Spreading false alarm about products or services have become an usual method for rival companies/governments.

When people say that “spreading false alarm about products or services has become a common tactic of rival companies or governments,” we first have to examine what states have actually done in practice.

In 1993, a Chinese civilian cargo ship, the Yinhe, was accused by the United States of transporting chemical materials to Iran. During the standoff, the ship reportedly lost access to GPS navigation. GPS is owned and controlled by the U.S. military, and the incident was widely interpreted in China as signal denial or jamming. Regardless of intent, it demonstrated that dependence on U.S.-controlled technology could be converted into coercive leverage.

This lesson was reinforced during the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait crisis, when China again confronted the reality that GPS access could be degraded or denied in a conflict. These were not “false alarms,” but concrete precedents.

The outcome was China’s decision to develop an independent satellite navigation system—BeiDou—to eliminate a clear sovereignty vulnerability. That response was not hysteria or propaganda; it was a rational reaction to demonstrated technological control.

Today, the United States has made no secret that it views China as a strategic adversary - the enemy if you will. In that context, China’s efforts to decouple, reducing exposure to U.S. Treasury holdings, seeking alternative markets, and minimizing reliance on U.S.-controlled technology, are best understood as prudent risk management rather than alarmism.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 12 2026 03:51am

I wana see those Nvidia stock prices
when the A.I. bubble pops
and ASML(rulers of earth in tech) is doing bisness with China
Remember who is control, its not the USA, Its the Dutch superpower

This post was edited by Tommyvv on Jan 12 2026 07:48am

Throughout history, certain inventions became so foundational that people assumed they would always be central to society. Horses are a clear example. For thousands of years, horses powered transportation, agriculture, communication, and warfare. Entire economies and ways of life were built around them, and this persisted for centuries because there was no viable alternative. When mechanized transport arrived, horses didn’t suddenly fail or disappear—they were made obsolete for their primary role. Cars, trains, and trucks were faster, more scalable, and less constrained. The transition wasn’t perfect or instant, but once the new technology proved superior, the outcome was irreversible. Horses still exist today, but their function and footprint changed permanently. The same pattern appears with airplanes. Early aircraft were unreliable, dangerous, and limited, yet it was obvious they represented the future of long-distance travel. Over time, the technology matured, safety improved, and planes became more sophisticated and indispensable. Mobile phones followed the same path, early models were bulky, limited, and expensive, but no one seriously argues today that they were a “bubble.”

AI fits this historical pattern. It is a new general-purpose technology that is improving year over year. Early systems are imperfect, adoption is uneven, and expectations are often exaggerated, but that does not make it a bubble in the sense of something temporary or reversible. What may correct are valuations and hype, not the technology itself. AI is here to stay, and like horses, planes, and phones before it, its role will evolve, but it will not go back into the bottle. Looking ahead, the most reasonable prediction is that five years from now, AI systems will be far more capable than what we have today. Not because of hype, but because this is how scalable technologies evolve. Just as semiconductors steadily improved through successive generations, AI models are already advancing through better data, architectures, hardware, and integration.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 12 2026 08:33am

Open AI

$13,000,000,000 Revenue
$1,400,000,000,000 Spend commitments

To have a chance to achieve success they need to invest 100 times their current annual turnover in 7 years

https://youtu.be/l0K4XPu3Qhg

This post was edited by Tommyvv on Jan 12 2026 09:25am

Railroads, electrification, telecommunications, semiconductors, the internet, and oil. Every one of these required enormous upfront investment that looked wildly out of proportion to early revenue. In hindsight, that spending wasn’t reckless; it was the price of building foundational infrastructure. Spending big on new technologies has proven, time and time again, to be profitable at the system level, even if some individual companies fail along the way. There will always be misses (just look at all the jostling around electric car companies). But spend even 24 hours seriously examining the implications of AI across industry, defense, science, and productivity, and it becomes obvious this isn’t a temporary phenomenon. The scale of investment reflects the scale of the shift underway.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 12 2026 09:33am

Surprised China didnt jump on Taiwan before the US ordered fabs in the states
Now TSMC plants and engineers are in the states

Kind of wonder what the plan is there

People often ask why China has not invaded Taiwan. The answer connects to a bigger pattern: China also avoids direct confrontation with the United States over Russia or Iran. The reason is simple - China believes war is risky and not in its national interest. Since the U.S. announced the “pivot to Asia” in 2011, China has taken American intentions seriously. It assumes long-term rivalry is real, so it prepares carefully while avoiding open conflict. China is slowly reducing dependence on the U.S. economy while expanding trade and political ties around the world, including projects like the Belt and Road Initiative. In many ways, it is following a path the U.S. once took: building influence through trade, partnerships, and economic growth rather than force.

China’s main goals are development and stability. Factories, technology, infrastructure, and social order matter more than war. A major conflict with the U.S. would damage this progress and could even threaten national survival. From China’s point of view, such a war would have no real winners. China’s nuclear weapons act as a safety net. They are meant to prevent destruction, not to start fights. Because of this, China believes it can afford patience. Taiwan is important to China, but it is not an immediate threat. An invasion would be difficult, costly, and uncertain. Waiting is safer. In many ways, on the global stage, China now behaves like the America much of the Western world says it wants: focused on trade, stability, and cooperation. The difference is that this role is no longer being played by the United States. Where the U.S. often treats war as a sign of strength, China sees war as something to avoid unless there is no other choice.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 12 2026 03:49pm