So first, the airspace controls aren't that unique. In the United States for example, you cannot fly a drone without FAA authorization within 15 miles of Reagan National Airport which covers the White House, Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, and most other Federal Buildings in the region. This is reasonable given its the nation's capital with obvious national security implications.

The ban also fits into China's airspace philosophy: China is unique in that airspace is by default owned by the military with corridors carved out for civilian and commercial use, a legacy of their Soviet heritage. This is different from most of the world where airspace is by default for civilian use with areas carved out for military purposes. Therefore, it's not surprising the government would quickly wrestle control in the name of national defense. The banning of sales, repair, and usage is a bit heavy handed however.

Given that China has straight up banned Starlink and views it as a national security threat, I wouldn't put it beyond them to "accidentally" bump a few of Elon's satellites, or at very minimum, have reckless disregard to the position of any Starlink assets in space. What is Elon going to do, especially given that China is the number one threat to his business empire's global expansion: supporting competitors in Tesla's global EV market, actively funding alternatives to Starlink in space, blocking sales of solar panel manufacturing equipment, etc.

The problem was escalation. If the West just floods the Ukrainians with weapons, nations like China may use it as justification to do the same for the Russians. Or if the Russians feel like the West is too quickly tipping the scales, they could open a second front, say "little green men" in Estonia, or selling nuclear submarine technology to the North Koreans.

I think the real challenge is accountability. When soldiers disobey orders or act recklessly and kill the wrong people, you have a military justice process that can hold people accountable. Who is accountable for an algorithm that kills the wrong people especially when we still struggle today to audit how an AI makes a decision? Is it on the programmers? A soldier who unknowingly gave a flawed prompt? Bad training data by the services? How do you apportion blame?

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? I hope Anthropic has VERY high confidence that their AI will execute financial instructions flawlessly. Otherwise, they will drown in lawsuits.

No, Donald Trump is talking about how he and his family can make a quick buck off of it.

I mean, companies and reporters use LinkedIn to spy on what companies are doing, identify potential sources and targets to recruit, etc. Why do we think nation-states wouldn't also be involved in the action?

The President wanted to delink the US economy from it's dependence on other nations, so no one should be surprised that it cuts both ways.

Agree completely. In addition to what you already mentioned on shell production (and I fully agree the Europeans will struggle to match Chinese production in terms of volume), we should note that the Chinese are already propping up Russia's war economy. While China is technically not selling the Russians any wartime material, they are providing them with a lot of dual use capabilities that have sustained their ability to produce weapons: industrial tooling, dual-use microelectronics, commercial drone components, ball bearings, navigation equipment, etc. Again, technically things you can squint at and claim are simply civilian use, but given Russia's shift into a wartime economy, are high probability feeding their war machine. China has started to tighten up some of those exports, particularly around machine tools, but it's not a stretch to say that the Russian war machine would have collapsed years ago without Chinese assistance. As I noted in another comment, China is finely calibrating their support - they don't want Putin's regime to collapse, but they don't want Putin further escalating tensions either.

China is actually in a dilemma with Russia. On one hand, they want the Russian regime to survive only because it provides a political counterbalance to the EU in Europe. However, they are frustrated with the Russians constantly expanding the war and threatening to attack other nations because they don't want the Russians to provoke NATO rearmament and remilitarization. So they are trying to calibrate to keep the Russians alive while making sure they don't give them so much that they'll start another war.

Just want to point out that automation is not new to journalism. Algorithms have been writing tons of articles for over a couple of decades now, from sports scores to earnings reports to reporting on earthquakes. LLM's are perhaps the final straw for a journalism profession that has is on the verge of collapse from the one-two punch of the Internet and automation with CEO's who are now experiencing AI psychosis having decided to pull the final plug on human written news articles.

It's pretty straight forward - it makes their jobs easier. However, the risk is, has always been, that even if they initially acquire and use the tool for the public good, it will abused whether by corrupt individual operators or corrupt government officials for their own personal gains. The temptation is great.

It's also a flawed strategy, one that various industries have seen over and over. The employees most likely to leave are the most skilled ones who have lots of options - i.e. the employees that Meta probably wants to keep. The ones who will probably grit their teeth and take it are the ones that have no other real options.

This is so easy to solve, so no need to panic. We just need to water them with Brawndo. Afterall, Brawndo's got what plants crave.