I'm excited for the long tail of techniques like this that are going to be discovered over the next several decades that's going to make this technology eventually run on a toaster!
All the new regulations (carefully presented as crackdown) make it easier for large companies to hire immigrants in a more reliable way. All carefully choreographed by big tech.
The chances of a specific company being able to sponsor a specific employee through this year's lottery went by significantly (3-4x) compared to the last several years.
Ultimately, companies who use H1B visas will outcompete companies who don't because the H1B system gives them cheaper labor costs. The solution has to come at the regulatory level.
150 years ago, if you told someone "oh if you want safer factories just build one yourself," that business would never survive because they'd get outcompeted by the less scrupulous factory owners who were happy to mangle their employees and just replace them with more desperate workers.
Right but you act like nothing can be done about that. If you outsource enough then don't count on the US government to protect you overseas. Go ahead and risk nationalization. The very fact that we are having this discussion shows how bad the situation is: companies can effectively threaten to move all their jobs overseas, thereby threatening US workers with economic ruin. That's not okay.
The government grants broad liability shields to owners of companies because there is a vested state interest in facilitating commerce/economic growth. I guess if companies are just going to move overseas then maybe those liability shields could just be vacated. They don't deserve to have their cake and eat it too. It's easy: want the liability shield? Stop being fucking greedy and be a good corporate citizen. Otherwise, no cake for you.
If you give companies the ability to choose US government protection against their overseas operations being nationalized versus the ability to hire foreigners on work visas, the overwhelming majority of companies will choose the latter.
Do you think it's a bad thing that the US implemented occupational safety laws?
I agree that it's not great that many of those risks just shifted overseas, but it's certainly a net positive that American employers can no longer let workers die or get permanently injured and just let the workers absorb those costs.
The H1B visa system isn't just a natural part of capitalism that I want the government to regulate. It's an artificial condition created by bad regulations. You can argue that we shouldn't have immigration restrictions at all since they're an artificial economic constraint, but that's a whole other argument.
I don't think it's specifically bad to have occupational safety laws, but overregulation in general has a choking effect.
By the time it'll take you to navigate the system to build anything physical in the US, you can have two iterations of the product in China.
The US way of handling this to go per incident and make one more rule, no matter how improbable that situation is. Eventually you end up with a system that needs a team of lawyers.
> Ultimately, companies who use H1B visas will outcompete companies who don't because the H1B system gives them cheaper labor costs. The solution has to come at the regulatory level.
I have utmost respect of your work, a customer of your fantastic product and have been meaning to reach out to you for a while (infact I learned about Cory from your blog in 2021) but I had to push back hard on this.
TinyPilot didn't happen in India nor China. I can argue it would have been cheaper to build it at any one of those countries but you know much better about it than I.
Labor costs only matter when you're selling an absolute commodity that has no edge than price.
Of all the people I would have expected to say that the solution has to come at the regulatory level given the experience, success you've had, with your transparency in how your company was doing, I am utterly surprised it was you.
I am more than happy to continue, reached out - I just wish our initial email would have been way more pleasant!
To clarify, I certainly agree it's possible for a business to succeed without using H1B visas, especially for something small at the the scale of TinyPilot (7 people when I sold).
I just mean on a large scale, the companies that use H1B visas will generally outcompete the ones that don't.
What's the cost difference between a US citizen and an H1B? I'd guess it's something around 20% less expensive to hire an H1B visa holder. In an industry like software where the dominant cost is labor, then H1B companies have a 20% advantage over non-H1B companies. Non-H1B companies can outcompete them by being 20% better, but that's a big disadvantage to overcome.
Running my business actually made me oppose H1B visas more. The H1B visa system gives big businesses a massive advantage over small businesses. There's so much frictional cost to hiring someone on an H1B visa (legal fees, admin overhead) that it's not practical if you're only hiring 1-2 employees, but you'll get ROI if you're hiring 10-20. But it just gives an advantage to bigger business, and the advantage wouldn't exist if the H1B system didn't exist or if the government designed it to be employer-agnostic.
