China does't care about the labor issue..

Remember, China has learned a lot from the US.. and one lession the US taught them is:

1: Steal the tech first.. (People bitch at China, but the US started it by stealing everyone else's tech to grow its nacent industries).
2: Focus on the high value items (Labor isn't high value, but design/architecture/marketing/sales IS high value.. those that "build" are the "necessary" step needed but can be replaced with anyone.
3: Create a dependancy on them by favorable terms (again for labor) and association which in tern creates a favorable set of policies.. to continue with that dependancy..

First off, not very true... China rose up because its primary focus has been the LONG game.. which means tangible skills that are focused on production.. (and the long game is what most other countries excel at.. vs. the US is very much a short term thinker (in the past it used to be what was good for 10-20 years even 30 years, now its more what's good for 3-5 years (ie: within the confines of my election).. and anything else is someone else's issue.. If what I build today looks good now great.. who cares if it crashes next week.. that becomes THAT guys issue and we can run on that campaign of THEIR failure, not mine). China and Japan especially tend to focus on the 30-50 year term.. What has the greatest benefit at the longest stretch of time with the least disruption.. (the current disruption is more of a "if we CAN, we will limit it, otherwise if we have to.. its ok" mindset).

Look at that primary winners in the US (In terms of College Persuits and company demands) : Legal (Law), Marketing, Sales, Logistics.. All skills that have to do with monetary gain, but not actually building anything and thus very little long term prospects with high demands for someone else to do the labor (because the labor part is highly negotable)..
VS
Look at the primary winners in China (in terms of College Pursuits and company demands): Math, Science, Engineering, Logistics, Product Development, AI (all skills that have to do with being able to actually create/generate.. not necessarily the highest winners in terms of money in the short term, but for the long term.. skills needed to displace others.. (after all, you can only sell so many product X before you have nothing else.. vs. if you are always churning out new products and enhancing/revising products.. you ALWAYS have something to sell).

And lets also face facts.. the US stole many technological advancements from others during its rise as well..

Notable examples: Germany and their Rocketry/Aviation... peration Paperclip, the U.S. brought over 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians to the US after World War II to work on guided missiles, jet and rocket engines, and aeronautics, including individuals associated with the Nazi Party and their wartime projects like the V-2 missile.

Brits with their Textile Technology - figures like Francis Cabot Lowell engaged in industrial espionage, memorizing the designs of British textile machinery to bring the technology to the U.S. and establish American textile manufacturing.

Forced Tech Transfer - The whole notion of Mandatory joint ventures came from the US who did that with MANY MANY other countries and companies

And during much of the 1800-1900's the US government ACTIVELY encouraged intellectual piracy and appropriation of mechanical and scientific innovations from Europe, Asia, and the Middle east to jump start their own technical advancement).

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheworld.org%2Fstories%2F2014%2F02%2F18%2Fus-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fcyber-is-changing-war-but-it-s-peace-we-should-worry-about-11615783
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Fgeneral-news-b40414d22f2248428ce11ff36b88dc53

“The message we are sending to China today is, Do as I say, not as I did,’ ” said Peter Andreas, professor at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. “The fact of the matter is that the U.S. was the world’s hotbed of intellectual property theft.”

So if anything, the US is pissed because China LEARNED from the US and US HISTORY and just applied the same rules to them... If anything, China is playing the SAME game that got the US its current role.. (Soft power by being allies with other countries.. sharing its tech, helping other countries which both lessen military reasons, but also creates a soft dependancy on them and thus creates a market that is more favourable towards them).. In fact, the US owes its very position BECAUSE of that soft power it exerted and the understanding that if you could get the US to make a deal, they would honor the deal.. (Cheato is throwing out that notion, which is far more distasterous.. The only real difference between some poor countries in the world making a deal and the US was the concern those poor countries and their ability/willingness to honor the agreements/terms long term... vs. the US WOULD (even as a president/party would change... when you throw that away.. you have nothing.. which means others become a lot more attractive.. and right now China is the most attractive in trying to woo countries with the notion of "stability" and honoring long term agreements..

