https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
On 13/06/2026 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
The policies tend to get ghastly when non-engineers try to implement
what they see as "scientifically engineered" policies and don't
understand the policy or the science.
Collect quotes from indoctrinated civil servants and you can put
together a thoroughly alarmist text. It isn't as if the alarmist-book >reading audience is all that knowledgeable.
You swallow all sorts of fatuous climate change denial propaganda and >recycle it here. Now you seem to be recycling equally dubious propaganda >about China's over-engineered and under-lawyered society.
You aren't going to be taken seriously about that either.
<https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books>
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are >engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 01:02:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
The policies tend to get ghastly when non-engineers try to implement
what they see as "scientifically engineered" policies and don't
understand the policy or the science.
Collect quotes from indoctrinated civil servants and you can put
together a thoroughly alarmist text. It isn't as if the alarmist-book
reading audience is all that knowledgeable.
You swallow all sorts of fatuous climate change denial propaganda and
recycle it here. Now you seem to be recycling equally dubious propaganda
about China's over-engineered and under-lawyered society.
You aren't going to be taken seriously about that either.
Read the book before you pontificate.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 06:48:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
<https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books>
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
Note that most leaders of European companies hold PhDs in a technical subject, so it's not clear that engineering is the cause either way.
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 14/06/2026 1:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 01:02:49 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/
dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are >>>> engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
The policies tend to get ghastly when non-engineers try to implement
what they see as "scientifically engineered" policies and don't
understand the policy or the science.
Collect quotes from indoctrinated civil servants and you can put
together a thoroughly alarmist text. It isn't as if the alarmist-book
reading audience is all that knowledgeable.
You swallow all sorts of fatuous climate change denial propaganda and
recycle it here. Now you seem to be recycling equally dubious propaganda >>> about China's over-engineered and under-lawyered society.
You aren't going to be taken seriously about that either.
Read the book before you pontificate.
You recommended it. I don't need to bother.
On 6/13/2026 9:48 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
China figured out individual liberties were bad for business.
Elon Musk figured out the same thing which is why he didn't build his fortune being a transgender rights activist and trying to make voting easier.
Incidentally "Engineer" is a prestige title in many non-Western
cultures, like an MD or a JD or an MBA in the US. A ticket to the old
boys club like getting a JD from Yale.
I'm unsure of how many chemical engineering patents Xi Jinping has filed same as I'm unsure of how familiar JD Vance is with the Constitution
despite both of them having degrees in the respective fields.
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
I would guess that percentage of leaders that have engineering
background is similar to percentage of engineering student
amoung all students.
In communist era there was a discussion if my country has too
many engineers. There was comparision with western countries
and most had lower percentage of engineers among people with
higher education. That I think missed significant point:
most western countries outsourced a lot of manufacturing, so
that they did not need production engineers (and part of
design was outsourced too). At that time my country
domestically produced most goods (about 95% was domestically
produced and 5% imported), so needed production engineers.
Comparison involved also Japan, where percentage of
engineers was significantly higher than in typical western
countries. I do not have relevant data but I would guess
that at that time Japan were manufacturing a lot of
things and outsorced a little (if any).
During recent trade tensions between US and China there was
also talk about relocating production from China to other
countries. It was argued that in short or even middle time
this is impossible: China have plenty of experienced
production engineers. They are not available in other
countries.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are
engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
I would guess that percentage of leaders that have engineering
background is similar to percentage of engineering student
amoung all students.
The current top leadership of the PRC is almost all people educated as engineers. And all men.
In communist era there was a discussion if my country has too
many engineers. There was comparision with western countries
and most had lower percentage of engineers among people with
higher education. That I think missed significant point:
most western countries outsourced a lot of manufacturing, so
that they did not need production engineers (and part of
design was outsourced too). At that time my country
domestically produced most goods (about 95% was domestically
produced and 5% imported), so needed production engineers.