> There's so much frictional cost to hiring someone on an H1B visa (legal fees, admin overhead) that it's not practical if you're only hiring 1-2 employees
Very true but as you saw in my email, I have extremely experienced friends back in India who I have been able to hire as contractors without issue. No H1B - just plain old Slack, email and Forgejo. The playbook for asynchronous work is well tested and debugged by now. 2019 was a blessing.
I will concede, this doesn't work for every company - a hardware or biotech company definitely would appreciate people all being together in the same physical lab, in which case I hear you!
> the government designed it to be employer-agnostic
... but the government cannot be employer-agnostic, Michael.
The government is not an impartial, unbiased mainframe running in a DC somewhere. It's a group of people accepting and pushing policy who can be influenced, just like I am influencing your today, and you, me.
As an SMB and bootstrapped founder, you then have to choose between spending your time and efforts on being at the influencing table vs making actual design and business decisions at your startup the moment you yield influence to this group.
The bigger business simply doesn't have to make that decision. So don't help tip the scales further against yourself and SMBs like you.
That's one of my points that I was hoping to discuss in our email - that involving the government adds further overhead, resistance and expense into the system, so we should exhaust all other options before we even consider it. I personally have never seen an option that needed government intervention that couldn't be solved by the free market. I don't work in healthcare or education or finance - maybe those do require government intervention - I am entirely unfamiliar about those domains and not talking about them.
The other interpretation of being employer-agnostic is that the H1B isn't tied to a "sponsoring company" and doesn't require any of the transfer shenanigans. Sure, but the issue it isn't that way is because it's a rare "dual intention" visa in that, you are a non-immigrant who can become a citizen through the H1B. This was a feature added to the H1B to entice top quality talent. The problem with making the H1B employer-agnostic is that now you can I can start a perfectly legal, fantastic lifestyle businesses hiring H1Bs, petitioning for their greencards and immediately letting them go. As long as they can figure out a way to eat and sleep, they can now become citizens. So for it to be employer-agnostic, we need to remove the "dual intention" - the very carrot employers use (if you tough it out through all those JIRA tickets, you'll get to be a citizen!)
> I just mean on a large scale, the companies that use H1B visas will generally outcompete the ones that don't.
This is where I continue to push back. I was hoping to discuss over email but do you feel you could have built TinyPilot at either MS or Google, not as a side project but as an official product offering? I don't want to get too tied up into the specific features that TinyPilot offers - I'm using it as a proxy for a very useful, innovative product that provably solves real customer problems.
At the large scales where H1B makes sense, you as a major decision maker at the company wouldn't allow a worker with a risky status like the H1B be responsible for high impact, meaningful pieces of work. Actually, forget H1Bs - at the large scales where H1B makes sense, you would simply not entrust a single individual, H1B or not, with high impact, meaningful pieces of work.
If we disagree on this take, please say so - I am here to learn and listen.
The original intention of the H1B was to handle temporary supply shocks in knowledge work while the U.S. slowly fixed those supply constraints on its own.
If avocado toasts became an overnight sensation, the H1B was a way to provide breathing room to local avocado farms so the demand could sustain or grow (and not collapse) while they came up to speed to meet that sudden demand.
The H1B wasn't designed to be a way to absolutely wipe out local avocado farms because it's cheaper to just import avocados from Mexico.
The H1B has completely diverged from that and going in the opposite direction where it's actively and negatively impacting domestic markets. Massive corporations in Asia have grown whose sole business model is exploiting this geographical arbitrage and nothing else.
What piece of critical, useful software that has had a mention on HN can you name or recall that has come out of these many mutibillion dollar outsourcing giants?
A $60k/yr salary as a resident doctor is fantastic if you did most of your education in Asia but if you attended medical school anywhere in the U.S. and didn't have a 100% scholarship, you're starting your life off in crippling debt.
During COVID, there was an explosion of domestic coding bootcamps to address the supply constraints - this is precisely the kind of domestic corrections we, as the U.S. need to encourage and develop local talent, get them educated and motivated about tech, but these bootcamps require an investment that in Asia covers education, boarding and lodging without any scholarship. There's just no competition when it comes to cost. We in the U.S. have an extremely high quality of living and our CoL reflects that. As I wrote in my email, things we take for granted here - running water (not potable, just water that you could water your plants with), 24x7 electricity and internet - these are still unavailable where I was born, so of course, the CoL is cheaper. Way cheaper.
