A lot of what made Disney so beloved is remaking and adapting existing works. There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of remixing, it is in fact the driver and source of a lot of great culture we've had the honor of experiencing over hundreds, thousands of years (yet particularly in the past 50).
What I don't understand why people seem to think Disney alone should benefit from existing works, and nobody else. Or that copyright being restricted to a single entity is the best way to ensure "good" works being produced.
There are reasons they might not, and that is that the rest of the world also has time and money. China is not infinite.
Catching up is definitely a lot easier and yes it does take time, but it's not a given. They've been trying to catch up with jet engines for almost as long as the west or Russia have been working on them, certainly would have out-spent the Russians by a wide margin on the effort. So far unable to match western or even Russian designs. Although maybe in just the past few months they might have finally got something which is at least good enough, just spending a lot of money for a long time doesn't guarantee results.
The Chinese have been seriously trying to catch up in turbofan engines only since 1986. They are now far enough ahead as to be very comparable to the Russians.
They are nowhere even near to having spent as much as the Russians in resources. You forget that the economy of the USSR was a massive powerhouse, that allocated absolutely massive incestments in military technology.
The Chinese, on the other hand, acrually aren't incesting as much money on these technologies as one would think. The only company (SOE) that has any stake in jet engines is Shenyang, and despite also making whole aircraft, drones and so on, they have 15 000 employees for the whole operation.
Comparatively, Pratt and Whitney, which does only engines and nothing else, and is one of four companies capable of making modern turbofan engines, has more than twice the employees as Shenyang, which designs and manufactures multiple different aircraft. Boeing has ten times as many employees as Shenyang.
As far as outinvesting the Russians, we can compare again the number of employees. The most advanced Russian engines are produced by UEC Saturn, which only makes engines, and by itself has 21 000 employees.
That's again more than Shenyang, which doesn't only make engines.
So no, it's patently false that the Chinese are deploying more resources with less results.
No they have been seriously trying before then, it's just that they had failed and were somewhat covered by USSR. Even if we take that date, 40 years and countless actual engines to study and they're not even there yet!
> They are nowhere even near to having spent as much as the Russians in resources. You forget that the economy of the USSR was a massive powerhouse, that allocated absolutely massive incestments in military technology.
China is far bigger than USSR ever was, and has been for a while, it also has massive military investments and has always had far more people it could China is absolutely massive in terms of population it can bring to task. So I doubt this. USSR had a pretty large GDP by the end of it yes, but just looking at that is the same mistake as just looking at China's GDP now -- it was not always that large.
> The Chinese, on the other hand, acrually aren't incesting as much money on these technologies as one would think. [etc]
Well I don't think anybody actually knows what exactly they are investing other than they've clearly wanted competitive engines for 60-70 years. But either way this matches what I say about the noise coming from China not really matching the results coming from them, in terms of innovation and developing new technology.
Nope, before the Sino-Soviet split and shortly thereafter there was zero serious effort to build jet engines. They were producing Soviet designs under license and working on that until the mid 80s.
China never, ever, ever had anywhere near the engineering resources of the Soviet Union. To suggest as much is insanity. They arrived to that level somewhere before 2010.
China already has competitive engines. They can and do simply buy Russian engines. Domestic engine development is a nice-to-have, and not a huge priority. This is obviously reflected in the low budgets and the low number of employees in these programs. This is public information.
> Nope, before the Sino-Soviet split and shortly thereafter there was zero serious effort to build jet engines.
Nope, the WP-1A was built in 1958. Just because they were incapable of designing their own competitive jet engine does not mean they were not attempting to.
> China never, ever, ever had anywhere near the engineering resources of the Soviet Union. To suggest as much is insanity. They arrived to that level somewhere before 2010.
You mean somewhere after? Totally disagree. Clearly there were not good or well run resources like the soviets, but they had the money and the manpower earlier than that. If you're just looking at GDP overlap that is misleading because it does not account for more people in China, or the relative advantage it gets from much stronger computing power and ability to copy more advanced designs. Also you're taking the GDP from the height of the USSR, which is not representative of its economic power for those same 70 years it was designing engines.
> China already has competitive engines. They can and do simply buy Russian engines.
Not the most advanced ones.
