Youtube comments of shazmosushi (@shazmosushi).

  1. 1800
  2. 206
  3. 197
  4. 188
  5. 121
  6. 119
  7. 118
  8. 109
  9. 101
  10. 101
  11. 94
  12. 89
  13. 86
  14. 82
  15. 75
  16. 74
  17. 73
  18. 71
  19. 68
  20. 8:24 The bamboo ceiling concept is an interesting concept that I should probably read more about (starting with the Wikipedia article). By the way, it might be a good video idea too. It seems like most of the worlds best technology companies have leaders who are classified by the US government as "Asian": CEO of AMD Lisa Su (Taiwanese American), Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (Indian American), Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai of Google (Indian American) and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang (Taiwanese American, though he was a co-founder so didn't get promoted into his position). Side note: there's actually a really long list of notable leaders on the (hilariously named) Wikipedia pages "List of Taiwanese Americans" and "List of Asian Americans". Lol, it does not appear to be an exhaustive list, but it's a start. Of course the fact that so many companies have leadership (and middle management) being Asian American does not preclude racism and discrimination of course. The Asian American immigrant leaders I've listed spent their childhood in the United States and "speak" American both culturally and linguistically. Perhaps some individuals may be brought up in a way that looks down upon eg, being a "mover and a shaker" and "rocking the boat", which perhaps may not be well suited for being promoted to leadership roles in technology (at least in the typical American business context). All that said, when it comes to measuring racism you need to look at proportions of populations and do statistical analysis: Asian Americans are underrepresented in leadership roles by education, but over represented by percentage of population.
    67
  21. 63
  22. 63
  23. 61
  24. 58
  25. 53
  26. 52
  27. 51
  28. 50
  29. 49
  30. 49
  31. 46
  32. 45
  33. 45
  34. 43
  35. 42
  36. 41
  37. 40
  38. 40
  39. 40
  40. 40
  41. 40
  42. 39
  43. 38
  44. 38
  45. 38
  46. 37
  47. 36
  48. 36
  49. 35
  50. 35
  51. 34
  52. 34
  53. 34
  54. 34
  55. 33
  56. 33
  57. 32
  58. 32
  59. 30
  60. 30
  61. 29
  62. 29
  63. 29
  64. 28
  65. 28
  66. 28
  67. 28
  68. 28
  69. 27
  70. 27
  71. 27
  72. 27
  73. 27
  74. 27
  75. 25
  76. 25
  77. 25
  78. 25
  79. 25
  80. 24
  81. 24
  82. 24
  83. 24
  84. 23
  85. 23
  86. 23
  87. 23
  88. 23
  89. 22
  90. 22
  91. 22
  92. Of course we should do everything we can to stop money laundering -- especially around drug trafficking and human trafficking -- but whatever fraction of China's mass capital flight that's legitimate should definitely considered foreign direct investment and carefully handled, because anybody with a large amount of money within China understandably wants to get their money out of China as soon as possible. Australia's relatively recent regulations are pretty smart: We have no restrictions on foreigners purchasing new buildings. If you buy a vacant plot of land you must build a dwelling within 4 years (you can't just buy it and hold it). You can only buy and demolish an existing dwelling if you build more buildings than were previously there. Finally, real-estate investment no longer contributes to gaining citizenship. All these things are good because they encourage increasing the housing supply which means housing is more affordable. I know that some places (I believe Vancouver and maybe London) tax empty houses and apartments which should encourage them to be placed on the rental market instead of the cultural preference of leaving the home unoccupied. (Side note: China itself has a massive problem with unproductive ghost cities, so other countries need to be smarter than the CCP in combating this with smart policy). Finally, I should note that after decades of giving permanent residency and citizenship to people with strong Chinese Communist Party viewpoints and associations, Australia has developed massive issues around Chinese Communist Party-linked political corruption, infiltration and bribery (eg, Huang Xiangmo and his family), but that's a separate issue.
