This is very useful. It clears up one misconception in this thread. That all EU countries will require Apple/Google attestation for this to work. This debunks that.
>because you overpromise today, and when it turns out you aren't a prophet, those that trusted you cannot be made whole.
Why are these people obligated to trust Amodei? Why are these people obligate to hand Anthropic money?
I really hate this "Investors should be protected from losses" narrative you see pop up now and again like that isn't the entire natural order on how we conduct these things and somebody not being made "whole" is somehow unfair. It's not theft, Dario will simply accept your money if you give it to him.
You make a bet you can lose. These are grown adults making decisions.
I sure hope no major indices bend or break the rules about including bubble stocks freshly IPOd companies in them, since my entire prospects of retirement are tied up in those indices being relatively stable!
I really hate this "Investors should be protected from losses" narrative - right, we should also retire the SEC and every investor protection law and regulation, because what where we thinking?
Germany is gonna be slapped hard because it's car manufacturers bet heavily on "combustion engines" and being THE "luxury brand" in China in 2016 when everyone could see what direction the hockey puck was going.
EVs were the future then and especially now. German car manufactures placed poor bets.
Isn't that a dream for the government? They get to claim they 'protected jobs' with the tariffs. The government ironically taxes the middle class when they purchase a vehicle via those mechanisms and keeps the money.
If your business and/or nation state culture doesn't support innovation, it must be punished via outcomes. Incentives drive outcomes.
It's humorous when folks argue that China subsidized their core industries. Of course they do, that is their culture, and aligns with their target outcomes. This is why they are a leader in the vast majority of frontier technologies [1]. They are not going to tie their hands because wealthy developed nations demand they do for silly economic configurations.
"Great Allocators of Capital" are maybe not so great after all. Maybe they were just lucky until they weren't.
> Now covering 64 critical technologies and crucial fields spanning defence, space, energy, the environment, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, robotics, cyber, computing, advanced materials and key quantum technology areas, the Tech Tracker’s dataset has been expanded and updated from five years of data (previously, 2018–2022) to 21 years of data (2003–2023).
> These new results reveal the stunning shift in research leadership over the past two decades towards large economies in the Indo-Pacific, led by China’s exceptional gains. The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five years (2019–2023) is leading in seven. China led in just three of 64 technologies in 2003–2007 but is now the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies in 2019–2023, increasing its lead from our rankings last year (2018–2022), where it was leading in 52 technologies.
Indeed, if China "subsidising" their industry is working so well, why don't Western countries do it...
Right... they are too busy selling state assets or allowing local corporations to be taken by private equity or sovereign wealth funds. Which then run them for the benefit of shareholders, or the new owner directly.
Western companies don't exist to provide what consumers want and give them a fair deal anymore. They exist to screw consumers just as much as they can, while taking as much money out for the upper management and paper owners.
This is why there is so much hand-wringing about "China". Chinese companies WANT to give consumers a good deal, they still have a point to prove in high end manufacturing, and obviously the Chinese government would like strong companies they control to project power.
But there is no sign of change to counter this in the West.
Western markets and enconomies have been fully abused by powerful players, they barely pretend to act in the interest of consumers anymore.
Sure, but it _also_ means that protectionism is a valid lever to pull to counter it. It might not work, or it might not work _forever_, but it looks like the US got this half right.
Of course, one would hope the (US) government would use the time they bought their industry to try to catch up, rather than developing new V8 pickups.
I kinda think they should allow a few Chinese cars in. American manufacturers have no incentive to produce anything other than the massive, overpriced trash they've been producing.
The US bans affordable, quality Chinese EVs, but does not force US automakers build affordable EVs. And so, the tariffs are useless. They are a regressive consumer tax while China continues to scale EV production towards ~50M units/year (current manufacturing capacity) and US automakers profitmaxx with large, fuel inefficient combustion vehicles.
If legacy US auto is not scaling EV production, why are the tariffs still in place?
We don't need EVs. I drive one and like it and want to see more but underlying your comments here is a false assumption that if we don't build EVs we're falling behind or something. That's not correct.
While China has been scaling up it's production of vehicles, it'a also facing a 20% YoY decline in vehicle sales internally and thus has to look to export cars. It's currently shut out of the highly profitable and second largest (by volume, perhaps largest by $$) market and because of these factors and incoming EU action to prevent China from destroying the European auto industry faces companies who have built factories that were geared toward building 100,000s of thousands of vehicle but are only building a few thousand.
