Sodium_nitride

@Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Majority of Australians think China will be world’s most powerful country by 2035, poll finds⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Except it is since Chinese companies take US tech and flood the market with cheaper shittier versions.

  Fixed it for you. The west barely even makes industrial products. At best western companies assembles parts ordered from China, or designs them but has them produced in china (obviously the factory manufacturing your designs will find out what the design is!)

  On top of that, in many cases, western companies in china are literally signing explicit technology transfer contracts to work in china.

  Even when the Chinese steal western designs (a fear that is completely overblown and mostly just corporate propaganda against market competitors), that is actually a good thing because IP is a plague upon humanity.

  Even Intel had a bunch of there stuff stolen.

  That’s good news.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Majority of Australians think China will be world’s most powerful country by 2035, poll finds⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Not something worth respecting in the first place

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Majority of Australians think China will be world’s most powerful country by 2035, poll finds⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Amazing to see people in 2025 who still believe in this nonsense.

  structural issues like command and control policies

  Planned economics is precisely the reason why China has grown faster than India and become so dominant. Because they can control their economy for long-term human needs instead of putting everything into finance like the west.

  the dictator

  Anyone who still thinks Xi is a dictator despite the very strong collective and decentralised governance of China doesn’t know enough about the country to pass an elementary school civics test.

  The whole reason the property market bubble happened was because the Chinese government is way too decentralised. Local governments bet all in on property values as a way to boost tax revenue (land taxes are their main source of income). The central government should have stepped in way sooner, but that would have required centralising the Chinese tax base significantly, a tough thing to do because it would also require centralising public services. Not only would that require buy in from the vast number of local representatives and the national people’s congress, but it would have also interfered with the poverty alleviation campaign.

  an economy built on unnecessary public spending

  Pure neoliberal cope. I hope you are enjoying your deindustrialised austerity economy.

  an educational system which continues to emphasise blind obedience over individualism

  This is hilarious coming from westerners who have naught an original thought, only memes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Algorithm⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  A time complexity of N to the power of logN?

  I can see why someone might have a problem with that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Brazil condemns US after deportees arrive handcuffed⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Let’s not pretend that the west needed Putin to become racist/fascist. The same west which slaughtered tens of millions of people at the altars of capital after WW2.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?

  These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven’t talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.

  And so I want to emphasize something.

  every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.

  Is blatantly and literally false.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.

  And I can scream into the abyss, it’s just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.

  I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.

  You aren’t even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.

  An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum

  1. A model predicting the speed of boiling based on relevant variables
  2. A collection of many data, and preferably corroborated by independent sources
  3. Statistical analysis of the data (there are many methods to choose from) to gauge confidence in the model.
  4. Publishing or proofreading of the results.

  However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.

  And this reveals the problem of many people’s metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, “science” is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.

  You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without “governance”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨...⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What the fuck are you talking about?