Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) says China was the world’s leading producer in 2020 in seven of the 10 industries covered by its report
Curious, I wonder what might have happened to the world in 2020
We are past peak oil, the world is already transitioning away from fossil, out of sheer necessity, because of the finiteness of conventional resources. Everyone involved knows that. The only “problem” is the timeframe: there’s about a decade left of investments towards capacity increase at the current pace before going over the carbon budget for a 2°C warming scenario. That’s a tough deadline to navigate for those countries.
The world in 2023 increased its annual emissions by 398 million metric tons, but it was in three places: China, India and the skies. China’s fossil fuel emissions went up 458 million metric tons from last year, India’s went up 233 million metric tons and aviation emissions increased 145 million metric tons....
So if we put aside the fact that some amount of GHG must be emitted to lift a country out of poverty, you are saying that you would put blame on lobbyists rather than on corrupt politicians? …
We’ve yet to see it materialize in numbers (fingers crossed). So far we are mostly observing a significant decrease in economic activity, which China has made a habit to compensate with large scale infrastructure projects and dumping (e.g. steel), which are inherently large GHG emitters, irrespective of how much renewable electricity is produced.
Also, China seems very far from reaching the inflexion point where domestic consumption-based emissions stabilize: ourworldindata.org/…/production-vs-consumption-co… . This graph also answers how much CO₂ outsourcing actually happens here (i.e. territorial emissions minus consumption-related emissions), which isn’t much at all.
You are off-topic, OP’s talking about the share of fossil in energy production.
Or you are misguided (and have been for a while), because the accounting of CO₂ emissions is done where it is consumed. The US being an O&G exporter incurs production, refining and transportation emissions counted on their territory, but the rest is counted in the importing country’s.
Thing is that China has demonstrated a continued long term commitment to cutting out fossil fuels,
I mean, the whole world is committed, out of necessity: we have passed peak conventional oil a decade+ ago (unconventional should be about now, shale is what’s setting the US as the largest exporter), and every nation is securing its own energy sovereignty. The trend to renewable is global, wasn’t started by China, China being the world’s largest electricity producer gets to install lots of it in absolute numbers, but is still way behind developed nations in terms of relative to electricity produced.
Meanwhile, we see no comparable progress in western countries
lies and lies, see above.
Also, important to note that per capita emissions in China are already lower than most western countries, and much lower than US.
US is facilitating fossil fuel consumption by creating policies that encourage fossil fuel extraction. What you’re doing here is just sophistry to avoid acknowledging this fact.
What you are doing here is pretend that the US, a non-OPEC country, single handedly governs the worldwide oil and gas supply and demand. Which is the most ridiculous assertion in your opinion?
Meanwhile, we see no comparable progress in western countries
lies and lies, see above.
You do realize that you’re lying about something that’s well documented right?
so we are back to your difficulty with keeping track of one thread, I see.
Your initial assertion was that no comparable progress is being made in western countries to divert from fossil fuels. None of your links proves this. A single counter-argument suffices to prove you wrong, though but I give you several: ourworldindata.org/…/per-capita-electricity-sourc…
If you can’t digest the fact that China’s current grid is everything but clean, I see no point in continuing the discussion. Also, it could be that you have another blindspot by conflating “electricity production” and “energy consumption” (FYI, China performs even worse there).
We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate—and this is very lean compared to other popular messaging apps that don’t respect your privacy.
If you are curious, you should give XMPP a shot, it’s equivalent to Signal in terms of encryption, but anyone can host their own. Signal is ideologically opposed to anyone but themselves being in control of your account, and because of that I don’t want to trust them.
I don’t believe Matrix is better positioned than XMPP to succeed. On a technical aspect, Matrix hasn’t managed to stabilize its protocol, and they’ve been a decade into it. This has resulted in only a single organization being in charge of the protocol, the client and the server implementations. This isn’t sound, this isn’t sustainable. And now, unsurprisingly, this organization is in a financial crisis, has lost important customers, has no budget secured to maintain its staff in the next years, and recently underwent a major licensing change that we can only interpret as a shift towards an opencore model at the detriment of the regular user.