> If legacy US auto is not scaling EV production, why are the tariffs still in place?
Because your assumption is wrong. We don't need to scale EV production. Tariffs are in place because the engine and fuel source don't matter as much as having the industry does. While I also am in favor of competition, there's a balance to be had in maintaining good union jobs and preventing entire industries from collapsing due to all sorts of fair and unfair trade practices. It's the same approach the EU has broadly taken with its own products and market. The US is just playing catch up where it can or feels it needs to.
Falling behind in what, is the question. The race to electrify is because we're cooking the planet with fossil fuel usage, and electric cars are the future in which we don't choke ourselves out. Electrify transportation and move the grid to renewal resources. The economy is one thing but we only have one Earth.
See even this is an assumption. We don't need electric cars - we need to walk and bike (i.e. better building patterns). Creating EVs still creates emissions, you still have to mine the resources to make them, and you still use ships to transport then from China which aren't electrified. Using a lot of energy to drive a few miles to get a loaf of bread isn't sustainable no matter whether it's an EV, Hybrid, or ICE vehicle.
But if you think this is a big deal that needs to be solved (and I'm no opponent to saving the planet and reducing emissions or any of those things) my recommendation would first be to get China to release its hold on rare earth mineral processing, and then have them voluntarily give away EV and battery technology to other countries building cars so we can work on this problem together. Unfortunately China lost the trust of the western countries through its action and so we're sort of stuck in this situation because of them. None of the EU, Japan, Korea, or America are going to let their auto industry be destroyed and lose all of those good jobs just for the sake of the environment. It's a non-starter. If you think that's the approach to take you're probably wasting your time.
I'd be a huge supporter of building out more walking, biking and public transit options; besides the environment, those are good for physical health too. However, that boat has long sailed in the US. Current urban and suburban layouts are just way too spread out and can only be traversed by car. It's unfortunate, but if you don't have a car in the US, I feel like you're essentially an invalid.
At this point, even if we could overcome the cultural resistance to deprioritizing cars, we really cannot do so. Hence the only realistic option seems to be optimizing cars to avoid emissions. Even if EV's just move the pollution somewhere else, on the whole they are way better than gas cars.
It hasn’t sailed, that’s a misconception. While in many metropolitan areas the suburbs would be difficult to reconfigure, the core of those same cities are sitting on acres and acres of empty space that can be used for development of housing and businesses and with an expansion of good transportation options can enable a car-free lifestyle or even just minimize the number of trips you take.
We make an impact not with a wholesale big dig style project but piece by piece. When that neighborhood grocery store opens in walking distance you can walk instead of drive. Maybe you still take your car to work everyday but we can still reduce emissions in other areas.
EVs just aren’t the answer to these problems, well, not at the expense of American workers, good union jobs, and our manufacturing capacity.
Oh for sure, I agree there's a lot of space, but reconfiguring all the existing construction to become denser seems like a much longer timeline than transitioning to EVs. I've not really done the numbers on this, but comparing most suburbs with a dense walk/bike/public transit-friendly city like, say, NYC is like a day-and-night difference, which makes a broad reconfiguration seem very far off. Maybe my reference points are too extreme?
Also, to increase density the thing that people would need to give up, in addition to cars, is private backyards. I feel like that is a much bigger cultural hurdle to overcome, since that is like 50% (including the white picket fences!) of the home ownership part of the traditional American Dream.
We don’t need to reconfigure anything, just build. Columbus where I live has 1,000 acres of surface parking lots and empty lots. We can just literally build downtown and reduce emissions and car usage.
We don’t need to give up private back yards. I live in an urban neighborhood and have one. Now some of the building I’ve suggested would be much higher density but not all of it needs to be. I think your reference points are a bit too extreme. I wouldn’t even talk about suburbs or New York in this, they don’t matter.
I drive an EV and I prefer it, but it’s just a non-starter to import Chinese EVs at the expense of union jobs and the American auto industry. Even if that means ongoing negative effects to the environment (overpopulation is another factor too for example).