With Regards Intel.. China doesn't care about Intel.. there is really nothing that Intel is doing that China isn't doing or already doing better.. What Intel has that China doesn't have and you can't steal is: PATENTS and MARKETSHARE.. There is literally nothing stopping any company.. (Broadcom, Micron, Qualcom, etc... from removing Intel from the market other than Intel (and AMD) own the patents to a TON of tech and Intel's long name carries weight... those two things keep intel in the forefront.. because as companies keep using intel for compatability with existing tech, it keeps them in demand.. Its one reason why Intel HATES ARM and everyone else LOVES ARM.. ARM (and RISC) are both opensource models that work quite well.. and as their adoption increases abd become more and more mainstream, it weakens the dependancy on Intel and their patents.. Now ARM still pays royalities to Intel and AMD for the use of their tech.. (its one reason why software translators like Rosetta in Apple for example) can translate x86 Instructions on ARM processors at near chip speed.

So what China wants is NOT intel (they are a slowly sinking boat).. what China wants is "legitamacy".. ie: companies to use their products/technology.. THAT is what will win them the battle.. And its the same for a lot of domestic tech that China has.. like their Jets, and other tech... And why the US keeps trying to slam China.. Most of their stuff is as good or better even.. (payment processing systems, avionics, etc...) but because its mostly domestic and not used outside of China, companies and countries like to bash it to keep other countries/companies from adopting.. because as we know, as market share grows.. so does demand and momentum can become a "standard" very wuickly to displace others. So if anything.. yes, China would LOVE intel to continue to fall (and AMD right behind it since AMD does essentially the same thing as Intel..(only better) and owns more patents on future tech (intel owns patents on legacy tech that most future tech is built on)..

Having lived in China and going back to the US.. in many respects its like going from the future (China) to the past (US)..

That has always been the case... as long as you can find someone to blame.. (and Immigrants and/or "brown people" which have always been code for "everyone" they don't like/want) its easy to get a group fired up.. I've said this a million times.. Cheato is not the problem.. he's a symptom.. and that symptom isn't going to magically go away in 3.5 years.. they will just move on to the next person that will continue the same policies or make it worse.. because as long as it doesn't impact them directly (or when it does impact them, they explain it away as "temporary pain needed to get "those" people" then it will never stop.. We have tons of history that shows once you start down tthat path... it never ends until there is either destruction or civil war.. (and even in those cases, there will still be those will support them until the very end).

See, here is the thing.. even if its shot down.. the amount of information that will shared (and a lot of it publically).. is going to turn some heads and ultimately thats the right aim.. to drag this issue into the light.

That's gonna be a spicy meatball..

Well, at least we know our alien overlords will love us.. (with some Marinara sauce and a little cheese on top).

That's gonna be a spicy meatball..

Well, at least we know our alien overlords will love us.. (with some Marinara sauce and a little cheese on top).

Just like how we have ratings on TV shows and movies.. its up to the consumer to set policies and restrictions... the ratings are there more for guidence.. and the issue isn't ratings.. the issue is the same issue as it is with "porn" validating ages.. how do you it in a way that doesn't harm the company by collecting unreasonable information.. and if say someone steals a CC/ID to submit.. the company is often going to be held to blame.. thus making doing any business even that much more difficult/costly..

And since apple doesn't allow for "adult" content on their platforms (as far as apps go).. there really isn't a need for this other than government intrusion/overeach...

Rest assured, they (the government) knows the only real way to validate is to collect the ID's of everyone using their platforms.. and how long do you think it will be before they (same government) start to collect that information from companies (like apple/google).... they will claim its for "validation" but its really going to be more to do data correlation.. Oh.. we know "Bob Smith" is anti-XXX (whatever the issue).. and we know his phone, and can "prove" its him that acquired the app and used it.. which means, we can now go after "bob smith".. under whatever pretext/reason we want to use/make up..

Apple has historically kept their products the same price across countries/regions so there is little incentive to go region chasing.. (you are chasing availability or features rather than price).. which means the sales numbers per region aren't skewed by "vacation shoppers".. (in the US its a little different since there are statewide shifts.. like buying in no sales tax states and moving it to a sales tax state)..

So because of this, any fluctuation is leveled out by the world as a whole.. rather than region specific.

You would.. but lets also be honest... a meat only diet would kill the majority of people over time.. in fact, if you look at history..most of our "shorter" lifespans early on was the total lack of variety in the diet.. (some meat, some fruit, some veg, some starches in some manner).. Meat rich diets only really work with periods of extreme physical activity because its nutrient dense.. Modern lifestyles demands lower or more tailored diets.. or if you are aiming for a meat rich diet, then you scale back the quantity of consumption or you amp up the physical demands.. (if you look,, environments that are cold/cool tend to favor more meats/fats in the diet because they need the extra caloric density because they are burning a lot more calories to maintain body heat (and physically larger)... and if you look at very warm climates they tend to be more veg/fruit/seafood diets because their caloric requirements are a lot lower. (you will also notice they tend to be more ectomorphic body shapes (leaner/slender).