    22
  93. 22
  94. 22
  95. 22
  96. 22
  97. 22
  98. 22
  99. 21
  100. 21
  101. 21
  102. 21
  103. 21
  104. 21
  105. 21
  106. 20
  107. 20
  108. 20
  109. 19
  110. 19
  111. 19
  112. 19
  113. 18
  114. 18
  115. 18
  116. 18
  117. 18
  118. 17
  119. 17
  120. 17
  121. 17
  122. 17
  123. 16
  124. 16
  125. 16
  126. 16
  127. 16
  128. 16
  129. Not accounting for inflation is the least of this video's problem. He compared to the Shuttle rather than comparable contemporary rockets like the Atlas V/Delta IV/Ariane V, he conflates price and cost and has no understanding of the market's (at least short term) inelasticity. He is unaware that due to its use of nine Merlin 1D engines the proportion of the total rocket cost the Falcon 9 first stage is much more than its second stage (75% of the total cost), making first stage re-usability favorable. He missed that falcon 9 first stage B1051 has been launched EIGHT times already, and with 27 day turn around times (and falling) the refurbishment costs are $1 million. The first/second/third launches of the rockets are to commercial customers paying near full price, with the subsequent 7 launches being for Starlink. When fairings are recovered the marginal COST of Falcon 9 launches is $15 million. SpaceX did revolutionize orbital launch by 10 times. EDIT: I made a video titled "SpaceX: UNBUSTED!! Debunking Thunderf00t" that's an 8 minute overview that everybody who is skeptical should checkout. Also a correction to what I wrote above, SpaceX's has lowered the cost to orbit by 6 times not 10 times. Falcon 9 in expendable configuration is about a third compared to the Ariane 5 before SpaceX entered the market, then after 10 flights, the cost per kilogram is halved. SpaceX are not passing on the savings associated with re usability. Please checkout my "SpaceX Unbusted" video, because it's important to stop the spread of misinformation.
    16
  130. 16
  131. 16
  132. 16
  133. 16
  134. 15
  135. 15
  136. 15
  137. 14
  138. 14
  139. 14
  140. 14
  141. 14
  142. 14
  143. 14
  144. 14
  145. 14
  146. 14
  147.  @Asianometry  No, in the geopolitical climate from 2015 through December 2020, they would absolutely 100% block it. Consider that in November 2019, the Australian government blocked Lion Dairy (then owned by Japanese beverage company Kirin) from being bought by the Chinese company Mengniu Dairy. The most interesting thing about this decision was that it was given the greenlight from Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board (the equivalent to CFIUS), our competition regulator (the ACCC: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and recommended by Treasury. But the deal was reportedly (and somewhat controversially) vetoed by the Treasurer for reasons that were never made public. The direct economic cost of this strategy is actually very low: only 5% of Australia's foreign investment is from China. Also politically, it's increasingly popular to block Chinese firms from buying Australia's assets. I highly recommend Pew Research's article "Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries". More recently, since Australia called for an independent inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, China has stopped meeting with Australian diplomats, issued a list of "14 demands" through its embassy, and started arbitrarily blocking Australia's lucrative exports of coal/wine/barley/lobster/etc under various pretenses such as illegal subsidies and supposed quality issues. This has culminated in Australia taking China to the World Trade Organization for arbitration. There's some speculation that Australia's new trade minister might change strategy to placate the Chinese Communist Party. But I highly doubt such a change would ever involve approving an Atlassian sale: the software is used for project management in major companies around the world. Confluence Wiki, JIRA task tracker and (especially) BitBucket naturally contain trade secrets, business strategy, source code / blueprints, and more. It's very important to issue patches for security vulnerabilities in software used at major companies WITHOUT representatives of the Chinese Communist Party being involved in the process. Also, Atlassian has major offices in the US and is traded on a US stock exchange, so CFIUS rules apply and will definitely block any sale for the previously mentioned reasons.
