Once again, that's the report from the Australian think tank which was widely covered in the mainstream press, for example:
It looks like you have your own opinion on the subject but you are not a think tank with corresponding resources, are you?
China urges Japan to halt export restrictions on chips
- Thread starter Daniel Nenni
- Start date
It looks like you have your own opinion on the subject but you are not a think tank with corresponding resources, are you?
So is the USA. Both countries have been doing pretty well by it, haven't they? How has communism work out, comrade?
Besides, the implication is that Japan can't get rid of their constitution, if they wanted to. They keep it because it works, not because the USA forces them to, or really has any control over it. Clearly, it's Japanese now, and they own it.
Quoting a source from a country that is not directly related to communists does NOT make it especially valid. Because anyone saying something positive about China is accurate, so long as they are in Australia? I mean, does that make any sense to you, at all? Oh wait, it was a think tank. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be people like you in that think tank? I question things coming out of Yale and Harvard, most people have learned to question any source. But, wait, they're in Australia, and a think tank, so they must be correct if they create something that could be perceived as positive towards China. There's no other possibility.
I'll give you a quote that says it all, comrade. Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, communism the equal distribution of misery.
Well, it sounds like you don't like their findings yet you don’t offer a single fact to disprove them. I have no first hand experience regarding China but I read all the time that their children work very hard: As reported by a news briefing, Chinese students, on average, spend 2.82 hours per day on their schoolwork. This is triple the international average (source). So, why is it then so hard for some to believe that the Chinese can succeed in research? Have you seen the number of patents the Chinese companies file these days? What about the stories I hear constantly about the Asian (and specifically Chinese) students excelling in US colleges? Are these all lies?
And speaking of misery...
The Global Happiness 2023 Report, released by multinational market research and consulting firm Ipsos ahead of the International Day of Happiness on March 20, showed that Chinese people are the happiest among the 32 countries and regions sampled, with 91 percent of Chinese respondents saying they are generally happy, 12 percent increase from a decade ago. Are you going to question Ipsos (a French company) too? Now, there are different types of surveys of this sort and in other surveys China did not rank as high, yet in those surveys too China has been improving their rating steadily. Perhaps instead of giving a quote you could give a few facts to support your position? Questioning the source is good. Not having any sources - not so good. Besides, if you really are questioning the source, you'd better have some grounds for that or it looks like you are questioning them solely because you don't like their findings and not because you know something that would let a reasonable person not to trust the source.
BTW, here is information about the ASPI funding:
And here is the detailed list of the foreign government agencies that funded them (2021-22):
Very very suspect is not it? Now, go ahead and tell us why we should not trust ASPI (admittedly, personally I am skeptical of some of the US State Department funded projects but those are mostly NGOs used for propaganda purposes)
Also, whatever the Chinese call their ruling party, China and communism have nothing in common, comrade.
tooLongInEDA
Moderator
And we need to. The US were actually the main producer only a few decades ago.
Gosh, we used to have a guy in this forum (sorry I couldn't remember his name). He was ridiculously hilarious and entertaining too, just like you...
.
hist78
Well-known member
"The ASPI study is based on an analysis of the top 10% most-cited papers in each area of research published between 2018 and 2022 – a total of 2.2 million papers.
This ASPI report is using the "citation counts" to measure the quality and impact of the research papers. It concluded that China is leading in 37 of 44 science fields ASPI studied.
It's flawed and funny because there's a robust ecosystem that has existed for a long time and its sole purpose is to manipulate the citation counts. The citation count manipulation happens all the time because the money, fames, and promotion a higher citation count may bring in. Citation counts can not be used to measure a paper's quality and impact accurately, let alone a country's science research standing in the world.
Additionally, while professors and nonprofit organizations' researchers eagerly to publish papers to tell the world about their wonderful works, for profit organizations do have less incentive to do the same. For example TSMC is under no obligation to publish a paper to explain their groundbreaking findings. TSMC may choose to keep those findings as trade secrets. It makes the citation counts much less meaningful.
This ASPI report is using the "citation counts" to measure the quality and impact of the research papers. It concluded that China is leading in 37 of 44 science fields ASPI studied.
It's flawed and funny because there's a robust ecosystem that has existed for a long time and its sole purpose is to manipulate the citation counts. The citation count manipulation happens all the time because the money, fames, and promotion a higher citation count may bring in. Citation counts can not be used to measure a paper's quality and impact accurately, let alone a country's science research standing in the world.
