It’s a Cold War.
And now there’s BYD, which, as I understand it:
- Uses a highly integrated drive system that does not have any particular resemblance to Tesla’s
- Uses prismatic LFP cells. Those cells and battery packs are very different from what Tesla uses, at least in the US. And Tesla has never actually been a heavyweight in the battery tech space despite periodic PR pieces from management.
The rest is … just a car?
What did BYD steal from Tesla exactly, other than market share?
Before you go “well how could two people cause all of this”, it’s the two people we heard about.
There’s no suing in China to protect your shit.
China bought its way into batteries by buying our bankrupt A123 [1]. We weren’t fleeced, we gave it away.
> It’s a Cold War
It’s a stupid Cold War. Literally search public property records for mortgage liens and join to senior people who have just been fired. Offer them a consulting contract so they don’t even know they’re an intelligence asset.
Yeah. Short of nuking themselves, the US couldn't really be trying harder to lose in every possible aspect right now.
Is this a failure of industrial policy where USA would be the leader if we just pumped enough money in it, or was the outcome based on fundamental comparative advantage.
The reason you don’t consider it theft is because we’re into deep level treachery here where right and wrong are beyond blurred.
Just to add a slight bit of friction to all of this, I’ll just note that money and profit is involved. Lots of it.
But when I said I don’t know, I really meant it. It seems obvious to me, but how could it be that obvious? I must be going crazy.
It's more like DeepSeek legally bought OpenAI's public product, tore it apart and successfully RE'd it / used it to bootstrap their own thing. Like many other innovators and tinkerers.
The main difference is that a lot of the hardball tactics flew under the radar during the Biden admin.
Also, Taiwan ain't China.
Small countries better join something like the eu and nato because they cannot ro alone.
The chips being used in weapons systems are largely fabbed on legacy nodes (28nm/48nm) or 14nm at the latest.
You don't need much more than a mid-2010s comparable Intel i5 or Nvidia Maxwell for most defense or weapons systems applications.
The same mindset you are describing is a major reason why Deepseek was able to "disrupt" the ML space.
At some point, just throwing more and more compute becomes a waste.
When building weapons systems, what matters is low unit costs and ease of replaceablity. This is the a major reason why most Defense (as well as Aerospace and Automotive) buyers tend to consolidate on older, cheaper, and more commodified processes
There are significant usecases for bleeding edge compute such as in Simulations (heavily used in Nuclear Research and Jet Engine design), but you can fight using legacy compute at scale and still turn the tides. Look at both Russia and Ukraine for example.
Having said that, yeah, it's not too hard to see a future where asian nations begin to see a lot more possibilities in cooperation than they see in competition with each other.
Just as they have a right to develop their strategic postures, we, also, have a right to adjust our posture to serve us best in the largest possible number of future outcomes.
Until the day China finally invades Taiwan and stablishes its laws there.
I think this is wrong? Both PRC and ROC claim ownership of all of China, including Taiwan. The PRC calling Taiwan a rouge territory and the ROC claiming to be a government in exile.
The ROC has never denied otherwise as claiming to be sovereign would upset the balancing act they play.
To sum it up, I would say the official position of Taiwan is that it is China.
Whatever your own position on this matter may be, it is important that we factually describe the positions of the parties directly involved.
Hopefully we can use this as an opportunity to spread a more accurate description of the dynamics at play.
For reference, here is a speech by William 賴清德 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Ching-te) outlining the position under which he operates. The phrasing he uses is one that is consistent across all of his public remarks; consistent with remarks by Louise 蕭美琴(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim) and other close associates of William 賴清德; consistent with remarks made by 蔡英文 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen); and consistent with how the structures in Taiwan have operated over at least the last decade.
《賴清德就職演說：兩岸「互不隸屬」》: https://youtu.be/oLO5bYF8lDs?t=139
The relevant remark is: 「由此可見，中華民國與中華人民共和國『戶不隸屬』」
Here is my (manual) translation: “From this it can be seen that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are ‘not subordinate to each other.’”
Here is a Whisper-generated transcript of the entire speech, with an OpenAI generated translation inline. I skimmed the translation, and it adequately conveys the speaker's meaning and intention. (It does fail to convey the delicacy, careful phrasing, and specific rhetorical choices made by the speaker that are extremely clearly visible in the Chinese. However, this aspects are harder to convey if you don't have minimal prior knowledge on this topic.) https://pastebin.com/fGxHUpXN
It is true that there are historical positions, (historical) on-paper claims, and even a variety of differing positions and lively debate on this issue across all of the populations involved. But the conclusion one might draw from the comment above is wholly incorrect. It simply isn't the framing within which William 賴清德 and associated parties are actually navigating this issue.