    14
  148. 14
  149. 14
  150. 14
  151. 13
  152. 13
  153. 13
  154. 13
  155. 13
  156. 13
  157. 13
  158. I don't knock any Taiwanese engineer for moving to China to make 2 or 3 times higher salary: as long as they're not any stealing trade secrets from their prior employer I see it as completely fair game. As this video suggests, most of these semiconductors fabs in China aren't actually making any money (and have no prospect of making money) but are instead propped up by billions of dollars of investment capital. This is by itself not a bad thing: Silicon Valley is fueled by ample investment capital for high risk projects and moonshots. But in China's case the money is coming from Local Government Financing Vehicles rather than private VC money. The Chinese Communist Party is encouraging provincial governments to take out massive loans and put the money into these high risk ventures run by princelings (children of Chinese Communist Party elites, like Jiang Mianheng). Taiwanese engineers can and should go to China, do their jobs to the best of their ability, and earn billions of dollars of this "dumb money" (as they have already been doing for decades). The companies they work for in China will eventually go out of business (due to princeling management and American sanctions), at which point the Taiwanese engineers can move back to Taiwan and go work for better managed companies like TSMC. It's unfortunate the regular people of China will be left with the bill, but that's the responsibility of China's government and the management of the companies that are hiring. Not the random Taiwanese engineer who is hired and goes to China to do their job to the best of their abilities.
    13
  159. 13
  160. 12
  161. 12
  162. 12
  163. 12
  164. 12
  165. 12
  166. 12
  167. 12
  168. 12
  169. 12
  170. 12
  171. 12
  172. 12
  173. 12
  174. 12
  175. 12
  176. 11
  177. 11
  178. 11
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 11
  185. 11
  186. 11
  187. 11
  188. 11
  189. 11
  190. 11
  191. 11
  192. 10
  193. 10
  194. 10
  195. 10
  196. 10
  197. 10
  198. 10
  199. 10
  200. 10
  201. 10
  202. 10
  203. 10
  204. My first smartphone back in the early 2010s had a MediaTek chip in it (MT6575). It had pretty good performance for its era. There were hundreds of different white-label versions of the same reference design, each competing with each other on price and by selecting slightly different components for better battery capacity/RAM/storage/camera etc. The worst part of using a Chinese smartphone was being forced to use the white-label brand's custom modified Android version, complete with all the non-removable Chinese spyware like AdUps: you were stuck with the untrusted vendor's spyware riddled operating system. Advanced users who re-install their operating systems enjoyed very little support from the broader custom ROM community, and no support from the more trusted custom ROMs such as LineageOS (formerly named CyanogenMod). Also the tablet/smartphone manufacturing quality was pretty bad, at least in those days: the microphone and headphone jack broke on that phone, and a similar era tablet had bad overheating and stability issues. That's why I swore off the cheap Chinese white-label brands that MediaTek chips tend find their way into. This was way before the current human-rights situation came to light and modern "boycott China" movement starting gathering momentum. After the subsequent death of the Google's excellent Nexus line, these days I recommend certain Samsung Galaxy M smartphone models. They are very reasonably priced, assembled in Vietnam rather than China (which is better for human-rights), have excellent screen quality if you choose the right model according to the specifications, have exceptionally great battery life (again, if you choose the right model according to the specifications), they get regular security updates from Samsung, and don't have Chinese spyware (but unfortunately have other kinds of bloatware from Samsung). The M series is basically filling the niche that Xiaomi/Oppo/Vivo and the other internationally successful Chinese smartphone brands have been doing quite successfully: great bang-for-buck mid-range phones.