Comparison involved also Japan, where percentage of
engineers was significantly higher than in typical western
countries. I do not have relevant data but I would guess
that at that time Japan were manufacturing a lot of
things and outsorced a little (if any).
During recent trade tensions between US and China there was
also talk about relocating production from China to other
countries. It was argued that in short or even middle time
this is impossible: China have plenty of experienced
production engineers. They are not available in other
countries.
China has a built-in demographic crisis, not to mention all the kids
lying flat.
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are >>>> engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
I would guess that percentage of leaders that have engineering
background is similar to percentage of engineering student
amoung all students.
The current top leadership of the PRC is almost all people educated as
engineers. And all men.
In communist era there was a discussion if my country has too
many engineers. There was comparision with western countries
and most had lower percentage of engineers among people with
higher education. That I think missed significant point:
most western countries outsourced a lot of manufacturing, so
that they did not need production engineers (and part of
design was outsourced too). At that time my country
domestically produced most goods (about 95% was domestically
produced and 5% imported), so needed production engineers.
Comparison involved also Japan, where percentage of
engineers was significantly higher than in typical western
countries. I do not have relevant data but I would guess
that at that time Japan were manufacturing a lot of
things and outsorced a little (if any).
During recent trade tensions between US and China there was
also talk about relocating production from China to other
countries. It was argued that in short or even middle time
this is impossible: China have plenty of experienced
production engineers. They are not available in other
countries.
China has a built-in demographic crisis, not to mention all the kids
lying flat.
Pretty much every advanced industrial country has a demographic crisis. >Populations need to halve to get us down to sustainable levels.
China's "one child" policy got them on the right track early, but their >preference for having male children created a bigger mess than it needed to.
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is
easy to encourage rational reactions.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are >>>>> engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
I would guess that percentage of leaders that have engineering
background is similar to percentage of engineering student
amoung all students.
The current top leadership of the PRC is almost all people educated as
engineers. And all men.
In communist era there was a discussion if my country has too
many engineers. There was comparision with western countries
and most had lower percentage of engineers among people with
higher education. That I think missed significant point:
most western countries outsourced a lot of manufacturing, so
that they did not need production engineers (and part of
design was outsourced too). At that time my country
domestically produced most goods (about 95% was domestically
produced and 5% imported), so needed production engineers.
Comparison involved also Japan, where percentage of
engineers was significantly higher than in typical western
countries. I do not have relevant data but I would guess
that at that time Japan were manufacturing a lot of
things and outsorced a little (if any).
During recent trade tensions between US and China there was
also talk about relocating production from China to other
countries. It was argued that in short or even middle time
this is impossible: China have plenty of experienced
production engineers. They are not available in other
countries.
China has a built-in demographic crisis, not to mention all the kids
lying flat.
Pretty much every advanced industrial country has a demographic crisis.
Populations need to halve to get us down to sustainable levels.
The existing population is sustainable, but we don't need 9 billion
people. A gradual decline is probable. The US fertility rate is about
1.6, but China is probably below 1.
China's "one child" policy got them on the right track early, but their
preference for having male children created a bigger mess than it needed to.
One child was brutal. Forced abortions and sterilization, infanticide, brutality.
And it was stupid, based on dumb linear extrapolation math, and on
"The Population Bomb". Erlich ranks among history's mass murderers.
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is
easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
The CCP should have realised that.
The handwriting was on the wall 40 years ago for engineering and the
applied sciences. Now it's the basic sciences. It's over for the west,
China is the new dominant powerhouse.
See the objective data-based assessment for details:
"China surpasses US in research spending |ore4rCL the consequences extend far
beyond scientific ranking and clout"
"China|ore4raos rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country|ore4raos
investment in research and development has reached parity with |ore4rCL and by purchasing power measures has surpassed |ore4rCL that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the
US$1 trillion threshold on research spending."
