Russia supplied 77 per cent of China’s purchases

Not exactly a surprise, then. And good luck for the Russian’s arm industry bouncing back, considering its performance on the battlefield and its interleaving with western tech that it hasn’t managed to decouple itself from since 2014. China’s only taking a reasonable stance there.

If this community ever wants to be taken seriously, shouldn’t it forbid random users from modifying the title of linked content?

I figured starship.rs but not the CTT part, any pointer to help me?

Been using it for months, haven’t gotten to use the sync yet, my only regret so far is that it doesn’t support case insensitive search which is a pretty big deal for me unfortunately.

Per Capita equivalent CO2 emissions is quite high, but measurably on the decline as a result of more efficiency (mentioned in the article)

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/16/world/russia-ukraine-news make what you want of it, as I said, this is off-topic.

Again, not a military expert, but have you been living under a rock for several years and missed this whole Ukrainian “special military operation”?

Russia’s hyped Kinzhal missiles, which promised to defeat air defence systems and be manoeverable at supersonic speeds are being shot down by 80’s era surface to air missiles. And I don’t think anyone has been in a position to assess China’s capabilities in the matter and I have no interest in discussing your beliefs.

Edit: forgot to say this really has nothing to do with advanced lithography, anyways…

EUV is complex. And more so than the accomplishments you mentioned: nuclear weapons were cracked in the 1940’s, probe moon landings in the 50’s and space stations in the 70’s. All have since been reproduced by several nations in isolation. That is not the case of state of the art lithography. No single nation “owns” it because it truly is a multinational endeavor.

(And actual hypersonic missiles haven’t made it to the battlefield, and 5G is about commoditization and standardization, by the ITU, an organ of the united nations, so I’m not sure exactly how that adds to your rhetoric)

smuglord

Way to put your ignorance on display.

You obviously fall into the trap of believing that hard science cares about politics, and that money thrown at problems as part of national strategic planning magically solves them. But for anyone else legitimately interested in understanding the topic better and having a glimpse at its complexity, those are great resources:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmgkV83OhHA

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw

If the above is too advanced, this can serve as a good primer and answers “how the heck did we get there”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9NEnWmyMo

Also, I never wrote that China will never get to EUV (or eventually something beyond that), just that it will take a very long time, because the complexity is spread across several very distinct scientific disciplines, integrating them is a challenge of its own (again, watch the videos), and packaging this into a system that meets the scale and reliability requirements to make it commercially viable hasn’t been reproduced to date.

Yup, though you are comparing 19th century tech to cutting edge tech: the PRC isn’t going to crack EUV lithography on its own any time soon

No better way to boost diversion, and probably a net win for the planet considering how dirty and environmentally harmful the rare earth supply chain is today.

There is zero evidence

Did you miss the whole article at the top of this thread, and detailed analysis it refers to? I’ll make it even simpler for you and save you one click:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/sites/5/2023/09/Sahel-Gabon-Coup-Playbook-PDF.pdf

The onus of the proof is on you to debunk this paper as fallacious, and I’d love to read your take on it.
The rest of your comment is just insults and doesn’t bring anything to the argument.

Colonialism is terrible because it deprived people from their right to self determination.
But somehow, when Russia organizes a coup against a democratically elected government in the 21st century, this is totally fine. Oh, yogthos, the public display of your cognitive dissonance is a wonder to witness day after day :)

I’m selfhosting a Matrix server and have all my Chats from other apps also bridged to there.

Same here, but with XMPP in place of Matrix. For historical context, XMPP was invented about 25 years ago on the premise that people were already tired of having their instant messaging scattered over multiple protocols (rather than Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Discord, iMessage now, it was Yahoo, MSN, AIM, ICQ, … then), so bridging is very much front and center in the XMPP world. Over time, people also realized that bridging sucks in general (you either dumb down your client to the lowest common denominator which sucks for yourself, or your client isolates itself from the source protocol enough that it sucks for everyone else).
To add insult to injury, most modern protocols also forbid, by their ToS, the use of alternative clients (which very much includes bridges), and to the best of my knowledge WhatsApp, Signal and Discord will eventually suspend your account on this basis.
Matrix is still trying to carve a niche for itself in this space, and is failing IMO (judging by the quality/security of the bridges they have come-up with, and the recent libera.chat fiasco). I’d say that the situation in this regard in XMPP is only marginally better due to the fact that XMPP had a decade headstart to fail and try over, and I would not recommend using bridges on either of them if that can be avoided.

It XMPP better for group VC?

I’d say “it depends”. Fun fact, Matrix uses jitsi-meet under the hood (which is XMPP + a media transcoding/multicasting component that doubles as a relay), and jitsi-meet is my recommendation for this use-case: as long as the central server has good bandwidth, you can really scale up your VC to many attendees. On top of that, XMPP has support for peer-to-peer group VC, with the benefit that hosting is simpler, it doesn’t require any central component/relay (but the bandwidth cost is incurred on all participants and you won’t go beyond a handful of attendees that way).

I’d rather push for XMPP personally, the matrix protocol has been a dumpster fire in an “almost ready, trust me bro” state for as long as it has existed, and failed to justify its own weight and complexity. But that’s mostly irrelevant since they are open protocols and can somewhat bridge with one another.

People don’t choose, people use whatever most people around them use. Whatsapp and telegram are both centralized, and shouldn’t be trusted because, by the nature of it, they can (and eventually will) turn user-hostile.

Messengers come and go, if we really want to make some progress in this area, we should embrace federated and p2p protocols as the logical evolution. Anything else is just wasting time and user privacy.