Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kragen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

in the case you mention, the geopolitical considerations run strongly counter to what you suggest

chinese policymakers can loosen domestic restrictions on innovation such as copyright and patent laws; then the laws in the us will only restrict us companies like nvidia. in large part this has happened, which is a major reason chinese companies (in both prc and roc) have become the leading organizations in a wide variety of high-tech fields, including solar panels, cell phones, electric cars, nuclear power, and microelectronics

your nvidia analogy predicts that gcc engineers and linux kernel engineers would have terrible job security, since anyone who needs a gcc backend or device driver written can hire literally any programmer; there are no legal restrictions. but in fact this seems to make the barriers to entry higher rather than lower. they're just in the form of 'human capital', knowhow, rather than in the form of the assets of a company

also, you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company, and it's already left the us behind. sentences like 'The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff.' reflect wishful thinking that the technology gap is the other way around from how it actually is

> tsmc is a chinese company

This part is wrong. TSMC is a Taiwanese company and as much as China's bullying behavior in the UN means most other contries do not officially recognize Taiwan, it still does not change the reality of the situation that Taiwan is independent in every way you can think of and the chines government has no more control over or benefit from TSMC than it does for an american company.

please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40915409

In sentences like "The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff", China is referring to the PRC. In sentences like "you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company", China is referring to Taiwan. It is disingenuous to conflate these.

conflating them has been the official policy of both prc and taiwan since the prc was founded, as well as of the un, and it shows little sign of changing. in day-to-day life, there is an enormous flow of money, technical information, hardware, and skilled workers back and forth between taipei and shenzhen. taipei is a 20-minute flight away from fuzhou. the idea of maintaining a 'technology gap' between the prc and the roc is more wishful thinking, like the idea of maintaining a technology gap between california and washington, or between france and germany. i mean, at least france and germany speak different languages

Being ambiguous as to what "China" means is both vitally important for international relations and also generally unhelpful for the purpose of clear communication. Corporate (and other) espionage notwithstanding.

there was no ambiguity in my comment; i said 'chinese companies (in both prc and roc)' to ensure that i was communicating clearly

Deliberately conflating the two, especially in discussion of US strategic interests, is not just unhelpful but makes your entire argument nonsensical.

sigh

Consider not spewing bs instead of sighing.

disagreeing with you is not the same thing as spewing bs. in fifteen years you'll see i was right

looking at your comment history, the most likely explanation for the disagreement is that you're out of your depth discussing geopolitics, the history of innovation, and international trade, so you're limited to repeating the ideas you're surrounded by, and even the best-founded counterarguments to them appear to you as 'bullshit' because you aren't familiar with the background knowledge they're based on

Reply on news.ycombinator.com