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek
Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/Breakneck-Chinas-Quest-Engineer-Future/dp/1324106034?s=books
Among other interesting things, it notes that most Chinese leaders are >>>>>> engineers. And most truly ghastly policies were scientifically
engineered.
I would guess that percentage of leaders that have engineering
background is similar to percentage of engineering student
amoung all students.
The current top leadership of the PRC is almost all people educated as >>>> engineers. And all men.
In communist era there was a discussion if my country has too
many engineers. There was comparision with western countries
and most had lower percentage of engineers among people with
higher education. That I think missed significant point:
most western countries outsourced a lot of manufacturing, so
that they did not need production engineers (and part of
design was outsourced too). At that time my country
domestically produced most goods (about 95% was domestically
produced and 5% imported), so needed production engineers.
Comparison involved also Japan, where percentage of
engineers was significantly higher than in typical western
countries. I do not have relevant data but I would guess
that at that time Japan were manufacturing a lot of
things and outsorced a little (if any).
During recent trade tensions between US and China there was
also talk about relocating production from China to other
countries. It was argued that in short or even middle time
this is impossible: China have plenty of experienced
production engineers. They are not available in other
countries.
China has a built-in demographic crisis, not to mention all the kids
lying flat.
Pretty much every advanced industrial country has a demographic crisis.
Populations need to halve to get us down to sustainable levels.
The existing population is sustainable, but we don't need 9 billion
people. A gradual decline is probable. The US fertility rate is about
1.6, but China is probably below 1.
At the moment. Fertility depends on decisions taken today. A different >social environments is going to generate different decisions.
China's "one child" policy got them on the right track early, but their
preference for having male children created a bigger mess than it needed to.
One child was brutal. Forced abortions and sterilization, infanticide,
brutality.
The Chinese regime is brutal. Their implementation of the one child
policy was just as brutal as their implementation of al their other
policy decisions.
And it was stupid, based on dumb linear extrapolation math, and on
"The Population Bomb". Erlich ranks among history's mass murderers.
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend.
Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice
doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm
for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row.
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is
easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past,
where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough
that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the
time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
The handwriting was on the wall 40 years ago for engineering and the applied sciences. Now it's the basic sciences. It's over for the west, China is the new dominant powerhouse.
See the objective data-based assessment for details:
"China surpasses US in research spending rCo the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout"
"ChinarCOs rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The countryrCOs investment in research and development has reached parity with rCo and by purchasing power measures has surpassed rCo that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending."
https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend.
Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice
doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm
for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row.
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is
easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past,
where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough
that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the
time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:30:02 +0000, someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
The handwriting was on the wall 40 years ago for engineering and the applied sciences. Now it's the basic sciences. It's over for the west, China is the new dominant powerhouse.
Europe is certainly in decline. I expect China to decline and the US
to keep inventing things.
See the objective data-based assessment for details:
"China surpasses US in research spending |ore4rCL the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout"
"China|ore4raos rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country|ore4raos investment in research and development has reached parity with |ore4rCL and by purchasing power measures has surpassed |ore4rCL that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending."
https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543
There's more to life than scientific papers and patents.
China crushes really creative people.
On 17/06/2026 10:32 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:30:02 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
The handwriting was on the wall 40 years ago for engineering and the applied sciences. Now it's the basic sciences. It's over for the west, China is the new dominant powerhouse.
Europe is certainly in decline. I expect China to decline and the US
to keep inventing things.
John Larkin is certain that Europe is in decline. He's also certain that >anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and that Donald J. Trump has
common sense.
I wonder what he thinks that the US has invented recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
has invented quite a few silly ideas about health care, but this isn't a >virtue. John Larkin's expectations about China's eventual decline are >probably as well-founded.
See the objective data-based assessment for details:
"China surpasses US in research spending rCo the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout"
"ChinarCOs rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The countryrCOs investment in research and development has reached parity with rCo and by purchasing power measures has surpassed rCo that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending."
https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543
There's more to life than scientific papers and patents.