    10
  205. 10
  206. 10
  207. 10
  208. 10
  209. 10
  210. 10
  211. 10
  212. 10
  213. 10
  214. 10
  215. 10
  216. 10
  217. 10
  218. 10
  219. 10
  220. 9
  221. 9
  222. 9
  223. 9
  224. 9
  225. 9
  226. 9
  227. 9
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230. 9
  231. 9
  232. 9
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 9
  237. 9
  238. 9
  239. 8
  240. 8
  241. 7:35 The 750,000 figure you cite for Australia is those born in Hong Kong and mainland China, but there's actually ~1.2 million people with Chinese heritage. (EDIT: I see you're talking about 2011 figures -- you're probably correct on those numbers then). As many reading may know, like the United States, Australia has a long and storied history of anti-Asian racism -- from way back in the 1800s "gold rush" era to the present day. It was particularly pronounced during the 1990s with an anti-immigration 'One Nation Party' led by a woman named Pauline Hanson who made highly controversial statements like "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate". Australia is widely considered an immigration success story, experiencing rapid population growth due to new migrants, but in the present day there's some growing issues. Most alarmingly it's been discovered that the Chinese Communist Party's political interference and infiltration bureau called the United Front Work Department is attempting to switch the allegiances of all ethnically Chinese people around the world -- regardless of their nationality and how little connection they have to China. In 2017, the then-head of China's security services (Meng Jianzhu) threatened Australian politicians that they would "instruct" the Chinese-Australian community to vote against one side of politics if they don't support passing a law (the Australia-China extradition treaty). Since then there's been many instances of Chinese government infiltration and intimidation against the Chinese-Australian community, and the broader society. It's very worrying the growing use of the term "ABC" (meaning American-Born Chinese or Australian-Born Chinese) that is often amplified by China's state media to refer to people who have lived their whole life in Australia or America who happen to be ethnically Chinese. This kind of thing is happening in all the Chinese diaspora communities around the world, but Australia just happens to be more aware of it. It will take a lot of effort to remove this political interference and infiltration, but it's obviously of utmost importance.
    8
  242. 8
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250. 8
  251. 8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 8
  257. 8
  258. 8
  259. 8
  260. 8
  261. 8
  262. 8
  263. 8
  264. 8
  265. 8
  266. 8
  267. 8
  268. 8
  269. 8
  270. 8
  271. 8
  272. 8
  273. 8
  274. 7
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 7
  290. 7
  291. 7
  292. 7
  293. 7
  294. 7
  295. 7
  296. 7
  297. 7
  298. 7
  299. 7
  300. 7
  301. 7
  302. 7
  303. 7
  304. 7
  305. 7
  306. 7
  307. 7
  308. 7
  309. 7
  310. 7
  311. 7
  312. 7
  313. 7
  314. 7
  315. 7
  316. 7
  317. 7
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 6
  333. 6
  334. 6
  335. 6
  336. 6
  337. 6
  338. 6
  339. 6
  340. 6
  341. 6
  342. 6
  343. 6
  344. 6
  345. 6
  346. 6
  347. 6
  348. 6
  349. 6
  350. 6
  351. 6
  352. 6
  353. 6
  354. 6
  355. 6
  356. 6
  357. 6
  358. 6
  359. 6
  360. 6
  361. 6
  362. 6
  363. 6
  364. 6
  365. 6
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. This is the worst Media Watch episode I've seen. I am the always the first to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but the Wuhan Institute of Virology theory is not at all extraordinary. All evidence suggests COVID-19 was NOT genetically engineered. That analysis does not discount the very realistic possibility of it having leaked from the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's very common for virologists to collect virus samples from animals in the routine practice called "disease surveillance". Scientists around the world (including in Australia) do this to better understand the viruses among the animals around us. This helps society get on top of outbreaks among humans or livestock (such as the occasional Australian Bat Lyssavirus outbreaks in people and horses every few years). While there is likely an animal reservoir of a virus similar to COVID-19 somewhere in China, the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is so close the initial Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and is the only place in China authorized to work on coronaviruses (and has done significant amounts of public research on bat coronaviruses) raises a lot of questions. We know that laboratory animals are routinely infected with viruses to study their effects. The idea that lab animals escaped, or were sold for human consumption at the nearby wild life market (whether for food or Traditional Chinese Medicine) is not a wild claim at all. It deserves to be fully and transparently investigated. Unfortunately, we also know that the government of China lies and will not stop at destroying evidence. If the virus did leak from the lab to the initial outbreak at the nearby wildlife market we will likely never get official confirmation. Remember that in China, all COVID-19 research papers must be approved by the government of China. Even if the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I expect the government of China to publish a research paper that discovers a near identical virus occurring in the original animal reservoir, and claim with certainty that's where the virus originated. People need to stop calling the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theory. It's not far fetched at all. We need a independent investigation.