Neither XMPP nor Matrix will ever become “the next WhatsApp”: the current internet has seen too much consolidation for the tech majors to permit it (and open and federated protocols can’t compete, do not have the marketing budget nor the platforms to promote their software, but I salute the EU’s Market Act attempt to shake-up the status quo).
But that doesn’t really matter IMO. What (I believe) is important in the grand scheme of things is that such protocols remain alive, maintained and secure, so that:
small-scale instances can flourish and contribute to a more resilient/efficient internet (think of family-/district-level providers ; this is the kind of service I personally offer: family members and friends at large appreciate that the messages and data that we exchange aren’t shared over some cloud or facebook server for no good reason)
IM identities can persist over time: if you are a business or an individual, you may want to look into having a stable/lasting contact address, that will survive the inevitable collapse of facebook/whatsapp/instagram/… If you are old enough, your current email address probably existed before facebook. Why not your IM address?
And yes, I hear you, this is rather niche, but what got me there (and on XMPP in particular) is having been long-enough on the internet to become tired of the never-ending cycle of migrations from service to service. More and more people will have a similar experience as time goes, so this niche will only grow :)
I assessed XMPP vs Matrix about 8 years ago, and strikingly, the basis on which it didn’t make the cut still applies today. Here’s what I responded to a sibling post: programming.dev/comment/5408356
In short, Matrix dug themselves into a complexity pit with an inadequate protocol, survived for a while on venture capital money (upscaling servers and marketing at all cost), all of it dried up, and now they are in financial trouble. Matrix won’t disappear overnight, but is definitely losing the means to run the managed instances and the client/server ecosystem.
Please, don’t recommend pidgin, it’s a security hellhole, and a pretty terrible XMPP client at that. If you want something with a similar vibe, check-out dino.im or gajim.org if you are more on the “power-user” side of things :)
If you read between the lines, Matrix 2 is practically about handing the client state over to the server (what they refer to as “sliding sync”). Realistically, this is an admission that the protocol is too complex to be handled efficiently on the user’s devices. I’m not saying there are not clear benefits (and new trade-offs) to the approach, just that in the grand scheme of things the complexity is shifted elsewhere (and admins foot a larger bill).
I can’t pretend to know the future, but if you read between the lines and the justifications provided, this isn’t really about AGPL per se, but about Element brokering AGPL exceptions. Practically we can expect all kinds of forks with opencore options that might enshittify the user experience in different ways, and further solidification of Element’s single-handed control over Matrix (which had been a prime concern for many years). Matrix is by the day closer to the closed-source centralized silos it was first pretending to oppose.
"Endorsing countries include the United States, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom. "
Objectivement, à 10 ans, Matrix n’est toujours pas mature et peine à stabiliser son protocole. Et le mot circule que l’État français aurait arrêté de payer pour son support.
Après j’ai pas l’impression que olvid soit franchement mieux : la partie serveur n’est pas à sources ouvertes, et il s’agit d’un énième système centralisé où, peu importe le modèle de sécurité, chaque compte est tributaire d’une entité dont on ne peut qu’espérer (mais jamais garantir) qu’elle a à cœur les intérêts de ses utilisateurs (même problème que Signal).
Je pense qu’au vu de l’existence même de XMPP et en particulier de son progrès de ces dernières années, Matrix est une solution en recherche d’un problème, mais cet avis n’engage que moi (et les quelques centaines d’utilisateurs que j’y héberge).
s’il s’agit de messages qui font référence à d’autres messages, avec un client qui sait remonter l’historique pour remettre le message cité en contexte, alors beaucoup le supportent (dino, movim, en cours de dev dans Conversations, …)
s’il s’agit de marquer/grouper/filtrer des messages appartenant à un même fil de discussion, je pense que le plus avancé est Cheogram: kumi.tube/w/1LQQp5Uia4u8Pdojxen1y8 .
