I have to add - the "would it make people blind or lose hair" was a reference to when the light bulb was invented.

> you should be killed

Off-topic. Obviously anything that's unethical to a point where there already are laws worldwide against it, is not part of this opinion.

Any ethical concern other than the environment, is superfluous.

e.g.
would it become too intelligent?
would it take someone's job?
would it make someone feel emotionally hurt?
would it stop people talking face to face?
would it change our traditional way of life?
would it make young people escape supervision?
would it make people blind or lose hair?

That's why other countries are taking over in terms of progress. Just try it out and see what happens, geez.

How about buying industrial robots that helps with large scale domestic production?

Don't buy fish, buy fishing rods.

I think some simple long term thinking is missing here.

What's stopping beefing up manufacturing capacity using robots? Hopefully it's not the unions.

When you distil someone else's model, don't complain when they add some measures against you.
It's like robbers complaining about someone installing stronger door locks.

Does it mean that the total power consumption actually increased, or is it nearly the same while nuclear decreased?

Global warming only cares about the absolute amount of fossil fuels. It does not care about the percentage.

If you rely on the drug alone without lifestyle changes, you lose the benefits when you get off the drug.

Canada is making a choice for the less of 2 evils. It should really diversify WAY beyond both the USA and China.

In a sense that trade will be predictably weaponized. Better than Trump's unpredictability, but I doubt the end result would be much better.

Why are you anonymous coward bringing up "Americans" whenever someone talks about your country? Wumao distraction tactic and Whataboutism, I get it.

"China" as we know it is only about 80 years old. What you are referring to in those 4,920 years? Empires with their own country names, flags, currencies, some even different official languages. They just happened to occupy the same area.

They'll just be indirectly funding Russia's future Europe invasion.

If 19.9% is retained by ByteDance and 30.1% is retained by "affiliates of existing investors", what's in the deal that resolves the national security concerns? In my opinion this deal is not working.

The tech was either transferred or leaked.

These people have much to lose and will carefully toe our line on these serious topics.