One might say, "OK then, free markets for the win" - that itself is a separate debate on its own.
Did you write a patronizing comment because you don't have an intellectual argument? Making comments about an abusive visa program isn't crying. Nowhere have I said immigrants are to blame, nor have I said that we should stop immigration.
The H-1B visa program is simply another element of the system that capital uses to abuse labor in the United States. It's not enough that healthcare (if you are even lucky enough to get any) is tied to employment. The low bar for bringing in foreign workers is used as a negotiating tactic by employers. There is no equivalent leverage for workers, absent economic ruin. This problem affects tens of millions of Americans and that's not normal and it's not okay. Maybe the law should allow H-1B visa, but also charge an absolutely huge premium (> $250k) that the company commits to worker healthcare or something. If the positions are so essential then $250k is still an incredibly good deal.
America has to start addressing the imbalance of power between capital and labor. It's gotten bad enough that one could easily argue that it's becoming a potent anti-democratic force in the US. And, I'm sorry, but Americans should not have to cede their desire for equal economic footing because people like you want intimate that it's about "not hiring immigrants".
Unfortunately, the current status quo and economic footing everyone enjoys in the US is built on this and similar exploitative behaviors explicitly enabled by the US government for its entire history.
How willing are you to sacrifice your standard of living for the purpose of labor gaining some foothold against capital? The GDP per capita of the poorest US states are more than virtually all socialist countries.
When you are puzzled about something, the first step is to find out why something works like it does. :)
With green cards, the government is concerned about permanent residents being dependent on the state if a company ceases to exist or fails to pay salaries or lays people off.
This worry is largely not present for limited term work visas.
At the heart of this is the fact that America has lost the capability to manufacture anything at scale.
High tech interceptors and missiles and aircraft carriers are great, but with China's help these are outnumbered by three (soon to be four) orders of magnitude.
It's unclear if we can do much other than threaten sanctions and nukes, with not much in between.
Sorry, at the heart of this is that the Commander in Chief and Secretary of War are idiots. It's not clear how any of this situation would be any different if America had a dramatically higher production capacity.
Clausewitz would say they are the same: the stupid war is the continuation of stupid politics by other means. The objectives are unclear, which prevents them being achieved.
Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. He is a super zealous religious fanatic who very much wants to destroy as many Muslims as possible. He has a crusades tattoo and openly talks about killing heathens in his WEEKLY SERMON. He might be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is doing.
I mean he's even not that great at his chosen profession which is a television news media personality, although I am sure he knows what he is apparently trying to do, in that regard.
One of the contracting things I turned down was someone who knew what they wanted to do was make Uber for aircraft.
I turned it down because they clearly didn't know enough about this goal to fill an elevator pitch, let alone a slide deck, and I think many of the current US Secretary of XYZ leaders are similarly unaware of how vast a chasm lay between what they wanted to do and a specific, measurable, realistic, and time-constrained plan to actually achieve anything.
English language ambiguity problem. "Knows what he is doing" has two potential meanings: it could mean competence, or it could mean clear intent. I think OP meant the latter.
> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America
I think the Ukranians are still unimpressed with the withdrawal of US support, especially from the shells which were being manufactured in the US (now moved to Rheinmetall), and the de-sanctioning of Russian oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2871wyz9ko
Not the stuff that matters (chips, electronics, metals, etc). We don't even have a primary lead smelter, which we would likely need if we got into a peer conflict.
It's also important to note that the US lacks the ability to quickly pivot and set up plants. Much of the knowledge to do so has been disappearing as employment in that sector has been steadily declining for decades. Sure we make stuff at scale using automation, but that automation can't be changed to significantly different stuff in a reasonable timeframe.
We suck at ultra-heavy industry that outputs commodities. We're great at light industry, or specialised heavy industry, which includes a lot of electronics. You're correct on inflexibility.
