meanwhile in the real world

typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-chinese-adult-now-richer-than-europeans-wealth-report-finds-2022-9

90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes

Chinese household savings hit another record high in 2024 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf

From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4

Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it’s the most populous country on the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8SvK0E5dI

Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

None of these things would be happening in China if it was doing capitalism. It would look the way other capitalist shitholes look like today.

Gotta love guzzling CIA propaganda uncritically.

Imagine being over the age of 10 and using the word authoritarianism like it means anything.

I’d expect they will be Linux friendly just because there’s a big push towards using Linux in China now since they want to decouple from western proprietary tech. I guess we’ll have to wait to see once they become generally available though.

Plenty of anarchists have the exact same position as the US regime when it comes to western adversaries like China.

just go back to doing your trolling on reddit where there are people dumb enough to listen to you

the fed instances see each other 🤣

the fed world has spoken 🤣

The level of investment in AI in China is a fraction of that in the US, and they’re already starting to make money. The whole dynamic in China is different. Instead of chasing unicorns and promising stuff like AGI, companies in China are treating AI as shared infrastructure that you actually build useful stuff on top of. Hence why models are being released as open source, they’re not seen as the key source of revenue. It’s closer to what we see with Linux based infrastructure where companies build services like AWS on top of Linux. China also has far more application for AI in stuff like robotics, manufacturing, and other types of automation. There are simply more niches to apply this tech in than there are in the west that’s largely deindustrialized now.

Can you tell me what sources you two are asking for? My argument is that economies of scale make new technologies cheaper over time because industrial processes become refined, people learn better and cheaper ways to produce things, and scaling up production brings the cost down. What are you asking me to source here specifically?

Are you seriously asking for sources for things that HAVE NOT BEEN DONE YET, that’s what you’re asking for here? 🤡

I love how you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Your whole argument is that we need some amazing breakthrough to make other materials viable, but the reality is that it’s just a matter of investment over time. That’s it. China is investing into development of new substrates at state level, and that’s effectively unlimited funding. The capitalist economic arguments don’t apply here. If you think they won’t be able to figure this out then prepare to be very surprised in the near future.

Oh right, the famous laws of physics that apparently decree silicon must forever be the cheapest material. Let me check my physics textbook real quick. Yep, still says nothing about global supply chains and sixty years of trillion-dollar investment being a fundamental force of nature.

Silicon is cheap because we made it cheap. We built the entire modern world around it. We constructed factories so complex and expensive they become national infrastructure projects. We perfected processes over many decades. That’s not physics, that’s just industrial inertia on a planetary scale.

To claim nothing else could ever compete requires ignoring how technological progress actually works. Remember when aluminum was a precious metal for royalty? Then we figured out how to produce it at scale and now we make soda cans out of it. Solar panels, lithium batteries, and fiber optics were all once exotic and prohibitively expensive until they weren’t.

As you yourself pointed out, germanium was literally the first transistor material. We moved to silicon because its oxide was more convenient for the fabrication tricks we were developing at the time, not because of some cosmic price tag. If we had poured the same obsessive investment into germanium or gallium arsenide, we’d be having this same smug conversation about them instead.

Similarly, graphene isn’t too expensive because physics. It’s too expensive because we’re still learning how to make it in bulk with high quality. Give it a fraction of the focus and funding that silicon has enjoyed and watch the cost curve do the same dramatic dive. The inherent cost argument always melts away when the manufacturing muscle shows up.

The only real law at play here is the law of economies of scale. Silicon doesn’t have a magical property that makes it uniquely cheap. It just has a sixty-year head start in the world’s most aggressive scaling campaign. If and when we decide to get serious about another material, your physical laws will look a lot more like a temporary price tag.

Proof and sources for what specifically?

I’ve already explained the dynamic numerous times in this very thread.

I’m beginning to get the impression you don’t actually understand what the term economics of scale means.

What I keep explaining to you here is that silicon is not inevitable, and that it’s obviously possible to make other substrates work and bring costs down. I’ve also explained to you why it makes no business sense for companies already invested in silicon to do that. The reason China has a big incentive is because they don’t currently have the ability to make top end chips. So, they can do moonshot projects at state level, and if one of them succeeds then they can leapfrog a whole generation of tech that way.

You just keep repeating that silicon is the best material for the job without substantiating that in any way. Your whole argument is tautological, amounting to saying that silicon is widely used and therefore it’s the best fit.

Again, silicon was the first one that people figured out how to mass produce. Just because it was cheaper, doesn’t mean that a new material put into mass production won’t get cheaper. Look at the history of literally any technology that became popular, and you’ll see this to be the case.