> Domestic engine development is a nice-to-have, and not a huge priority. This is obviously reflected in the low budgets and the low number of employees in these programs. This is public information.
That shows how much you know. It is a huge priority for them and it has been for a long time.
In 1958 the Chinese built the WP-5/PF-1 the WP-1A, which was a license built version of the Soviet VK-1 and descendants.
The first Chinese-designed jet engine was the WP-14, and the project started in the mid 80s.
China did not have enough engineers to rival the USSR until after the fall.
> That shows how much you know. It is a huge priority for them and it has been for a long time.
It really hasn't. Defence in general is not a big priority of the Chinese state. Even within defence, producing new airframes is a much bigger than domestic engines.
> Not the most advanced ones.
Incorrect. The most advanced Russian engine in mass production is the AL-31F series, which is sold to China. Further developments intended for production, the AL-41F, are not in mass production.
> In 1958 the Chinese built the WP-5/PF-1 the WP-1A, which was a license built version of the Soviet VK-1 and descendants.
The WP-5 was the VK-1 clone which was the first jet built in China in 1956.
The WP-1A was a Chinese design in built in 1958.
After that they claim not to have developed any, but that's because they were all failures until Kunlun which they don't want to boast about so they make that one sound like the very first effort. It was not.
> China did not have enough engineers to rival the USSR until after the fall.
Maybe. It doesn't take 30 years to train an engineer though. How many engineers did they have?
> It really hasn't.
It really has. They've been trying to reverse engineer and clone Russian engines for a long time. Why would they be doing that if they were satisfied just buying Russian?
> Defence in general is not a big priority of the Chinese state. Even within defence, producing new airframes is a much bigger than domestic engines.
That's what they claim of course because they don't like to draw attention to their failures.
> Incorrect. The most advanced Russian engine in mass production is the AL-31F series, which is sold to China. Further developments intended for production, the AL-41F, are not in mass production.
I feel like you're unfairly biased. The author doesn't say what you think they do. All they're saying is that there was a lab leak of delta in 2021 as an example of lab leaks being possible. They do not argue that this was the source of delta, nor that this was the source of any other strain. Just that it happened.
Sorry, the hysteria on HN is ridiculous. At least read the damn thing and try to be objective about it.
Where to even begin with this. I'm unfairly biased because I misread what he said? After re-reading, I can see that he may not have been making the point I thought he was making. I'd argue he should make a point like that more clear, but fine, it's on me that I misinterpreted.
> the hysteria on HN is ridiculous.
"Hysteria"? How do you get hysteria from my response? Because I asked for citations for what I thought was an extreme claim?
> At least read the damn thing
I did. Reading it was a pre-requisite for posting my response, which cited specific links he included.
> and try to be objective about it.
Asking for high quality sources was my attempt to be objective.
--
Edit: Actually, you know what, I take it back. If you write a sentence like this, it's on you if it's misinterpreted:
"For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021."
Heck, I'm not even sure it wasn't the author's intent at this point.
"For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." - is exactly (mechanically) true in that Delta did leak out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021.
This statement does not declare that Delta’s origins were a lab leak, since late 2021 is a year after Delta was first detected in late 2020. Can’t have your origins in the future until time travel is invented.
Seems therefore more proper to interpret the statement exactly as written rather than add additional conspiratorial inferences.
Perhaps the audience for that blog isn't the regular hn reader because I read it the same way as d23. I get that an origin leak can't come after delta was already spreading but most of us aren't drawing a timeline on the side while reading either.
It’s also abundantly clear if you’re reading the whole article from the start, because the whole article is claiming Omicron is the second virus to originate from a lab, after the original strain.
Yes, s/he clarified it.
"[Edited, 5 Jan 2021, to add: Many people have been confused about the statement about delta, so I must have worded it poorly. I’m not saying delta originated in a lab leak. I’m saying delta escaped from a lab late in 2021 where it was being used in research. It’s an example of a research-related lab leak.]"
I don’t know the details of the Delta conspiracy theory, but the evolution of Delta looks abundantly natural, so whatever that theory is, seems unlikely.
I do see why you could have misunderstood that statement, but I at least understood it correctly on my first read, and didn't think anything more of it (except that I hadn't known about this particular leak before, and thought that was interesting) until reading your comment here.
