If you have a foreign number roaming into China you shouldn't need proxies. Only Chinese numbers go through the great firewall. On the other hand, your speed might depend on your carrier's roaming arrangements.
In this case it's purely technical even if the title can be misunderstood as if the cleanup is a bad thing. Instead the takeaway should be that it would be reassuring if the majority of the acceleration can be explained by a cleanup effort, because it implies that this is a limited process and the acceleration should go away after the cleanup is over.
Taking away strict accuracy also takes away reproducibility, which makes debugging much harder. As an example, I am struggling to understand how my younger one is turning out.
Kind of ironic how yesteryears's successful influence operations (imagine US officials attending similar programs in China!) become nowadays' evidence of disloyalty, to some.
One can imagine that for remote sensing like real time tracking of moving objects it is more efficient to have the nano sats with optics flying at lower orbits and have processing done in sats in higher orbits. This way the resolution is higher with the same optics while the compute resources can be pooled in larger, more powerful sats in more durable orbits.
If you are referring to Apple's sending engineers to work out problems and enforce standards you should know that this is not unique to Apple. Huawei does the same with its own suppliers. In my opinion it has much more to do with the fact that Apple and Huawei can afford to pay their engineers much better and hire people with good problem solving skills. It is not that they have some secret sauce and have to teach the factories how to make things. That would be a strange interpretation.
Except it doesn't make any sense. What did Apple know about making phones? Back then the top dog was Nokia. It was FoxConn helping Apple figure out how to make a phone.
Well the parts of the world that don't welcome Chinese competition deservedly pay a higher price for their phones. That is just the market at work. Apple isn't subsidizing their Chinese sales any more than Toyota is subsidizing theirs.
They exempted pretty much everything except for memories. Once designed in semiconductors are not easy to replace, but new designs will likely design these out as much as possible.
Do governments allow some of their employees to be highly compensated relative to others? Would someone with real expertise in chip development work for the government at what the government is willing to pay? I think the answer is no.
Your conclusion isn't logical. US per capita income is far higher meaning its economy is far more leveraged. To put it simply Costco employees need to push through way more goods per person, Google employees way more ads per person to sustain their much higher income. On the other hand, Chinese unskilled migrant export factory workers, while low wage, have a rural home to go back to and their standard of living won't change that much, while their skilled technicians can not be replaced en mass anywhere in the world. There's no way you can win a contest of pain against China. Think of the comparison as throwing sand into gears that are running at different speeds. You do far more damage to the one running at high speed.
The reason I brought up the NYT article is to say that even if you think change is important doing it rapidly is going to put the people that the policy is supposed to help through the wringer.
Isn't creating demands the US strength over China? Now you are saying it is not important for the US but important for China? Either way NYT recently did a good piece on the "China Shock" and the main takeaway is that people couldn't react to changes that happened too fast but they finally did. Now suddenly they are pushed to go the other way overnight.
You underestimate the importance of imports as a lubricant to the service economy. Sure you don't need the next new gadget, but many service jobs depend on your wanting it.
Housing and healthcare are the two things that have little to do with trade. Housing affordability is almost entirely policy driven. In a "free" market (quoted because the definition typically doesn't take into account the necessity of a functional society to maintain property rights and values, just ask Detroit), housing affordability is entirely dependent on one's relative income and propensity to spend, i.e. you can have high absolute income (say in NYC) and still find you desired housing unaffordable. I think people intuitively understand this. Healthcare costs are more complicated but is also almost entirely a domestic issue.
That's supposedly done with the agreement of the creditors. There's never paying down of national debt over an extended period of time. That's not how modern finances work. Why they feel the need of cramming down friendly creditors is beyond me.
Exempting chips alone doesn't make sense. Does Intel have to pay 20% on ASML lithography machines or more on Japanese ones? Meanwhile TSMC can fab chips in Taiwan and export to the US without tariffs.
That runs against basic financial reality. The treasuries are the basis of all U.S. liquidity. Owning commercial papers or stocks doesn't help as companies own treasuries. Putting deposits in banks won't help either because banks hold treasuries.
Why is it a bad thing if they now like each other better (not sure if there is real evidence for it but assume it is true for argument's sake)? If American policy is what keeps them apart, which I strongly doubt, then it is a good thing that we butt out and let them integrate as much as they want.
How do you keep it stationary? How do you keep it out of the Earth's shadow a.k.a. night? How do you keep the transmission loss low and receiving station footprint small? How do you avoid harming things that could come into your beams? How do you achieve all the above simultaneously?
It shows up so naturally that one may think it is not whataboutism at work, even though the reasoning is often not well argued. We could choose to see it not as a moral judgement, but as questioning the justification of efforts pushing for conflicts with China.
Unlikely as Canada ultimately depends on the US as a security provider, but yes, like Vietnam, it makes sense to trade with both sides. It's also why the US doesn't like it.
China's tax on rapeseed oil is like Canadian tax on EV, as China imports very little from from Canada due to prior trade frictions. But its rapeseed imports almost exclusively depend on Canada.
It may start sooner than you think. Now we will see how Missouri attempts to collect their $24 billon default judgement against China from a federal court for treble damage of "$8.04 billion in direct lost tax revenue" due to China's hoarding of PPEs. https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-andrew-bailey-secures-hi...