In short, there is no one diet fits all.. for all climates and even bodies within that climate.. So having enough agricultural diversity is important because it ensures you are not killing off segments of the population in favor of simplicity.

Yes.. but that was also a period when construction paid well and they didn't "care" so much about risks.

Now, companies are risk/injury adverse and so wouldn't take on someone.. The reason they don't mind hiring "illegals" is if they get injured the chances of it turning into a multi-million dollar lawsuit is slim to none..

So basically a lot of work students could do, they are essentially priced out... (both from the fact that the costs have risen, but also college friendly jobs (ie: those that work odd-hours or don't impact class schedules) are in high competition with everyone or simply don't exist.. And before someone says "just start your own business".. That in of itself can be a time sink (thus extending your college time and cost) and definitely requires capital to start with (at the very least, licensing)

With the rigged courts in the US right now?.. Yes..

With the international courts still having some sense of reality?.. No..

In short, by claiming this, its also giving other countries legal rights to sue US companies on "likely violated" laws.. (tit for tat).. and China owns a ton of 5G patents (in fact for 5G and 6G technology, China has the MOST patents and controls of any country in the world).. So they COULD sue the US back to the stone age.. (who needs a bomb when lawyers are just as destructive but without all the mess

This is not going to be for ever use case.. but a common use case for the super dense hard woods is flooring, and commercial wall spaces where aesthetics matter.

Also I can see some framing work (depending on the cost (US uses a lot of wood in residential framing.. (because wood can be adjusted on-site..)).. So its not going to replace "concrete/steel".. its just a stronger wood that would be used in places where wood would normally be used anyway.. but instead of it being super rare woods (like iron wood or some species of teak) you can now take cheaper/more abundant woods and give them the properties of the more exotic species.

The reason there are not many ASOP clients is because its being implemented at the OS level and not the application level.. And thus very little reason work on a 3rd party one. Also while the RCS is an OIS (Open Industry Standard).. it doesn't mean everyone is going to spend thousands of hours on developing a 3rd party client (for what purpose?)..

So yes, its open.. but like Ethernet, USB, Bluetooth and a number of open specs, to actually be compatible and validate the intercommunication isn't for the weak. And again, because RCS has access to literally billions of clients/customers, its not phone companies are going to say "sure, just run your own server and talk with our billions of customers for free" The SPEC is open.. the access to USE the spec with with others is not.

Google and Apple get away with things because they own either the OS and/or the platform... and even their devices/apps spend years (and often millions of dollars) in carrier testing/validation/approval (YOU the hardware/software provider PAY to test/validate against their network).. and each carrier often times each country have their own process for testing/validation).

A lot of people (especially our tech community) consume "open source" (which is the ability to use/change as they see fit without any restrictions) with "open standard" which says, while the specification is open and thus usable by any one.. the PRACTICAL use of it with other devices in the field is still limited to a carrier's implementation/support/validation/testing and THAT is not "open").

Sorry, but no.. RCS isn't forcing path to google's services..

The reason google wants RCS is it makes it feature parity between iphone and android and thus less of a reason for some people to stick with iphone (ie: if everything is "even" meaning cross device communication, then the ecosystem you choose is based on preference rather than a lack of feature) which actually provides a larger device footprint (which DOES benefit google and by extension android phone manufacturers).

Because RCS is an OPEN STANDARD it means then android can provide a lot of imessage like features to everyone.. (not just other android users of a particular generation).

It also REMOVES control of messages from the phone companies (SMS is a carrier controlled method) or iMessage (which is apple controlled) into one that is more democratically controlled.. (ie: a common standard that all carriers and devices can use). Yes Google is ONE server, but RCS means other groups/carriers can use their own servers and still provide the same level of functions/features.. (which currently isn't the case.. SMS is pure text and doesn't always translate other languages very well depending on the carrier), MMS mostly carrier dependent based on how complex/large a "package" can be.. but RCS is pretty much data and so can support a wider range of languages/content and devices (don't have a phone but have a tablet?.. no problem.. have a computer? no problem..)

The problem is, Cheato has already proven himself to be an "oath breaker".. which means China has no reason to accept a "deal" from them.. oh, they will make nice..but ultimately they will focus on divesting themselves of the US market as much as they can.. They won't ignore it completely.. but it won't be a priority.. Deals work best when both sides are known for KEEPING TO THEIR WORD.. But... well..... you know..