And the content of the scientific papers and the patents also matters.
China crushes really creative people.
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >less well-off either.
On 17/06/2026 10:08 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend.
Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice
doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm >>> for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row.
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is >>>>> easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past,
where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough
that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the
time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
And if I did read the book I probably still wouldn't know. That kind of
book confidently makes lots of dubious assertions, and it's unwise to
rely on that kind of single source, particularly when it obviously has a
axe to grind.
I've read lots of books, and some of them are clearly are more reliable
than others. You don't seem to have read all that many, and you do seem
to be unduly impressed by the ones you have read. Your capacity to
swallow the misinformation you get out of climate change denial
propaganda doesn't suggest that you are a particularly critical reader.
I read maybe 2 books per week. I'm curently reading "1491", about civilization in the Americas before the europeans arrived.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 01:11:57 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 10:08 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend.
Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice
doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm >>>> for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row. >>>>
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is >>>>>> easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past,
where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough
that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the
time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
And if I did read the book I probably still wouldn't know. That kind of
book confidently makes lots of dubious assertions, and it's unwise to
rely on that kind of single source, particularly when it obviously has a
axe to grind.
I've read lots of books, and some of them are clearly are more reliable
than others. You don't seem to have read all that many, and you do seem
to be unduly impressed by the ones you have read. Your capacity to
swallow the misinformation you get out of climate change denial
propaganda doesn't suggest that you are a particularly critical reader.
I read maybe 2 books per week. I'm currently reading "1491", about civilization in the Americas before the Europeans arrived.
Another book that you don't want to read is
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593832833
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 01:29:28 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 10:32 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:30:02 +0000, someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
The handwriting was on the wall 40 years ago for engineering and the applied sciences. Now it's the basic sciences. It's over for the west, China is the new dominant powerhouse.
Europe is certainly in decline. I expect China to decline and the US
to keep inventing things.
John Larkin is certain that Europe is in decline. He's also certain that
anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and that Donald J. Trump has
common sense.
I wonder what he thinks that the US has invented recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
has invented quite a few silly ideas about health care, but this isn't a
virtue. John Larkin's expectations about China's eventual decline are
probably as well-founded.
See the objective data-based assessment for details:
"China surpasses US in research spending |ore4rCL the consequences extend far beyond scientific ranking and clout"
"China|ore4raos rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country|ore4raos investment in research and development has reached parity with |ore4rCL and by purchasing power measures has surpassed |ore4rCL that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending."
https://theconversation.com/china-surpasses-us-in-research-spending-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-scientific-ranking-and-clout-280543
There's more to life than scientific papers and patents.
And the content of the scientific papers and the patents also matters.
China crushes really creative people.
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the
less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
The last important physical-science thing was probably the laser.
On 18/06/2026 2:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 01:11:57 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 10:08 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend. >>>>> Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice
doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm >>>>> for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row. >>>>>
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is >>>>>>> easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past, >>>>> where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough >>>>> that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the >>>>> time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
And if I did read the book I probably still wouldn't know. That kind of
book confidently makes lots of dubious assertions, and it's unwise to
rely on that kind of single source, particularly when it obviously has a >>> axe to grind.
I've read lots of books, and some of them are clearly are more reliable
than others. You don't seem to have read all that many, and you do seem
to be unduly impressed by the ones you have read. Your capacity to
swallow the misinformation you get out of climate change denial
propaganda doesn't suggest that you are a particularly critical reader.
I read maybe 2 books per week. I'm currently reading "1491", about
civilization in the Americas before the Europeans arrived.
If you read more, your spelling might be more reliable.
Who cares about pre-historic civilisations? Our current worry is the
defects in the one we had before Donald J Trump started playing silly
games with it. America liked to think that it was Hitler-proof, despite
the fact that it's political arrangements are even more antiquated that
the one's in use in Germany in the late 1920's.