The world sells 90M units/year of light vehicles, as of this comment. You cannot stop people from buying light vehicles (broadly speaking; several countries have banned combustion vehicle imports already, and hopefully this trend continues). If they will be bought, they should be EVs. If they are not now, they will eventually be, based on current trajectories. 100% within ~10 years I think, maybe a bit longer. Legacy auto and nation states can protect their domestic markets only for so long, and countries without any domestic auto manufacturing are going to consume all of the cheap EVs China will build for them.
- “China’s electric vehicle exports continue to break records, and the surge in shipments to ASEAN markets is especially striking,” said Euan Graham, a Senior Electricity and Data Analyst (Global) at Ember. “Southeast Asia is fast becoming one of the most dynamic destinations for electric vehicles, and China is supplying that demand at scale and speed.”
- Singapore, 24 June 2026 – China’s electric vehicle exports reached a record $9.2 billion, up 49% year-on-year, in May 2026, according to new data from global energy think tank Ember. The previous record was in April 2026 at $9.1 billion.
- In May 2026, China shipped a record value of electric vehicles abroad, exceeding the previous monthly high set in April and underscoring the country’s dominance in global EV manufacturing. China exported around 448,000 electric passenger cars in May, roughly 279,000 battery-electric vehicles and 169,000 plug-in hybrids. EV exports have closed in on lithium-ion batteries as the largest of the “new three” cleantech export categories, having grown from under $1 billion a month in 2020.
- Exports to Southeast Asia reached an all-time high of $1.2 billion in May 2026, as ASEAN nations accelerated the electrification of their vehicle fleets. The surge was led by Thailand, which took a record of more than 36,000 Chinese electric cars in May, and the Philippines, where shipments climbed above 33,000 vehicles.
- "To decarbonize road transport, the world must move away from petrol and diesel cars towards electric vehicles and other forms of low-carbon transport. This transition has already started. In fact, global sales of combustion engine cars are well past their peak and are now falling. As you can see in the chart, global sales peaked in 2017. This is calculated based on data from the International Energy Agency. Bloomberg New Energy Finance also estimated this peak occurred around that time. Sales of electric cars, on the other hand, are growing quickly. They more than doubled in the three years from 2022 to 2025." [My note: Rate of change! Doubling in 3 years, and it is very likely the time it takes before next doubling continues to decline.]
Certainly, there is a place for mass transit, biking (including e-bikes!), and walking where possible. In lots of places, it isn't possible, and so EVs will be sold to folks who want them. The faster we can impair combustion vehicles sales, the faster we get to 100% EV sales. If you want mobility, electric only.
Yea it's fine that China builds electric bikes because that's not a manufacturing capacity that the west cares about. In the US and Canada at least we need better infrastructure so that more people are riding them, or manual bikes, or walking.
> Certainly, there is a place for mass transit, biking (including e-bikes!), and walking where possible. In lots of places, it isn't possible, and so EVs will be sold to folks who want them. The faster we can impair combustion vehicles sales, the faster we get to 100% EV sales. If you want mobility, electric only.
I also disagree that "in a lot of places it isn't possible". It is, actually. Most people live in urban areas and if we slightly adjust how we build and allow for proper levels of density then we don't even have to sell cars (which are a huge burden for the less wealthy).
There is no goal to get to 100% EV sales. If there is, I would support it as long as they're not Chinese. I'd rather buy another ICE vehicle than a Chinese EV because I care more about union jobs, American manufacturing capacity, and things like that than I do muddled visions of "if we just had EVs we would save the planet".
> Legacy auto and nation states can protect their domestic markets only for so long,
Well we can do it forever.
> and countries without any domestic auto manufacturing are going to consume all of the cheap EVs China will build for them.
Yea that's totally fine. The profitable customers though still remain in the west so if China wants to sell low priced EVs and follow the Android-ification strategy of gaining low-value market share I say more power to them. But we're not going to allow our jobs to go away and our industries to collapse. It's non-negotiable.
As your articles point out, China's increasing exports particularly to nearby countries which never had American markets to really begin with. I say that's a great thing for everyone. But you also have to acknowledge that the drive for Chinese exports is because of manufacturing overcapacity (this is a fact that can't be disputed) and because auto sales in China are falling (20% YoY) and their internal market is facing quite the challenge. But since we have auto industries we're not going to allow ours to collapse just to save Chinese jobs. It's nonsense.