L’utilisation de threads est assez peu courante aujourd’hui dans le monde XMPP, même si beaucoup de clients plus ou moins expérimentaux s’y étaient essayés il y a une dizaine d’années (Google Wave en était un fameux…). Mon avis est que les implémentations dans les autres protocoles sont assez peu convaincantes car requièrent beaucoup de discipline (zulip), ou génèrent beaucoup de bruit (slack, …), du coup je serais curieux de voir ce que tu considères comme étant un “bon client” de ce point de vue :)
I rocked a Samsung Alias 2 for 4 years before I got an iPhone 5. The e-ink keyboard was awesome how it changed when you flipped the screen open to portrait or landscape.
Does that qualify as a dumb phone though? Symbian could do a lot more, and better, in the area of productivity tools, multitasking, customization and apps management than android/iOS did, and for a very long time. The form factor wasn’t putting as much emphasis on the screen real estate but that doesn’t make it less smart.
A subsidy-fueled boom helped build China into an electric-car giant but left weed-infested lots across the nation brimming with unwanted battery-powered vehicles.
Who is “we” exactly? Most developed countries have reduced their emissions so much that they’ve been producing less CO2 per Capita than China for a very long time (like, a decade for the whole of the EU if I remember correctly).
Don’t be too worried about AGI being a thing in the short. And the only thing which I find to suck with respect to consolidation is that contemporary AI requires a lot of hardware thrown at it while cloud services (providing this hardware on demand) are practically the same triopoly. That sucks if you want to be the next AI startup. But academia is mostly unaffected, and far from lagging behind (multiple open source LLMs are compelling alternatives to chatgpt and not benefitting from OpenAI’s millions of marketing and hype doesn’t make them less valuable)
To help you out with the monopolistic/capitalist concern: simonwillison.net/2023/May/4/no-moat/
tl;dr: OpenAI’s edge with ChatGPT is essentially minor (according to the people from within), and the approach of building ever larger and inflexible models is challenged by (technologically more accessible and available) smaller and more agile models
Imagine a future where most fast food jobs have been replaced by AI-powered kiosks and drive-thrus.
Imagine a future where most customer service jobs have been replaced by AI-powered video chat kiosks. Imagine a future where most artistic commission work is completed by algorithms.
The end-game is pretty clear: we have reached the limits to the model on which our current society is built (working jobs to earn money to spend money to live). We now have excess supply of the essential goods to sustain lives and scarcity of jobs at the same time. We will have soon to either accept that working isn’t a mean to an end (accept universal basic income and state interventionism), or enter a neofedalism era where resources are so consolidated that the illusion of scarcity can be maintain and justify the current system (which essentially the bullshit-jobs is all about).
It’s perhaps the most important societal reform our species will know, and nobody’s preparing for it :)
Imagine a future where all the news and advertising you read or watch is generated specifically to appeal to you by algorithms.
And this is already weaponized (e.g. TikTok’s algorithm trying to steer the youth towards education and science in China and towards … something completely different in the rest of the world).
It doesn’t really matter if Microsoft/OpenAI are the only ones with the underlying technology as long as the only economically feasible way to deploy the tech at scale is to rely on one of the big 3 cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft).
Yup, but as the “no moat” link I posted implied, at least for LLMs, it might not be required to spend very much in hardware to be almost as good as ChatGPT, so that’s some good news.
Are you saying you’re cool with neofeudalism? Or just agreeing that this is yet another inevitable (albeit lamentable) step towards it?
Oh, crap, no, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I believe we are at the crossroads with not much in the middle between our society evolving into extensive interventionism, taxation and wealth redistribution (to support UBI and other schemes for the increasingly large unemployable population) or neufeudalism. I don’t want billionaires and warlords to run the place, obviously. And I’m warry about how the redistribution would go with our current politicians and the dominant mindset associating individual merit to wealth and individualistic entrepreneurship.
Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. It includes most forms of monarchy and dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and feudalism.
Who is trolling here? Who is posting uninformative comments? Mine were on topic, yours jumped on my neck with insults. It’s your right to disagree with what I have to say, though none of what you posted here has any argumentative value.
well, if there’s one troll in this discussion, it’s probably the only person making personal attacks and refusing to engage in a constructive discourse:
“When you definitely know what autocratic means.”
“Nice try though, keep exposing yourself as an utter clown.”
“spend your time doing obvious trolling” “Seems like you’re doing a bit of projecting there bud.”
