All you need to fix that is 3:2 pulldown, which all modern TVs should be able to do.
Unfortunately this is another basic feature that tends to be "branded" on TVs. On my Sony Bravia it's split into a combination of features called Cinemotion and Motionflow.
It's most accurate to say that China is still run by folks who are committed communists. These planners, by virtue of their decades of experience, understand the social value of markets and broad based technological growth, and want to wield those even better than liberal planners.
"diversity" is an overbroad concept that covers many disparate social practices, a lot of which have nothing to do with technological progress.
I guess that the more focused question is whether China needs to import some amount of tech talent to succeed, at least temporarily. The reporting on this EUV prototype does suggest that that is what they did, giving foreign researchers special visas and whatnot.
I have to admit that the objective and historical parts of your analysis are completely correct and well researched, even though I totally disagree with you about the subjective merits and morality of the whole thing. Kudos.
US unipolar hegemony has averted an all-out war, but it has also been very bloody, or at least immiserating, for people at its periphery.
Multipolarity doesn't imply we go back to the 1910s. The idea would be to strengthen multilateral institutions that put a check on things like the World Wars.
>Even if the US and China were at parity in AI systems, it seems likely that China could direct more talent, capital, and focus to military applications of the technology. Combined with its large industrial base and military-strategic advantages, this could help China take a commanding lead on the global stage, not just for AI but for everything.
China spends 1.5% of its GDP on its military. The US spends 3.5%. I get that the two countries are engaged in competition for dominance, but why is China the bigger threat here?
Also, there are a great deal of groups and institutions out there that are pushing for more diplomacy, more cooperation, and a ratcheting down of tensions. If Dario is going to get political anyway, why not go that route?
"In a Monday note, strategists Joana Freire and Stephen Jen calculated that the greenback accounted for about two-thirds of total global reserves in 2003, then 55% by 2021, and 47% last year."
You can make the argument that the decline of this number will be a lot slower than 2021-2022 going forward, or that it will perhaps bottom out at a relatively high number. But the trend is there.
The World Uyghur Congress is not some politically neutral group made up of concerned immigrants and activists. It has US state backing and intelligence connections.
Whether you are convinced by the allegations they have made against the Chinese government or not, it's not inaccurate to call it a political entity. Its name is a bit misleading and makes one think that it represents members of this ethnic group around the world.
Clubhouse seems to attract the extraverted and narcissistic, those who live to self-promote and "hustle." So for white people, that's VCs, and then there's the analogous types of Black people.
As far as politics it doesn't seem as left-wing as Twitter, I haven't seen any socialists or communists yet. I've seen a lot of standard liberal types but then also people with idiosyncratic politics (Black people who think BLM is a Soros conspiracy for example).
I understand that's the claim, but on the other hand, the biggest Muslim ethnic group (Hui) aren't repressed.
Which makes you ask, what's the difference between Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups like the Hui? Well, the biggest as far as I can tell is the influx of new, extremist ideologies like Wahhabism that are actually quite _incompatible_ with the indigenous culture. The reasons why that happened seem complex, but maybe you can say it's an unfortunate outcome of US and Russian meddling in the region over decades.
It's absolutely true that there's increased security and surveillance targeted at Uyghurs in the region, I've seen a lot of videos taken by travelers from the area that confirm that. There's also a coordinated and systemic program of re-education, as admitted by Chinese authorities. I'm sure there is a non-zero amount of abuses as part of this whole program, but I don't think that's the same thing as genocide. & I think the stated reason in their propaganda for _why_ this is all happening passes the smell test... Otherwise, wouldn't they be repressing Hui Muslims as well?
(Also see Tibet -- people said the same thing about Tibetan culture 20 years ago, but it's pretty well-understood now that there were foreign-funded separatist elements back then)
But the question is, _why?_ What's their incentive to apply more cruel population control on one ethnic group over others? We're talking about a repressive government, but not a race-based regime like Nazi Germany was. Indeed from their own propaganda they seem like they bend over backward to trumpet the well-being of their ethnic minorities, and you'll hear of cases of the Great Firewall censoring outpourings of nationalist/racist sentiment.
The more boring explanation is the simpler one I think; that they're bringing policies toward minorities in line with policies toward the majority -- i.e. ending a form of "affirmative action" they used to have.
You can argue that population control of _any_ kind is wrong and cruel, and I think that's a totally defensible argument, but there's a rhetorical sleight of hand going on here where people equate China's controversial population control measures (that have been ongoing for decades) with the elimination of a particular ethnic minority, Nazi-style.
Because part of the contract you mention involves adhering to employment law, which generally says that companies cannot fire people for union activity.
All of the Western providers with sufficient capacity will be able to make it available when the weights are released Monday.