Additionally, while professors and nonprofit organizations' researchers eagerly to publish papers to tell the world about their wonderful works, for profit organizations do have less incentive to do the same. For example TSMC is under no obligation to publish a paper to explain their groundbreaking findings. TSMC may choose to keep those findings as trade secrets. It makes the citation counts much less meaningful.
Last edited:
hist78
Well-known member
Another flaw in using the citation counts to measure a research paper's quality and impact is it can only tell a number, not what those other papers' (with citations) quality, significance, and the reputation of those authors who wrote the citations.
If Einstein, Edison, and Newton are all alive today and only they cited my humble research: How rabbits eat my backyard flowers. Although in this case the citation count is so small at '3', I think I have a good chance to be interviewed by Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Routers.
I don't care my next door neighbor who has a similar paper and cited by 20 Harvard and MIT professors. At a citation count of 3, I'm more impactful than my next door neighbor!
If Einstein, Edison, and Newton are all alive today and only they cited my humble research: How rabbits eat my backyard flowers. Although in this case the citation count is so small at '3', I think I have a good chance to be interviewed by Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Routers.
I don't care my next door neighbor who has a similar paper and cited by 20 Harvard and MIT professors. At a citation count of 3, I'm more impactful than my next door neighbor!
Last edited:
I don't disagree. Their methodology is not perfect but then none is. It does not mean that this particular methodology is useless. It does provide data for at least one facet of the story. As long as they explain their methodology, one can interpret their results. Besides, there are undisputed facts in real economy that confirm at least some findings in this report. For example, comparing China and Japan, in EV domain - there is no comparison, Japan is far behind. Anecdotally, I hear nothing about Japan successes in AI (or even any computer related fields).
Ironically, assuming you are an American or Japanese, we have paid for this report (as taxpayers), so we'd better hope ASPI report is at least somewhat correct
hist78
Well-known member
I don't disagree. Their methodology is not perfect but then none is. It does not mean that this particular methodology is useless. It does provide data for at least one facet of the story. As long as they explain their methodology, one can interpret their results. Besides, there are undisputed facts in real economy that confirm at least some findings in this report. For example, comparing China and Japan, in EV domain - there is no comparison, Japan is far behind. Anecdotally, I hear nothing about Japan successes in AI (or even any computer related fields).
Ironically, assuming you are an American or Japanese, we have paid for this report (as taxpayers), so we'd better hope ASPI report is at least somewhat correct
Don't hang on that low quality paper too much. They use a unreliable and wrong method to analyze a complicated subject. The report's finding probably has more to do with the author's salary/income than anything else.
Last edited:
Well I have another plausible theory. This think tank might be used by US/western hawks (MIC) to exaggerate China threat in order to inflate US military budget. That's a known technique. As US taxpayer, I am just unhappy that our dollars went to Australian think tank to do something that Americans are definitely capable of doing.
Hopefully we can have diverse and respectful discussions, that's part of what I like about this place.
Diversity is important, as an antidote to biases. Everyone is anti-China since Trump made it OK, but before that, like sheep, most people were pro-China. Baa. I'm guilty, just saying.
Diversity is also a mathematical perspective that says, too little of anything is bad, and small amount of "bad things" may be good. This provides a basis for compromise, because even bad things, or what you think is bad, is good, in an ensemble.
Permit a small, token amount of semicap exports to China. It's more likely to be less wrong. Some objective reasons: Cutting off oil was the catalyst for the Japan-USA conflict in the 1940s, hobbling China on AI equipment could be a similar threat, approximately, or in combination with other things. And the Iran "maximum pressure" sanctions failed, the US uncompromising, untalking approach of Trump and Biden is not learning from mistakes.
Diversity is important, as an antidote to biases. Everyone is anti-China since Trump made it OK, but before that, like sheep, most people were pro-China. Baa. I'm guilty, just saying.
Diversity is also a mathematical perspective that says, too little of anything is bad, and small amount of "bad things" may be good. This provides a basis for compromise, because even bad things, or what you think is bad, is good, in an ensemble.
Permit a small, token amount of semicap exports to China. It's more likely to be less wrong. Some objective reasons: Cutting off oil was the catalyst for the Japan-USA conflict in the 1940s, hobbling China on AI equipment could be a similar threat, approximately, or in combination with other things. And the Iran "maximum pressure" sanctions failed, the US uncompromising, untalking approach of Trump and Biden is not learning from mistakes.