The source of their data says they were using it incorrectly, that it simply does not mean what they reported. I have not gone into exactly what their data is, just that it was reported as total new funded startups and the data provider says, “that’s not what this is”.
It also looks like these numbers might not even be accurate: https://nitter.privacydev.net/NuryVittachi/status/1834747250666508679
I would expect a decrease in VC startups based on the way China is tackling finsnce, though.
I think innovation will happen more through universities and existing large companies. Most research and innovation happens through universities anyways and China is currently having an academia boom.
Companies like Huawei are way up, and domestic consumption is slowly rising.
The metrics here are those most relevant to finance, which is not synonymous with innovation. Startups are notorious money sinks that are only invested in due to a promise of monopoly profits later, basically a gamble. They usually fail, and dramatically. Finance is necessary for private capital investment and liquidity but when it grows too large it becomes parasitic and also tries to dictate policy. The real estate bubble that China is now dealing with is a direct result of financialization and an expectation that it would be “too big to fail” and that real estare finance would get bailed out by government.
China is tackling this issue by limiting the impact of finance on its economy, changing its lending terms and what it guarantees, including not bailing out real estate finance. This has the direct effect of making startups and venture capital less common as they simply can’t make as much money from pure speculation. They don’t have a state-funded safety net for their worst gambles and interest rates are higher.
Overall, this is a good development. China’s finance sector absolutely needed to be limited and it is good for the state to take on a greater role in running companies.
It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts’ union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.
Italians are well-known for being sticklers about the right way to prepare their food, often implying it is ancient. Unless it is a low-oil focaccia or a salad (ancient Roman), it is surprisingly often the case that it is a dish that is 50-100 years old with a foreign influence.
Naples has been making pizza for about 200 years as a basic flatbread with tomatoes, mozarella, and basil. If you eat pizza with a tomato sauce… that’s an American change. Pizza was not often eaten outside Naples [Edit:whoopsie] until around WWII. The most common variations around the world are all based on the American version.
Carbonara was a WWII-era invention with tons of variations at first and an American origin. I’ve known Italians that get actually upset if you prepare carbonara with the “wrong” ingredients even though they were ingredients used on “original” carbonaras less than 50 years ago.
If you go back just a bit farther, every dish that needs tomatoes or potatoes or peppers is from the Americas, not Europe. And Europeans were not big on tomatoes for a looong time. It’s only been in much use there for about 250 years.
Tabasco is tasty and Italian food mythologies are fairly silly.
I guess you aren’t going to stop replying in bad faith. I guess I will have to stop replying. The offer stands, however.
Happy to help you understand when you are ready
I’m always available if you would like to engage in good faith.
If I didn’t want to say xenophobic things I would simply not use Chinese as a derogatory term and then launch into anti-China paranoia as a coping mechanism, inventing fealties from whole cloth.
I am here if you need any help understanding.
We’ve reached, “I have black friends” levels of racist coping.
Thank you for openly confirming your sinophobia.
I never did that. You projected that, and just now, lied about it.
No, it can be understood from how you use the terms. You are adding “Chinese” as a bit of negative spice to your false claim that I am lying or spreading false propaganda. When challenged on this, you attempted to (incorrectly, this is not how language works) redefine “Chinese” to mean “CCP” and, per the typical crypto-sinophobic incantation, not the Chinese people. You then continued to interchangeably use Chinese and CCP as negative epithets.
Your attempt at redefinition actually just dug a new hole. You could just say, “oh wow I don’t mean to suggest that, I will stop” instead of doubling down on treating Chinese like an insult.
I do. I clearly defined the usage, and don’t give two shits about projection from you, or your twisting of the definition.
Your conflation of something being Chinese with something being bad is xenophobic regardless of whether you want to pretend you can redefine it to mean something it doesn’t.
You have claimed, falsely, that China isn’t escalating violence against its neighbors.
I actually haven’t said anything like this. Please provide quotes with your claims because your recollection is incorrect.
Everyone can see that you are, in fact, a CCP shill.
Is that so? When can I expect to receive a check for my valiant effort in knowing installing a nuclear-capable missile is far more escalatory than the tiniest airspace toe dip of a flight path over ocean? Only the finest in professional propagandists could have such an opinion!
You sound upset and are not saying particularly coherent things. It’s okay if you want to take some time to collect yourself, I don’t care about the timeline on which you respond.
For example, you seem upset about perceived personal attacks even though I made none, but seem giddy to be insulting me. Ask yourself if this is correct and good behavior and if you believe you are following the golden rule. Presumably you were taught these things growing up.
Re: it being a reconaissance plane, this is still not an actual offensive weapon nor is it comparable to something banned because it was meant for nukes.
Re: DF17s, if your argument is that parity is justified then you would presumably justify Chins increasing the size of its military and weaponry about 10X and establishing several large bases circling the US, right? Or would you interpret this as a threatening escalation that must be met with even more weapons and capabilities encircling China?
In the context of this particular discussion, China = The CCP ≠ The Chinese people.
I dunno, I think Chinese means Chinese. It sounds like you just throw this around as an epithet and it is sinophobic. Please do some reflection on whether you are okay with xenophobia.
As far as which one are lies? Your entire post history is nothing but Chinese propaganda and lies.
Name one from this comment chain.
It’s not xenophobic to call out CCP bullshit like the shit you are spouting.
Such as?
That’s called being a good human.
I don’t think it’s good human behavior to use xenophobic rhetoric.
Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn’t mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads.
The weapons system was prohibited specifically because of its use with nuclear weapons. This is its distinguishing feature. This is the “message” being sent, though it also isn’t just a message because it is an actual offensive weapon.
Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.
It is obviously not.
You’re spreading Chinese lies.
I am? Which ones? Are Chinese lies a special kind?
Sounds to me like you are flirting with xenophobia.
Cluster bombs and mines are sacrificing so much future Ukrainian life.
Having seen and done this transition I can tell you that companies do very little for innovation compared to university researchers. Companies are exclusively focused on profit, they don’t do the five to ten year moonshot project unless they are already a massive corporation, not a startup, and even then the massive companies want the easiest thing to translate to a product and begin making money. At best they have engineers that make scaling up more practical, and while that is a fun and interesting thing, it is also very straightforward and is something a company has to avoid screwing up, not investing in massively to make it right.
I’ve seen several companies that did literally nothing except swap a couple things on their production line and call it a day. The only transition from research to industry was an IP agreement and a few meetings.
Large companies are not looking for innovation by buying startups, they are usually looking to secure monopolies. Sometimes they want the product and to work it into their own product offerings. This is often a way to vertically integrate more, not innovate. They bring in-house because they see a competitor emerging and want to hedge their bets or because they see a way to take over a market by just doing the same thing. Sometimes it is just a way to hire some employees that seem pretty competent and thereby deprive your competitors. Large companies operate with a monopoly mindset. This is also why Google kills every project that they declare won’t scale into a huge money-maker (they really mean take over a market).
Small companies are often started with the plan of actually making and selling their product long-term but run headfirst into the fact that their industry is dominated by just 3 companies that will gladly do the one-two punch of threatening to bleed you legally with nonsense lawsuits while offering to buy you up. Or, on the flipside, just copying your work and changing it just enough that they know they could bleed you legally even though they have broken IP law. Usually, they would rather just buy you out at less than you are worth but enough to make the VCs happy.