Another book that you don't want to read is
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593832833
You've touted it here before. I didn't think much of it then.
Theo Baker did bring down Marc Tessier-Lavigne, because bad things had >happened in some of Marc Tessier-Lavigne's projects, but it's less
obvious that Marc Tessier-Lavigne was actually responsible for the bad >stuff, as opposed to not being careful enough to make sure that it
didn't happen in the first place.
I certainly don't want to read it - it sounds more like a documentation
Theo Baker's ego-trip than any kind of lesson in how to stop that kind
of bad stuff happening.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:04:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/06/2026 2:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 01:11:57 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 10:08 pm, john larkin wrote:I read maybe 2 books per week. I'm currently reading "1491", about
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>>>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend. >>>>>> Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice >>>>>> doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm >>>>>> for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row. >>>>>>
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is >>>>>>>> easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past, >>>>>> where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough >>>>>> that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the >>>>>> time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
And if I did read the book I probably still wouldn't know. That kind of >>>> book confidently makes lots of dubious assertions, and it's unwise to
rely on that kind of single source, particularly when it obviously has a >>>> axe to grind.
I've read lots of books, and some of them are clearly are more reliable >>>> than others. You don't seem to have read all that many, and you do seem >>>> to be unduly impressed by the ones you have read. Your capacity to
swallow the misinformation you get out of climate change denial
propaganda doesn't suggest that you are a particularly critical reader. >>>
civilization in the Americas before the Europeans arrived.
If you read more, your spelling might be more reliable.
I never learned to type, and the Agent spell checker is a nuisance.
Your spelling isn't perfect. And I wish you would learn the difference between its and it's.
Who cares about pre-historic civilisations? Our current worry is the
defects in the one we had before Donald J Trump started playing silly
games with it. America liked to think that it was Hitler-proof, despite
the fact that it's political arrangements are even more antiquated that
the one's in use in Germany in the late 1920's.
Another book that you don't want to read is
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593832833
You've touted it here before. I didn't think much of it then.
Theo Baker did bring down Marc Tessier-Lavigne, because bad things had
happened in some of Marc Tessier-Lavigne's projects, but it's less
obvious that Marc Tessier-Lavigne was actually responsible for the bad
stuff, as opposed to not being careful enough to make sure that it
didn't happen in the first place.
I certainly don't want to read it - it sounds more like a documentation
Theo Baker's ego-trip than any kind of lesson in how to stop that kind
of bad stuff happening.
The really interesting part is about the silicon valley culture,
centered on Stanford.
That gets back to another thread where it was claimed that China
innovates but the USA doesn't.
You'd have to read it to see the connection. You won't.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:04:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/06/2026 2:27 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 01:11:57 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 10:08 pm, john larkin wrote:I read maybe 2 books per week. I'm currently reading "1491", about
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:26:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 17/06/2026 3:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 18:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:17:23 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek >>>>>>>>> Hebisch) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
<snip>
Erlich was an alarmist author, of the kind whose books you recommend. >>>>>> Anybody taking him seriously was a gullible twit. Giving bad advice >>>>>> doesn't make you a mass murderer - if that were the case your enthusiasm >>>>>> for climate change denial propaganda wp\ould qualify you for death row. >>>>>>
The control loop is under-damped, and it's not a subject where it is >>>>>>>> easy to encourage rational reactions.
Prosperity and education reduce birth rates.
They are doing that at the moment. They certainly didn't in the past, >>>>>> where rich families had lots of kids and could feed them well enough >>>>>> that more than half of them could survive to reproductive age.
The CCP should have realised that.
Really? There weren't a lot of well documented examples around at the >>>>>> time, and the CCP wasn't into studying that kind of data.
You won't read the book so you'll never know.
And if I did read the book I probably still wouldn't know. That kind of >>>> book confidently makes lots of dubious assertions, and it's unwise to
rely on that kind of single source, particularly when it obviously has a >>>> axe to grind.
