lap this up.
And not sure if you have been to China but outside pollution, they have very good living standards of you have the income, though obviously this is subjective to what is important to you. But say for example, go stand on the Bund in Shanghai. It feels like London meets NY in China.
And not sure if you have been to China but outside pollution, they have very good living standards of you have the income, though obviously this is subjective to what is important to you. But say for example, go stand on the Bund in Shanghai. It feels like London meets NY in China.
Qualcomm and Broadcom make closed source basebands, which are used (backdoors) and abused (zero-day exploitation) for spying via wireless ISPs on behalf of their respective parent governments.
If Broadcom acquires Qualcomm, it may become easier for some governments to locate firmware vulnerabilities which can either be fixed to prevent U.S. surveillance or exploited to expand local surveillance powers.