    5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. 5
  393. 5
  394. 5
  395. 5
  396. 5
  397. 5
  398. 5
  399. 5
  400. 5
  401. 5
  402. 5
  403. 5
  404. 5
  405. 5
  406. 5
  407. 5
  408. 5
  409. 5
  410. 5
  411. 5
  412. 5
  413. This is the worst Media Watch episode I've seen. I am the always the first to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but the Wuhan Institute of Virology theory is not at all extraordinary. All evidence suggests COVID-19 was NOT genetically engineered. That analysis does not discount the very realistic possibility of it having leaked from the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's very common for virologists to collect virus samples from animals in the routine practice called "disease surveillance". Scientists around the world (including in Australia) do this to better understand the viruses among the animals around us. This helps society get on top of outbreaks among humans or livestock (such as the occasional Australian Bat Lyssavirus outbreaks in people and horses every few years). While there is likely an animal reservoir of a virus similar to COVID-19 somewhere in China, the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is so close the initial Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and is the only place in China authorized to work on coronaviruses (and has done significant amounts of public research on bat coronaviruses) raises a lot of questions. We know that laboratory animals are routinely infected with viruses to study their effects. The idea that lab animals escaped, or were sold for human consumption at the nearby wild life market (whether for food or Traditional Chinese Medicine) is not a wild claim at all. It deserves to be fully and transparently investigated. Unfortunately, we also know that the government of China lies and will not stop at destroying evidence. If the virus did leak from the lab to the initial outbreak at the nearby wildlife market we will likely never get official confirmation. Remember that in China, all COVID-19 research papers must be approved by the government of China. Even if the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I expect the government of China to publish a research paper that discovers a near identical virus occurring in the original animal reservoir, and claim with certainty that's where the virus originated. People need to stop calling the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theory. It's not far fetched at all. We need a independent investigation.
    5
  414. 5
  415. 5
  416. 5
  417. An assumption from this "debunking" is the idea that relaunching a rocket booster has to cost 50% of the launch cost, which is just plain wrong. There's no fundamental reason rockets can't be "gas and go" without any refurbishment between launches. SpaceX have already landed their first stages more than 70 times and re-launched 50. They have had turnaround times of less than ~50 days, and this duration has been getting shorter. SpaceX are doing detailed inspections for their "fleet leading" boosters right now. But the Merlin 1D engines can take 10 full length burns without inspections, and rocket bodies can be built to withstand repeated launches without inspection. 20:40 "[Competitors] say a break even point is near 10 re-uses and no one's gotten close to that". I'm surprised Thunderf00t didn't check this fact for yourself, because your information is definitely out-of-date: SpaceX already have got 8 re-uses of a Falcon 9 first stage (core B1051 to be exact), and that core is still active and will likely be launched twice more. Also SpaceX competitors argue that you need 10 re-uses to break even is based on the cost profiles of those companies. Most of a rocket's cost is in its engines but this is even more the case for the Falcon 9. The market for rocket launches is currently pretty inelastic, so charging customers significantly less doesn't help boost demand -- it just eats into SpaceX profits. Right now customers are continuing to pay full price for a new booster, and close to new price for a re-used booster but SpaceX's internal accounting is benefiting greatly from the vastly reduced launch costs. They're capturing a lot of these savings by launching 18 Starlink missions so far (and many more coming). If SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch really were eg, $150 million this would not at all be feasible even with the external investment. The reason they can launch Starlink so cheaply is the first stage booster is already fully paid off, because SpaceX are selling the 1st/2nd/3rd launches to a commercial customer (for ~$50 million), then getting a free fully paid off booster that's good for another 7 launches. When SpaceX re-use both fairings (fully paid off by the original customers) then SpaceX just pays for fuel (which is around 200k) and the second stage (which less than $10 million). They are able to do an orbital Starlink launch for pennies on the dollar: a factor of 10 cheaper in low-earth orbit access. The biggest thing from this video I agree with is the price gouging of the government anchor customers like NASA and USAF. This "subsidy" helps pay for SpaceX's fixed costs allowing them to launch at much closer to their marginal cost to anybody who is wants to. But there is no reason that another launch provider couldn't have done that. SpaceX has vastly increasing the number of rockets launched by any single company and capturing the all launches up for competition (pricing all competing launch firms out in the process). They have been a revolution in terms of price and access to space in the notoriously stagnant space-launch industry.