I've read lots of books, and some of them are clearly are more reliable >>>> than others. You don't seem to have read all that many, and you do seem >>>> to be unduly impressed by the ones you have read. Your capacity to
swallow the misinformation you get out of climate change denial
propaganda doesn't suggest that you are a particularly critical reader. >>>
civilization in the Americas before the Europeans arrived.
If you read more, your spelling might be more reliable.
I never learned to type, and the Agent spell checker is a nuisance.
Your spelling isn't perfect. And I wish you would learn the difference between its and it's.
Who cares about pre-historic civilisations? Our current worry is the
defects in the one we had before Donald J Trump started playing silly
games with it. America liked to think that it was Hitler-proof, despite
the fact that it's political arrangements are even more antiquated that
the one's in use in Germany in the late 1920's.
Another book that you don't want to read is
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593832833
You've touted it here before. I didn't think much of it then.
Theo Baker did bring down Marc Tessier-Lavigne, because bad things had
happened in some of Marc Tessier-Lavigne's projects, but it's less
obvious that Marc Tessier-Lavigne was actually responsible for the bad
stuff, as opposed to not being careful enough to make sure that it
didn't happen in the first place.
I certainly don't want to read it - it sounds more like a documentation
Theo Baker's ego-trip than any kind of lesson in how to stop that kind
of bad stuff happening.
The really interesting part is about the silicon valley culture,
centered on Stanford.
That gets back to another thread where it was claimed that China
innovates but the USA doesn't.
You'd have to read it to see the connection. You won't.
China's hierarchy isn't all that rigid. For one thing, it's full of
scandal, corruption, and incompetence, especially in the semiconductor sector. They get consistently low marks in "institutional" controls (
from UN's WIPO). "China|ore4raos weak institutional score is dragged down by low marks for regulatory quality and rule of law..." is one way to put
it. The estimate of embezzlement and influence peddling, sabotaging
their semiconductor industry, is cumulatively trillions $. Apparently,
the death penalty isn't enough of a deterrent for some people.
A pricey analysis here, policymakers-a at highest level listen to these people, trends, not static stats, are the most important information:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-high-tech-drive-10-charts
China's hierarchy isn't all that rigid. For one thing, it's full of scandal, corruption, and incompetence, especially in the semiconductor sector. They get consistently low marks in "institutional" controls ( from UN's WIPO). "ChinarCOs weak institutional score is dragged down by low marks for regulatory quality and rule of law..." is one way to put it. The estimate of embezzlement and influence peddling, sabotaging their semiconductor industry, is cumulatively trillions $. Apparently, the death penalty isn't enough of a deterrent for some people.
A pricey analysis here, policymakers at highest level listen to these people, trends, not static stats, are the most important information:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-high-tech-drive-10-charts
On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 05:15:02 +0000, someone ><2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> >wrote:
China's hierarchy isn't all that rigid. For one thing, it's full of scandal, corruption, and incompetence, especially in the semiconductor sector. They get consistently low marks in "institutional" controls ( from UN's WIPO). "ChinarCOs weak institutional score is dragged down by low marks for regulatory quality and rule of law..." is one way to put it. The estimate of embezzlement and influence peddling, sabotaging their semiconductor industry, is cumulatively trillions $. Apparently, the death penalty isn't enough of a deterrent for some people.
A pricey analysis here, policymakers at highest level listen to these people, trends, not static stats, are the most important information:
<https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-high-tech-drive-10-charts>
Sure. Politicians run everything.
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the
less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
The last important physical-science thing was probably the laser.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >>> less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >>>> less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >>>>> less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
On 21/06/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >>>>>> less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that >>>>> gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic >>>>> impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have >>>>> been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
Liquid crystal displays do depend on a bunch of scientific discoveries.
