|
MarcusSA posted:This is actually really hosed up on so many levels. Apparently they couldn't go with any of their stateside printers because there's currently a paper shortage due to covid. They went with these guys due to a good experience with a previous book but that one probably had nothing to do with the subject of Chinese history.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Coxswain Balls posted:Apparently they couldn't go with any of their stateside printers because there's currently a paper shortage due to covid. They went with these guys due to a good experience with a previous book but that one probably had nothing to do with the subject of Chinese history. Ian's last book was about French rifles IIRC so yeah I doubt the censors would have given a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:It seems very smart and forward thinking, that can't be right Whenever State fails, they blame CIA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:This is actually really hosed up on so many levels. Cause there's apparently only a few printers on the planet that can do what they want and as mentioned the american ones aren't taking orders until like next year
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:how many times did they mention Shen Yun? He's funded by Epoch Times which is wholly owned by Falun Gong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Maybe we should not produce everything on the planet in China, even if it’s cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
FruitNYogurtParfait posted:Cause there's apparently only a few printers on the planet that can do what they want at the price they want
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
FruitNYogurtParfait posted:Cause there's apparently only a few printers on the planet that can do what they want and as mentioned the american ones aren't taking orders until like next year A heavy burden to carry
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
Popoto posted:Maybe we should not produce everything on the planet in China, even if it’s cheaper. That's communism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
Popoto posted:Maybe we should not produce everything on the planet in China, even if it’s cheaper. Give it a few years, manufacturing will move to the next horrifically exploitative region. People in the first world will make countless billions and millions in the new sweatshop centre of the world will endure untold suffering. I'm guessing somewhere in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
vietnam, rest of se asia, india
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:Give it a few years, manufacturing will move to the next horrifically exploitative region. People in the first world will make countless billions and millions in the new sweatshop centre of the world will endure untold suffering. This has been happening in textiles, but it's unlikely to happen "in a few years" for loads of other things since CA has pretty much nailed down their supply chains while all the other developing countries are still miles and miles behind. India was supposed to be a major manufacturing competitor with China, but that pretty much fell face first in the dirt due to India's corrupt system of bribes and strife being vastly inferior to China's system of bribes and strife. India jumped right to a service model economy and its manufacturing is pretty much in the dust. The reason the service model even works in India is people can get paid directly from overseas clients which completely avoid India's networks of graft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
India is a proto fascist state. Its perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:He's funded by Epoch Times which is wholly owned by Falun Gong. Its gotten really bad in the last year or so. I finally unsubscribed after they had an episode with Jack Posobiec on. Posobiec is a white nationalist, was on OAN for awhile and is a believer in Q bullshit. The channel used to be good back when they were vaguely connected to Falun Gong but now its fully out in the open.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1235735.shtml On the same page as "China reveals ship-borne vertical launch system with quad-pack cell" Does China actually have a working aircraft carrier yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
They have two technically, the old Soviet one they bought and a home-built copy of it. Unclear how much they can actually use them though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
Their fleet is only one ship larger than Thailand's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Their fleet is only one ship larger than Thailand's. one ship larger than france's, on par with the royal navy e: chinese official propaganda is kind of comforting to me now. it has such a familiar rhythm and tone, in english or in chinese hypnophant fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:e: chinese official propaganda is kind of comforting to me now. it has such a familiar rhythm and tone, in english or in chinese It's always exactly the same thing, the same set phrases. Putting those things out must be a cushy gig.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:They have two technically, the old Soviet one they bought and a home-built copy of it. Unclear how much they can actually use them though. I don't doubt they both work fairly well for training and showing the flag (whenever they get around to it). Whether they're combat-ready is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I don't doubt they both work fairly well for training and showing the flag (whenever they get around to it). Whether they're combat-ready is anyone's guess. Yeah combat is what I meant. The first one was a training ship for a while then put into full service. I suspect they're still mostly for training whatever their official designation, carrier operations are hard and they're starting from zero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah combat is what I meant. The first one was a training ship for a while then put into full service. I suspect they're still mostly for training whatever their official designation, carrier operations are hard and they're starting from zero. Not quite zero. China has a century of other peoples' carrier ops to go by, which means they probably have a pretty good broad idea about How to Carrier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not quite zero. China has a century of other peoples' carrier ops to go by, which means they probably have a pretty good broad idea about How to Carrier. "Just look at the British then do the exact opposite of everything."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
i guess we’ve been building to this for a while
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:"Just look at the British then do the exact opposite of everything." The Limeys invented the aircraft carrier and then forgot how to use them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's always exactly the same thing, the same set phrases. Putting those things out must be a cushy gig. one of the last holdouts of the iron rice bowl 100% job security dealios, i am told