    5
  418. 5
  419. 5
  420. 5
  421. 5
  422. 5
  423. 5
  424. 5
  425. 5
  426. 5
  427. 5
  428. 5
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. 4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. 4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 3
  516. 3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. 3
  526. 3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696. 2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707. 2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. In some way I'm inclined to agree. Almost all areas in Australia without HFC keep their old (formerly Telstra-owned) copper telephone cables (so no digging up people's gardens) while the rest of the network is upgraded to FTTC (so fiber-optics all the way to those oval shaped pits in the footpath). Everyone on FTTC has the option to pay $3000 per residence to upgrade to FTTP (under the "Technology Choice Program"). Side note: I heard from ISP owners that installing a fiber-optic "lead in" shouldn't cost more than $300, so NBN Co charging $3,000 is still a bit crazy. For FTTN, getting FTTP costs a crazy $10,000 upgrade per premises under the "Technology Choice Program". As you may know, FTTC can in theory ~1000mbps speeds with G.Fast, but you may have to replace ageing copper telephone cabling to get there (at which point you may as well install FTTP because most of the installation cost is labour). FTTP is absolutely not "glorified HFC": Yes, HFC can in theory also have speeds in excess of 1000mbps, but you need to have "DOCSIS 3.1" modem endpoints, high quality cabling and most expensively restructure the entire HFC network in a way that allows end users to get those speeds. Australia's HFC network was decided for cable TV (where there's a common signal broadcast to many houses), and restructuring the HFC network to handle this is extremely expensive. While the term GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) is sometimes used interchangeably with FTTP you should be very careful: GPON can refer to the standard "G.984" (which NBN uses to provide a maximum 1000mbps connection), but by simply upgrading the modem in your kitchen (and some equipment in the exchange) you will be able to 10G-PON (10,000mbps), and I believe even NG-PON2 (40,000mbps). Because fiber-optic cables can handle far more data than HFC. The HFC/FTTN/FTTC sounds cost-effective in theory, but so much money has been thrown at trying to make those ageing copper networks fit for purpose. It costs a lot of money to rebuild the HFC or FTTC network to be capable of 1,000mbps. But now there are 10,000mbps and 40,000mbps network speeds that are being rolled out in countries with with fiber-optic networks. Even the Adelaide CBD has that, see GigCity. Starlink and its 150mbps download will not be widely used in dense cities. NBN's FTTP network can get you 1,000mbps download today. And in future 10,000mbps under 10G-PON, with hopefully 40,000mbps under NG-PON2 being rolled out eventually. Simply put: for high-speed internet, nothing compared to fiber-optics.