Yeah, even if we can produce them now, we don't have the pipeline to keep them running - steel for guns comes from other countries, we don't have a primary lead smelter in the country, medical devices that rely on electronics rely on foreign components, etc. The only reason pharma can operate here is because of the regulations, and even then many components chemicals are sourced internationally.
Worked as a chemical systems technician for a bit. Can confirm, lots of the chemicals we used (most, some of which were pharma grade but we weren't pharma), had to come from either China or Germany. And we really did try to source as much in the US as possible. So it wasn't even a question of cost, it was simply no one here wanted to make what we needed.
Now granted, I'm not naive enough to think we should be able to be self-sufficient and manufacture everything ourselves. I think it is fine to import stuff. My bigger concern is, for some things, there just isn't a lot of options. I think its fine to buy some of the raw materials from Germany and China, but I'd also like to see a few more countries that they could be bought from.
A quarter of steel used in the U.S. is imported, and of that quarter, 40% comes from Mexico and Canada; very little comes from China[0]. So, not only does your point fall flat, the people we get steel from are our neighbors so it'd make sense to not sour with relationships with them like the current admin is doing with chaotic trade policy and invasion threats.
I really don't understand the FUD around US manufacturing capability, you'd essentially need to craft the greatest conspiracy ever to think that every politician, defense agency, intelligence agency, etc. is asleep at the wheel to not recognize this supposed threat and do nothing about it.
China ships a rather large amount of stuff to these countries to take advantage of the trade agreements. So much that you can find satellite images of large yards in Mexico that are used for this purpose with barely any effort.
Okay, let's assume most of their steel is Chinese (I have my doubts because, yet again, more conspiracies), we only import a quarter of the steel we use. That would hurt losing it overnight, sure, but we wouldn't be absolutely toast like the autarkists are saying.
These takes are much more doomer than I'm willing to bet the supporters of "bring everything back" realize. Do you have no faith in the US economy / populace adapting to a hypothetical all out war with China?
Personally I have little to no faith in the adaptability of the US workforce for such things. It would be a generational shift. Exceedingly few people even have basic mechanical skills these days.
It’s not like WWII where you have a majority population that works on the farm or in a factory with their hands, and at home fixing stuff that breaks. That sort of population can be rapidly redeployed. We would need to start from the basics like “how to turn a screwdriver” for a huge portion of the workforce.
When you really start looking into things, nearly everything points back to China at some point. Pharmaceuticals? The APIs or at least important precursors largely originate there - even if they hit a middleman country first. Then you get into basic components and it’s the same story. That part from India or Mexico might not be available without China as a backstop.
It’s not an impossible problem, but it’s a problem that took decades and a generation or two to destroy. It’s far easier and quicker to destroy things than build them.
Have you heard about the great toilet paper scarcity of 2020 during covid? and facemasks? US couldn't make either toilet paper or facemasks or ventilators or build hospital beds or anything that matters when the entire economy was at risk of shutdown.
Maybe this video of a rather famous YouTuber trying to manufacture something as simple as a grill scrubber with a US supply chain would help you understand how bad it is?
One thing that struck me is seeing his months long struggle, where the only injection mold designer he could find was near retirement age and wouldn't be doing it for too much longer, the tool & die expert he talked to died between when he interviewed him and when he made the video, he had to deal with suppliers lying about where their parts came from, and some American suppliers could only provide low quantities without him paying to upgrade their tooling. Then there's a comment from someone in China saying that over there, he'd be able to bring his product to mass production in about 5 days in whatever quantity he wanted, and at a higher quality (more corrosion resistant metal, more durable silicone, etc).
I agree the situation is dire, but do not underestimate the US government’s ability to spend its way to gain a desired result. The first time a bullet hits US soil there will be 50 million people falling over themselves to manufacture shoes by hand if it helps “kill the bad guys”
I saw hints of this ~20 years ago. I was working on software for a consumer device. For manufacturing it, we chose Foxconn. One non-negotiable point from their end was that they had to write some of the software on the device. They didn't care which part or how small.
The device had a physical keyboard with a micocontroller that managed it and they ended up writing the code that ran on that micro as it was largely independent of the code we were writing, and easy for us to test. The first versions were not great, but they got better quickly.