> But we're not going to allow our jobs to go away and our industries to collapse. It's non-negotiable.
He said, in the thread "Mercedes-Benz to halt 'all future investments' in Germany." and while VW has ~100k layoffs planned. You say "allow it" like it is a choice. You can play to win, or lose, and western automakers are not currently playing to win. Maybe this changes! But probably not. It's easy to change, accept a reduction in profits and invest in EV production. But you're not keeping historical profits and winning, as a legacy automaker, as long as Chinese automakers are willing to make ~5% margins on their vehicles.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50484586 ("This is on the heels of VW also pulling out of Germany (as of just two days ago). VW is scrapping their biggest plant in Dresden and also shifting manufacturing to Eastern Europe and out of Germany for four other plants. German automakers can not longer remain competitive, for a few reasons.")
Certainly looks like the jobs are going away and the industries are collapsing, based on a preponderance of the evidence.
That's because auto sales collapsed in China [1] - did you forget the comment where I pointed out Chinese market sales are down 20% YoY across the board? - not because all of a sudden a bunch of Chinese EVs were imported. Volkswagen is working on building a massive new manufacturing facility in the US even [3].
Of course, the import of Chinese EVs would have an effect [2], and how the EU responds to that will be very interesting, but you're not looking at the broad picture and instead focusing on an ideological argument.
I am looking at the economics and trajectories, I'm unsure you think this is ideology. EV sales continue to rise, and China makes them, no other country is building EVs at this scale, and that is unlikely to change in the near term. Are EV sales globally going to go down? No, they are doubling every 2-3 years. Is China going to slow down building? No, they have to keep their exports humming. The world is their market, and they will sell into it forever (~90M units/year, as mentioned). Some countries may attempt or succeed at keeping them out, but the rest of the world will take the cheap EVs.
Do you disagree with this? My entire thesis is data, evidence, and observation driven. Are you arguing someone will build faster? If so, who? Provide evidence. Are you arguing protectionist policies? Sure, but only a few countries have auto manufacturing to protect, the rest of the world does not. So, where's the disconnect?
I've already explained in my posts above what the picture is. I don't really have anything else to say when you're just repeating what I've already walked through. Maybe someone else has some different insight. I hope you have a nice day!
Too big to fail. In the 1970s in Ireland there was a 12 month period in the space of a 5 years, where no banks operated due to a huge strike by the workers. The country just ticked along with everyone extending IOUs to each other for when the banks came back online.
It's just one of those things, you'd think the economy or country would collapse effectively but things just tick on by they way they always did. Imagine the banks in the US closing for 6 months?
1. China, to take down one of the keys to Nvidia's success and potentially sabotage US dominance in AI and hardware, right as they've started their own.
2. The US gov, who may have been worried about Jensen's "loyalty".
3. The US gov, who were previously skimming money off of illegal sales but now need to do performative justice to prevent themselves from being held accountable after the change in governance last week.
4. A coordination between the US gov and AI firms, who may not have appreciated Jensen's open-ness toward open models and likely refusal to install firmware-level blocks for "unapproved" models.
The term "performative justice" seems to be a theme, and reminds me of "Hegseth awards medal to soldier who reprimanded him and aides at Arlington Cemetery."
Big CEO has affair, even with the intelligence angle, is pretty routine kompromat fodder.
The normal pathway would be that this would be disclosed to said horny capitalist via state security, with the understanding that they'll behave in certain circumstances and that it will be ensured that things go no further. This is a win for Uncle Sam.
That this didn't happen is telling. Obviously, cui bono gives quite a long list, but the state would have needed to be on side.
A pub must serve drink. It doesn't need to serve food.
In Ireland that distinction matters. It generally will affect other things, like what time and how loud music will be played, how the tables and chairs will be organised and what type. It will often affect opening hours and the price of a pint. Gastro pubs also tend to be much larger.
In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs, possibly why that lady couldn't see the difference. I personally love micropubs and they never serve food other than crisps and maybe a toastie.
I feel like a pedant but I get that dude in his 20s and had to speak up.
> In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs
To be fair, at least in the US, anything calling itself a "pub" is already going down a marketing/branding road and it almost certainly means they're going to try to evoke an Irish or British sensibility.
reply