“Perhaps you really don’t realize you’re a troll.”
I don’t see any argument being made here nor the discussion going forward as the exchange progresses.
As I wrote before, you are entitled to your own ideas, and this place is to share them. But if you keep repeating that others are trolls and insulting them 5 messages in a row, well, that’s some serious waste of electrons.
Not only have I made an argument, I even provided detailed sources supporting it lemmy.ml/comment/5942658
What are you talking about? This isn’t a response to me nor OP, this isn’t even a response you posted in this thread, and your response is no longer even listed on the source article thread. You are just throwing insults faster than you can read, apparently.
Meanwhile, you provided a wikipedia link to autocracy and then said that’s what Chinese system is which is what actual trolling in this thread is.
No, it is not. I am entitled to my opinions, which I substantiated, and you should accept that not everyone agrees with yours. But more importantly, I’m not criticizing you for not agreeing with me (like you do), I’m criticizing that none of your posts contains anything of substance other than insults. You really can’t turn that into a problem “with me”.
If you cannot tolerate comments about China, from someone who spends a fair amount of their time and life there, I guess you can just block me? Bye.
Attention à Element/Matrix, la fondation a de gros soucis de financement qui présagent un avenir incertain (et à plus forte raison avec le changement de license qui a eu lieu tout récemment avec la volonté annoncée de passer en opencore et l’enshittification que ça préfigure). C’est devenu intenable à gérer parce que Matrix est un protocole pourrave et inefficient qu’une décennie d’efforts n’a pas réussi à stabiliser/optimiser.
SimpleX a le même souci de centralisation de sa gouvernance (une seule entité définit et implémente le protocole du client au serveur et contrôle toute l’expérience utilisateur) donc je recommande logiquement XMPP qui n’a aucun de ces problèmes, et les mêmes avantages, et qui plus est a une communauté fr active via jabberfr.org .
When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that’s also very...
Anyone with basic knowledge about anything knows that diversification is generally a good thing, this applies to energy as well: you don’t command the wind/sun and large scale electricity storage is to this day an unsolved problem. For all the big plans we have about a greener and carbon limited future, we need large amounts of dependable cheap and low-carbon energy, nuclear very much fits the bill (in complement to the other low-carbon energies).
Large scale electricity storage is very much a solved problem actually.
I don’t want to sound pedantic, but how exactly do you believe pumped storage work? It’s not that complicated: you have a dam, i.e. renewable hydro, and when you get excess electricity from elsewhere, some of the water downstream is pumped back upstream so the dam can do its thing once again. Essentially, developing hydro storage means developing hydroelectricity and dams, but if hydro’s contribution to the grid hasn’t increased much in a very long time, it’s not because of conspiracies, but simply because most of the available capacity has been tapped already: en.wikipedia.org/…/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_Uni…
So, back to our initial problem: chemical storage (batteries) is expensive, environmentally dubious, problematic in many aspects and inefficient, chemical conversion (e.g. hydrolysis) is wasteful/inefficient, etc. So, no, we have no good answer to that.
Pumped hydro storage is not a dam, it’s not a power source, it is a power storage system.
In technical terms, could you lay out what’s the difference? You’ve got a water retention system that empties into a generator and a capability to pump some of the water back upstream. What larger storages and generators do we have besides dams? None, and there’s no topographic feature that could be at an advantage there. Because the problem at hand is one of scale: ourworldindata.org/…/electricity-prod-source-stac…
Assuming that energy demand remains the same (instead of increasing, which we know will be the case with more electrification), and that, to keep targetting those 4000TWh produced, we replace coal and gas by wind and solar. That would mean having to store what amounts to 2000TWh of production (under an extremely optimistic assumption of 80% storage capacity for the replaced energy only). That would mean that, just to buffer out what solar+wind require in storage, we would have to surpass what current hydro produces, 8 times over.
I know this isn’t accurate (storage ≠ production, grid can be balanced out geographically, etc), but we are one order of magnitude in trouble already.
