Is the link broken? it takes me to some Russian ballet.

The 2030s decade in China is gonna be insane.

Who said that it was intentionally made famine with the goal of killing people? And where?

That’s the “mainstream” narrative so I assumed it was what you were arguing, sorry if it wasn’t.

Are you hung on the original commenter calling it “mass murder” and your point is that it wasn’t premeditated?

Essentially. Yes.

Would the governing body of PRC in 1962 attributing the famine to government errors convince you otherwise? Would the Chinese government 20 years later confirming the same convince you?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this. That the famine was accidental and (in part) caused by bad policies and mismanagement is what I’m saying happened. You’re agreeing with me there.

If not, can you imagine a fact that would convince you? What is it?

If you think the famine was accidental but the government’s bad policies caused it/made it worse, I already agree.

If you think that the famine was intentional and the government was trying to kill peoples by starvation, I would need proof that they at least discussed it internally in order to be convinced. Leaked internal documents, testimony from peoples who were there (and can prove that they were), recording of meetings between party officials, that kind of things.

I’m sorry, but why would that matter? We tend to judge people by their actions, not their intent, when it comes to mass deaths.

Right?

Right?

Maybe it’s my autism but dismissing a relevant question by implying that the person who asked it is immoral/unempathetic for even asking it seems pretty defensive to me, and is a non-argument regardless.

Literally what the first commenter gave - there was a widespread famine in China, it’s caused by Mao agricultural policies.

Now that one is on me, I could have worded that better. By cause-effect relationship in this context I meant the cause who’s effect was that the government chose to take whatever course of action you believe is responsible for the famine. Peoples take decisions for reasons, bad reasons sometimes, yes, but reasons nonetheless.

It’s not about agreeing with the reasons, it’s about coherency. That an entire government, a group formed of thousands of peoples, would act all in concert with no motive, especially for a project on such a large scale and which would take so many resources, is nonsense. If you can’t present either proof that they really took the conscious decision to manufacture a famine or a motive to explain why they would want to do that, the claim that the famine was intentional is extremely dubious at best.

Also, speaking of a government’s actions as if only the one person at the top was to blame is something peoples trying to speak about politics and history seriously should avoid.

What are you contesting here? There was no famine? Famine is the narrative? Or that it wasn’t caused by policies but by… What? Weather? Weather was good.

There was a famine. But it was not man made with the purpose of killing a large portion of the population, again, as the other commenter pointed out, why would they do such a thing? And why did they stop doing it? It makes no sense.

The famine was the produce of a great number of different factors, inefficient and backward agricultural methods, bad weather, compound effects of WW2 + the Chinese civil war, mismanagement, trade embargoes, etc… But others could explain it better than I can.

An other point we disagree on is the number of deaths from the famine. Numerous western academics intentionally inflate the death tolls of countries ruled by communist parties, most infamously “the black book of communism” and the “victims of communism foundation” who literally count Nazi invaders killed by the red army and peoples who could potentially have been born but weren’t as victims of communism.

I don’t understand your point, please clarify it, in a way that isn’t just calling your interlocutors stupid or defensive.

I called you defensive but I did not call you stupid, nor did I imply it.

It matter for the same reason a tribunal need to know the motive of a crime to give it appropriate punishment. It’s not about the morality of the action, it’s about a logically sound and coherent picture of the event.

Peoples doing something bad for terribly bad reasons is coherent, peoples doing something bad for no reason at all isn’t. The fact that you don’t have any explanation as to why an entire government composed of thousand of peoples would do such a thing -like it or not- is a very big hole in your narrative, and rise some serious questions about it’s consistency and therefore about it’s likelihood (because an incoherent statement can never be true no matter what).

Insisting that the event happened the way you say it did without providing any rational or cause-effect relationship and becoming defensive when explicitly asked to provide one puts both your narrative and your argumentation in it’s favor in the same category as those of conspiracy theorists who insists that “they” lie to us and immediately gets mad when asked to explain why “they” would.

The problem of leftist jokes mocking the right is that no matter how hyperbolic we make them they always end up being more spot on somehow.

Peoples still believe that lie about the column somehow running out of fuel and food and whatever redditors felt like saying this week while heading for Kiev?

I was there years ago when r/Ukraine started spinning that lie and I still have yet to see so much as a shred of evidence that this column ran out of whatever they said it ran out of, or that this ominous column that they said for months was about to reach Kiev was even real in the first place.

Did someone fuck around and not like what they found out?

From what I know of texas, this does sound like the kind of instruments they would have.

The cool new thing!! We need it!!!

Ethane? You mean one of those fossil energy sources that China’s trade partner and neighbor Russia has a metric shit ton of and that China is less and less dependent on as they install more nuclear and renewable power sources? One of those? Gosh, I just can’t wait to see how well banning that will go.

How that will go in a nutshell:

It’s not our fault that we couldn’t be bothered to invest in mines and refineries instead of de-localizing production to maximize our profits!

Good

The institute said its facilities had the capacity to produce 12,000 wafers annually, with each wafer yielding about 350 chips.

that’s 1000 wafers per month aka 350 000 chips per month. If this is not mass production, it’s not far from it.

The US has been trying to build advanced semiconductor plants for =<7nm chips. Safe to say that all of it is doomed by this development if it isn’t already by all the problems they had trying to build chip plants in the US.

The platform aims to share its design and processing expertise with industry partners to accelerate the commercial adoption of the technology across 5G, 6G, artificial intelligence (AI) data centres and quantum computing networks.

So there’s already consumer applications on the way. How long until we get smartphones and computers with one of those as CPU?

If the US stopped sending weapons Israel would have to stop the genocide regardless of whether they want to or not. Already even with being pumped full of pentagon weapons and fundings all they can do is bombing unarmed civilians from far away because every time they try to actually fight Hamas or Hezbollah they get fucking shredded and have to retreat within a few months and their supposedly impenetrable iron dome gets regularly bullied by Hezbollah and Ansar Allah drones, so without US help they would be doomed to fall unless they sue for peace.

Ha yes, wanting a politician that doesn’t have sewer fermented dogshit stances on literally every single important current political issue is “expecting perfection”.

Keep scolding everyone who dares have even the mildest criticism of the blue clown show as they continue to slide more and more to the right, that worked out so well for you all this past election.

“but is there a deeper cost?” instead of “but at what cost?”

Daring today aren’t we?

Gender fluid chip when?