The modern liquid crystals are distinctly different - and a lot more
stable - than the chemicals originally used to demonstrate the effect.
Modern LED lamps do depend on the discovery of light-emitting diodes
diodes, which did happen after I was born. Actual LED lamps depend on
blue light emitting diodes, which were discovered in 1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura
and got the Nobel prize in 2014.
John Larkin is strangely ignorant about science.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 04:04:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 21/06/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the
less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that >>>>>> gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic >>>>>> impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have >>>>>> been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
Liquid crystal displays do depend on a bunch of scientific discoveries.
The modern liquid crystals are distinctly different - and a lot more
stable - than the chemicals originally used to demonstrate the effect.
Modern LED lamps do depend on the discovery of light-emitting diodes
diodes, which did happen after I was born. Actual LED lamps depend on
blue light emitting diodes, which were discovered in 1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura
and got the Nobel prize in 2014.
John Larkin is strangely ignorant about science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_LED
I saw my first LED at Bell Labs. I won a trip to Murray Hill when I
was in high school.
Had lunch with Walter Brattain too.
On 21/06/2026 4:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 04:04:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 21/06/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the
less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or >>>>>>> massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that >>>>>>> gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic >>>>>>> impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have >>>>>>> been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
Liquid crystal displays do depend on a bunch of scientific discoveries.
The modern liquid crystals are distinctly different - and a lot more
stable - than the chemicals originally used to demonstrate the effect.
Modern LED lamps do depend on the discovery of light-emitting diodes
diodes, which did happen after I was born. Actual LED lamps depend on
blue light emitting diodes, which were discovered in 1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura
and got the Nobel prize in 2014.
John Larkin is strangely ignorant about science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_LED
I saw my first LED at Bell Labs. I won a trip to Murray Hill when I
was in high school.
Had lunch with Walter Brattain too.
It is a pity that you didn't learn anything from the experience. My own >visit to Bells Labs - around 1973 - wasn't life-changing either.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 04:32:32 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 21/06/2026 4:16 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 04:04:02 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 21/06/2026 3:32 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the
less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or >>>>>>>> massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI. >>>>>>>> Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that >>>>>>>> gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic >>>>>>>> impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have >>>>>>>> been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
Liquid crystal displays do depend on a bunch of scientific discoveries. >>>> The modern liquid crystals are distinctly different - and a lot more
stable - than the chemicals originally used to demonstrate the effect. >>>>
Modern LED lamps do depend on the discovery of light-emitting diodes
diodes, which did happen after I was born. Actual LED lamps depend on
blue light emitting diodes, which were discovered in 1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura
and got the Nobel prize in 2014.
John Larkin is strangely ignorant about science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_LED
I saw my first LED at Bell Labs. I won a trip to Murray Hill when I
was in high school.
Had lunch with Walter Brattain too.
It is a pity that you didn't learn anything from the experience. My own
visit to Bells Labs - around 1973 - wasn't life-changing either.
We got an introductory lecture on information theory. I got a lot from
that.
I tell my interns that Signals And Systems is the most important
college course they will take. I give them a common-sense lecture
first, so they won't get lost in the math.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 15:57:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>wrote:
bitrex <user@example.net>wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, john larkin wrote:
Got an example? The US isn't a particularly positive environment for the >>>>> less well-off either.
Jack Ma.
Some giant enterprises were started without academic sanctions or
massive financing. Apple. Facebook. PayPal. Amazon. Intel. TI.
Pratt&Whitney. Electronic television. Ford. Many others.
The US is still a place where someone can start a small business that
gets big.
I was thinking about scientific discoveries that had serious economic
impact. The only good ones, in the last 50 years or so, seem to have
been medical.
LCD screens, GPS, data compression (mp3, DVB-S, DVB-S2)
LED bulbs replacing fluorescent ones, smartphones...
and AI.
Those are cool, but not really scientific discoveries.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:20:39 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,983 |