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
i remember a few years ago i was in qingdao (where the navy is headquartered, and there's a massive naval base) and we climbed to the top of some famous old tower which overlooks the city and said naval base. They'd stationed some old dude at the top was to tell people to not take pictures of this specific angle which you could clearly see the whole naval base from. IDK what ship or thing exactly was there they didn't want people taking pictures of, but it was around when they were all gung-ho on domestic-made carriers in the news so maybe it was that. Also everyone just took pictures anyway, the old dude was mostly just chilling enjoying his tea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Didn't their newer carrier catch on fire a year or two ago?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:Didn't their newer carrier catch on fire a year or two ago? That was one of their assault carriers for helis etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
I imagine that information about (military operation type) is like information about nuclear weapons. The principles are well known and have been clearly demonstrated, but the people who know the specific technical details to make them work reliably and well are understandably unwilling to share them publicly. So sure, aircraft carriers, big ship make plane go up down, but the minutiae are probably going to be challenging, unless the Russian ship came with an extensive training deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
Yeah, operating a big ship with 1000 crew in battlefield conditions is hard. Running an airport is also really hard. Running a big naval ship that's also an airport and doing so effectively is REALLY hard and the US has 80+ year's worth of tacit knowledge in this area, and China very much doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
I have this weird feeling that once they are tested militarily that they will find out that all their 18chrome steel or whatever is actually only 14chrome steel and poo poo just falls apart because some guys was siphoning off a few millions to buy condos in Canada and Australia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
BrassRoots posted:I have this weird feeling that once they are tested militarily that they will find out that all their 18chrome steel or whatever is actually only 14chrome steel and poo poo just falls apart because some guys was siphoning off a few millions to buy condos in Canada and Australia. It's a copy of a near-derelict Russian carrier. If it actually has to function under stressful combat operations against a similar-theoretical-capability enemy, then things have already gone badly wrong, and the grade of steel will not be on the first page of the problem list. ...thought their procurement dude, as he funneled the money to the Bahamas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
Also you have to train hundreds of pilots to do the hardest job in piloting, trained by people who have never done it before either. On top of how bad PRC military training already is. They'll figure it out but I'd guess they're fancy paperweights right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
this is prolly one area in which the classic china tu quoque argument actually basically goes through, tho. it may end up being a sort of phony war ala early ww1 when both sides scramble to unfuck their hosed systems for peer war
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
They're also ski-jump carriers. So anything taking off can carry the following. Bombs Missles A useful amount of fuel. (pick 1)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Blistex posted:They're also ski-jump carriers. So anything taking off can carry the following. I thought I said to do the opposite of whatever the British do!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
Speaking of articles, I really like the wording and semantics on this one https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202110/1235793.shtml A linguist should do a study on those things. So this is a person who is probably genuinely offended by people merely disagreeing with the propaganda narrative, and they essentially try to work out an argument for why this is not only bad and offensive, but downright morally wrong. In so doing, they obviously use some sort of "phrase book" and an English thesaurus. Now, as a non-native English speaker I can never be sure of these things, but I feel this article is sort of revealing of the mindset of the author and the propaganda department's narrative. - For example, I don't think a Western person would use the word blasphemy in this context, let alone the headline - Next, the author essentially states that "objectivity" actually promotes the US-perspective (heh) because it counters the "the mainstream memory and values of Chinese society about the war".There's a lot in this sentence already. - When they write Chinese soldiers, they often add some non-sequitur adjectives like "the admirable Chinese soldiers". It is not enough to make an argument, the sentence has to have more color in it. They write "This has completely gone beyond discussion about a historical event and become a provocation." but then again, reiterate that we are not speaking about someone making up facts or propaganda. Instead, the discussion has gone "beyond historical events" by touching on the "objective truth" of the event, which the author implicitly admits contradicts the Chinese folk narrative and therefore "such provocateurs will be spurned by the public." An important argument is then that "in any society, such profanity will drown in the spit of the public." So, contradicting the perhaps not quite accurate folk lore of the Chinese people would mean that such "objectivists" would "find themselves in only the quirky minority of society." For many of us, this would merely be a tautology. Instead, for a Chinese person, this argument obviously has weight. It is so important, the author pivots within the article - first talking about how such narratives are disgusting and finally mostly talking about how they would lead to societal isolation. The author is, of course, editor in chief of that newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 09:45
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Speaking of articles, I really like the wording and semantics on this one Authoritarian governments tend to ban or restrict religion for a reason. It's because their self-serving narrative is the country's religion. Contradicting it, whether you're factually correct or not, is literal blasphemy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Speaking of articles, I really like the wording and semantics on this one Idk if I have a big issue with the use of blasphemous. It is very much his style to use flowery and superfluous 'high brow' vocab. Much like a hih-schooler/ undergrad will reach for a thesaurus to hit the word count (rather than be explicit and concise). Fwiw, the GT is basically disregarded, and he as EiC is largely laughed at and a figure of ridicule as a result
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 11:11
|
|