So while I can see why you might have found that confusing, I also think the author could have believed the wording wasn't confusing, and is innocent of any accusations of bad intent. I think that's where the "hysteria" accusation comes from (though I agree that's a bit out of line): you seem pretty adamant about painting the author with a bad-faith brush, even after your misunderstanding was corrected. That's not ok either; just admit that you misunderstood and overreacted, and move on.
I'm not sure I buy this omicron lab leak theory, though I do think there may be better (if incredibly circumstantial) evidence for this than for the original virus being a lab leak from Wuhan. Under the assumption that the author is wrong, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the argument is sincere, if flawed.
I agree that phrasing it like that invites misinterpretation.
And when publishing on a subject with as much disinformation as this, it is your duty to be as clear and precise as possible in order to avoid misinterpretations and being misquoted.
This article indeed does not make any direct claim, it is just speculating, but expect to see a wave of disinformation from the usual offenders soon, linking to this and afterwards to eachother.
Plausible, yes. If the data exists, it should be made public. The article still mostly just makes a hypothesis and makes the argument that this is something that should be seriously investigated, not that the author has determined without a doubt that this is a lab leak.
Sure - but what are the chances that whichever hospitals did the sequencing even know they're in possession of the intermediate data? The OPs' method of "just asking questions" is really bad science and feels a whole lot like the God of the Gaps argument style that Creationists are so fond of using.
I'm not sure the best way to judge the quality of a scientific argument is whether it 'feels like good science.'
While the author is obviously only scratching the surface in an article targetted at non-scientists, the several PhDs he cites make decent arguments that are based on a little more than feelings. It would probably be more in line with the ideal of 'good science' to actually investigate the possibilities presented than dismiss them from emotional associations.
It is a worrying trend that the way science feels is increasingly more important than the actual evidence (or lack thereof). One could even describe the current attitude towards science outside of scientitific institutions as religious.
Same here. I skimmed parts of the beginning, then upvoted because I found it interesting. I don't feel we should be squashing everything that might challenge our existing beliefs just because. Then HN would just be like every other awful social media site out there. If people have substantive problems with the article, they should articulate them as comments instead of blindly flagging something and hoping nobody ever has the opportunity to think about it.
Yes, and it's sad because there's so much to say about the Game Boy and its followers, and I'm not even talking about being more complex, just more information would have been nice. And it might have been better with real pictures of the inside of the consoles, instead of the scans which look cool but add nothing else (it hides more than it shows). Just looking cool might of course be enough as it attracts some people not interested in the subject, so I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just disappointed as someone mildly interested on the subject.
I completely agree. I think this would've been more impressive if they left the DSi and Switch out of this.
You could dedicate an entire thesis worth of information to the DS section alone. This page should've focused on the Gameboys legacy, but I imagine it was difficult to obtain devices to scan, they likely used what they had on hand, and am glad they did create it.
If anyone wants to work together to make scans of more devices, I own a very large number of these handheld devices and would be willing to have them scanned.
It's absolutely fair. Try to find an Intel CPU on the market without a node disadvantage. Doesn't exist. We can only (and it only makes sense to) compare what exists now, what consumers are able to buy right now. If Intel magically comes up with a CPU that runs on a similar node, then sure, but until then, the reality is that they're on the market at a node disadvantage. That's not something you can just wave away as "oh, well, Apple has a better node". All that matters is what devices you can buy and what their performance/power metrics are actually like.
Agreed. The argument seems to be I’ll be happy with Intel if IPC etc is competitive as I want the raw power and don’t care about battery life etc. Which might just be true for a very small section of the laptop buying market but leads to a much less useful product for the very large majority.
Maybe worry about leveling the playing field first? There's so much money and research and development going into Java that there's no possible way for Java to end up with a "decaying ecosystem" inside the next twenty years. It's like pointing out DuckDuckGo and worrying about Google.
I'm so glad that terrorists are largely unimaginative and/or incompetent. There are so many targets, including trains, that they're ignoring that would be so much easier to hit.
I think what many people seem to be missing is that you don't need to kill 3000 people. If you kill 1000, spread out across 10 cities, you're going to cause a lot of fear and chaos.