    2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. The only way to do honest polling is with regular free and fair elections: even the Trump vote was higher than polled in 2016 and 2020 due to the famous "shy Trump voter". I'm sure there's a massive "shy CCP supporter" (and "shy staunchly anti CCP" groups too). High-ranking members of the Taiwanese government have said that Taiwan is not going to unify with China unless it becomes a full-fledged democracy compatible with Taiwan. And the Taiwanese people have been voting clearly against unification with Xi Jinping's China. Especially along generational lines (and everybody sees what happened to Hong Kong). And the most likely way that China will become a democracy is if a reformer like Taiwan's Chiang Ching-kuo makes the Chinese Communist Party a democratically competitive party and slowly loosens the restrictions like Deng Xiaoping did for the economy. It may take a few decades from the leadership to come to the realization that this is the only path forward that would see China growing. Though Xi Jinping may still be in power in 3 decades, so I doubt this will happen. If China doesn't have democratic reform it's a just a matter of time (a few short decades away) until Taiwan formalizes its status as being an independent and sovereign country for more than 150 years (since 1912) and it will formally rename itself the Republic of Taiwan. Time is ticking for China, so the next few decades are dangerous. I recommend listening to Jim Fanell's "Decade of Concern" arguments. The easiest way to do this is from episode #45 of the China Unscripted podcast, which is available on YouTube under the titled "#45 How Big a Threat is China's Navy? | Captain Jim Fanell".
    2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. I've done reading about the GFC in the past and it's indeed very sophisticated. They also approve many VPNs that allow punching through the GFC. Hawkish former Trump advisor Steve Bannon has said ""if we were to take down the firewall which is a 100% within our purview to do" on an interview on YouTube titled "The Chinese Communist Party Is Our Enemy - And What We Must Do To Defeat It" so at least some in the national security sphere are considering the problem. To adapt an old comment of mine from that video (sorry for the length): I think broadcasting 4G/5G mobile internet into China from say Vietnam would not work perfectly, neither would using other mobile-internet based technologies like Google's Project Loon high altitude balloons would not work. Because in the worst case China can always achieve censorship "client-side" (using their total control over end-user devices (eg, any Huawei/Motorola/etc smartphone, or any phone with Chinese spyware including WeChat etc) to block access to external websites. Traditional geostationary satellite internet, or new technologies such as Elon Musk's Starlink would also not work (they need ground-based receivers, and China can and will use spectrum analyzers to track down and immediately execute anybody who is transmitting using an illegal ground-based dish. China could also potentially shoot down the satellites) Cyber attacks against the GFC risk escalating cyber retaliation (not just more hacking/stealing from China, but the United States suddenly experiencing a few Chernobyl style nuclear power plant meltdowns). It's a tough problem. I think economic sanctions (including consumer boycotts) is the only way for the West to eventually cause a peaceful revolution in China (by the people of China) which would bring down the GFC. Other than Trump's tariffs nobody is considering anything like this at the moment.
    1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. I've come across multiple people that believe in a conspiracy theory that China's "Later, Longer, Fewer" policy and the One Child Policy were not designed by the Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party. The theory argues they were tricked by economists working at Western charitable foundations (the Rockerfeller Foundation and Rockerfeller's "Population Council") who convinced them to implement the family planning and population control policies. The reasons they argue were not even based on managing the number of dependent children, but to curb the populations of Asia for racial supremacist reasons. As far as I can tell, it's all conspiracy theorist nonsense, but I've come across a 30 minute documentary on YouTube from 2013 titled "Population Control: The Eugenics Connection" that at least starts out arguing a similar point (I haven't been able to sit through the whole thing yet). The video quality is grainy but it's otherwise relatively well-produced (going as far as including the same background piano track I've heard in actual PBS documentaries grainy 1990s VHS tapes). My concern is that when the Chinese Communist Party eventually comes to the realization that they have made a massive mistake with their population management policies allowing the total fertility rate to fall so far below 2.1 children that they will end up reviving the conspiracy theory in their propaganda to whip up nationalism (in the same way China's propaganda arms have convinced people in China that COVID-19 did not emerge in China).
    1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1