I mean, you don’t answer the billion dollar question here. Let’s not call it a dam, but a container, and let’s not mention the need to pump anything. The amount of (potential) energy you can store is a function of the volume of the above container, isn’t it? Then, could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources? And can you propose an engineering solution to contain this much amount of water?
The intuition here is that you are re-inventing dams, without the room to build more.
I don’t agree nor disagree with the rest of what you say, I just can’t get beyond the “energy storage is a solved problem” point yet.
The potential energy is determined by elevation difference and mass.
That’s correct, those are Joules in SI. Now if you turn this mass into mass per second by introducing the flow of water through the dam, you get the power (Watts) produced through the release.
But here we are talking about energy storage (Watt.hours), which is, for how long will you be able to sustain emptying your container while delivering the desired power. And obviously this is a function of how large the container is because eventually you will run out of water no matter the elevation difference.
So, now that we are back 3 messages up thread
could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources?
To help you out with the scale, again, your example from earlier (Bath county) has a storage capacity of only 24GWh, annual hydro production of the USA is 256TWh. Bath county has a reservoir of 34•10⁶m³, Oahe dam has 29•10⁹m³.
Anyway, this is a good tool to keep an eye on this “solved problem”, and relate to how the world is dealing with it, independently from the regulatory dissatisfaction you mentioned: sandia.gov/ess-ssl/gesdb/public/
I really don’t understand the obsession here in comparing energy storage to energy production.
The storage of electricity doesn’t have to meet energy consumption
why, in your opinion, is this more an obsession than “pulling power cables” and “tugging floating wind turbines”? This is very much part of the grid transitioning towards more intermittent (and renewable) energy sources. We can’t just keep putting wind and sun without offsetting the intermittence (since we are also removing carbon-heavy sources), which means either adding low CO₂ base-load (nuclear), but we are not going there fast enough, or adding more storage (and neither there do we have a solution).
The first comment I posted shows how if you had 100 the size of the bath county plant you could run the entire US for hours. In just 100 of them. For the cost of the F35 it could be 300 or more but I am accounting for nothing but problems.
It’s funny, because my link sandia.gov/ess-ssl/gesdb/public/ shows that there are 1693 such projects in the world, with 739 by the USA. China, with a more important landmass and not bothered by F35s (or whatever) doesn’t even cross the 100 threshold. So the onus of the proof is on you to demonstrate that we can actually build hundred more pumped storages in the USA for it to make a difference.
From the perspectives of the grid operator, renewables represent risk that destabilizes power delivery. Although weather forecasts are steadily improving and provide more leeway to prepare for sudden changes in the power supplies, the degree to which grid operators can turn on alternative power sources or alert customers to adjust their power demand is limited. In a truly “fossil fuel-free” energy system that relies exclusively on various renewable energy sources, the only viable means of addressing intermittency is to deploy energy storage.
Your source even agrees with me.
This isn’t even contentious. What is, is that you believe that we have this silver bullet of pumped hydro to cover our upcoming energy storage needs. And that’s not nearly the case.
Once paired and optimized for cost, the model returned 11,769 sites in the contiguous United States, as well as an additional 3,077 sites in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where closed-loop PSH technology can be best deployed in the future. energy.gov/…/wpto-studies-find-big-opportunities-…
Which was my point all along
It is a solved problem. The solution is just extremely difficult and expensive.
I don’t want to argue about semantics. If the solution is too costly to be implemented, then it’s not a solution. I don’t think there’s more to be said here.
That’s been your argument this entire time. You kicked around all this time till now saying really weird things like how batteries are inefficient or that green hydrogen is from hydrolysis but then tell me what your point is all along when your point has been wrong from the start.
Let’s keep this simple. It all started with your affirmation that energy storage is a solved problem. When I asked how you would go about implementing the solution, you brought-up pumped hydro. And we ended-up with enough data pointing towards this problem being all but solved (cost is one aspect that you are quick to dismiss, but engineering/practicality is a major one).
In all, we agree, we are in the same boat, we want more budget being allocated for the energy transition. But where we diverge I that I don’t see how turning a complex problem into a caricature (bordering a conspiracy theory) helps anyone. The physical world we live in doesn’t care about opinions, and isn’t affected by digital money. You don’t have to believe a random stranger on the internet (who happens to work in this field), if this is your crusade, there should be people near you, academics, scientists, engineers, who would be pleased to educate you on the subject. This is pedant, I don’t see where’s the belligerence.
Are those games weighing Taiwan’s defense capabilities versus China alone? In practice China would be up against the USA, and Korea, and Japan, and the Philippines and a plausible economic and logistics alliance of most countries in the region. I am not a military strategist but the sheer numbers alone are not in favor of China, and that is ignoring the tactical challenges at play.
China’s way of partnering is through domination, and under Xi it is no longer even a matter of opinion or interpretation. The Taiwanese know that well, while the rest of the world is readjusting after a half century of concessions and “trying to be good friends”.
China doesn’t believe in/wants/cares about a world order with all countries equal under the same international laws, and that’s what I personally find to be the scariest for the world’s stability in the long term (rather than the naive “democracies are good vs authoritarianisms are bad and hence we should align against CN/RU”).
And I see you’re still there too, waving your own takes under a pretence of knowledge and experience that inevitably more and more people can see as absent. Keep it up!
Because that way people thought they were directly paying for the service they were using, instead of being the product of said platform, having their personal data harvested and sold to the highest bidder?
Are you saying that people perceived WhatsApp as better than SMS or better than Facebook?
As it happened, both.
The red flag is to look at a free meal and not wonder what the catch might be. Especially to this day, with all we learned about what the tech majors do with all the data.
That’s not my point. My point is why would the majority of the world do this when they knew it was going to be paid.
Back then, the norm was to pay for a service. When it’s good and the price is fair, people use it, especially when the alternative was feature-limited SMS paid by the message at inadequately high cost. And Facebook isn’t free: you trade privacy and exposure to customized ads in exchange for access to the service, so your comparison is biased.
China’s running away with strategic industries as US, G7 suffer rapid declines (www.scmp.com)
archive archive.ph/5FDdh
Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels (www.reuters.com)
World carbon dioxide emissions increase again, driven by China, India and aviation (apnews.com)
The world in 2023 increased its annual emissions by 398 million metric tons, but it was in three places: China, India and the skies. China’s fossil fuel emissions went up 458 million metric tons from last year, India’s went up 233 million metric tons and aviation emissions increased 145 million metric tons....
Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive (signal.org)
We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate—and this is very lean compared to other popular messaging apps that don’t respect your privacy.
Pourquoi les ministres vont devoir renoncer à WhatsApp, Signal et Telegram (meilleur article que Lepoint) (www.numerama.com) French
Vous avez peut être déjà vu passer des articles sur cela, comme celui de lepoint lepoint.fr/…/les-ministres-francais-invites-a-des…...
What was the last dumb phone you had before your first smartphone? (lemmy.world)
I rocked a Samsung Alias 2 for 4 years before I got an iPhone 5. The e-ink keyboard was awesome how it changed when you flipped the screen open to portrait or landscape.
China’s Abandoned, Obsolete Electric Cars Are Piling Up in Cities (www.bloomberg.com)
A subsidy-fueled boom helped build China into an electric-car giant but left weed-infested lots across the nation brimming with unwanted battery-powered vehicles.
China’s CO2 emissions may be falling already, in a watershed moment for the world (www.telegraph.co.uk)
China's energy sector emissions Plateau, start to fall (www.telegraph.co.uk)
Microsoft hires former OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman (www.theverge.com)
Well, this escalated quickly. So is this the end, or will the mods create an OpenAI megathread? ;)
‘An invisible killer’: Beijing cleaned up its toxic air. Why can’t New Delhi? | CNN (www.cnn.com)
More than 20 million people woke last week to a thick, acrid, and noxious smog that settled densely across the Indian capital.
Pay for privacy (affordance.framasoft.org) French
U.S. Pledge To Triple Global Nuclear Energy By 2050 (www.huffpost.com)
When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that’s also very...
Top U.S. general doubts China's Xi planning to take Taiwan by force (www.japantimes.co.jp)
Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Chinese leader would 'try to use other ways to do this.”
WhatsApp head confirms ads in the messaging app are still in the works (www.theverge.com)