As we talked amongst ourselves about why they were so emphatic about this, it became clear to us that they were taking a long term view of the importance of moving into the intellectual property side of things. Dustin points out that, in some areas, they are there.
There are multiple interesting bits, worth watching the whole thing at some point.
Something that stuck with me was that dude had an uncle that worked at a bolt factory down the road, and now there is literally no way to source domestically made bolts. And that they could find one retired guy after scouring multiple states who could help make an injection mold. I'm sure some of the larger defense contractors have a few guys who can do this, but that makes for a pretty low bus factor.
> Something that stuck with me was that dude had an uncle that worked at a bolt factory down the road, and now there is literally no way to source domestically made bolts.
US manufactured fasteners are available*, the Build America, Buy America Act created a market for them. You’re not going to find them at Home Depot or your local hardware store, professional supply houses will sell them to you.
Waivers are available if no US supplier is available, but there usually is a US supplier.
I assume bolt manufacturing is automated to the point where you load up a CNC machine with steel hex stock and get boxes of bolts on the other end, there’s not a ton of labor involved. The machine cuts the hex stock to length, then removes material to create a cylindrical shaft and then threads are cut.
* By US manufactured, I mean ‘compliant with BABAA requirements’, which is something like 55% of the materials and manufactured here.
That talks about how they couldn't find someone US side to make the injection moulding moulds. We used to have a manufacturing business in the UK and got quotes for some moulds in the 1980s. You could get it done in the UK but the cost to get it from China was 1/5 as much. I guess people just went with the cheaper option.
You can still get molds made in the USA, but they are indeed much more expensive than an equivalent one made in PRoC, and options/expertise are often more limited or specialized (depending on how you look at it). It is very difficult, but not impossible to make consumer products in the USA.
I’ve had them made and run in Canada (as well as the PRoC), and I’m speaking from experience. Getting molds made is not really something you'd do as an exercise, unless you've got a lot of time and money sitting around. A small mold might cost $20-30k in North America, or $5-10k in PRoC, and you need to run at least a few hundred parts (additional cost) to get any idea of the issues it might have.
Depends on the specific product, the mold maker, and the plastic injection facility. In general, it seems like North America is able to produce the regulated products (i.e. medical & military) at a high quality level, but with some limits as to the specific media (plastic types), colors, and tool designs, and at a high cost. PRoC has a wide spread of providers, and quality is not well-correlated with price, so it really depends on who you know, but you can get very good parts of all types at very appealing prices, but communication is terrible, delays are common, and quality can drop sharply from one run to another.
Overall, I've mostly given up on North American producers because I do pro-sumer products, and they're too expensive and inflexible for me, but we're also fairly low-volume, so it may just be that I don't haven't had access to the right providers.
I doubt that. If American soil was threatened I think you would see a mass mobilization. People like living in America and they won’t give it up easily. I know I would join. See how long Ukraine has lasted with far fewer resources.
Americans are fat and happy now but we are not always this way.
We (the US) probably spend too much per munition and do not have manufacturing capacity like China. We're not helpless, but i dont get the sense we have plenty of stock either. Both are problems.
(1) In this back and forth I'm surprised mines in the straight are not mentioned.
(2) im having difficulty seeing how cheap drones incapacitates a carrier. They are there to project force well into enemy territory for precise strikes. The carrier can be some distance from the shore. Now, the question turns to strike what? Surely drone manufacturing plants and barracks would have to be on list or ... they'd be less effective.
(3) if drones are sub-mach speeds why not shoot down with a glorified gattleling gun as opposed to expensive missiles or lasers?
The US is responsible for over 10% of world manufacturing, putting them in second place of all countries (after China).
>When people claim that America is losing manufacturing jobs
That percentage goes down every year due to reduced manufacturing but also jobs are lost to high-tech automation in manufacturing. But it's still a buttload.
The US is not an ally of Ukraine, it sees Ukraine as a nuisance that should have rolled over long ago but somehow refuses to and because the US still needs Europe for a bit longer (but maybe not that much longer) they're still playing ball as long as Europe pays (as it should, but that's besides the point).
Allies come to each others aid, the US has all but abandoned Ukraine after Trump came to power and did far less than it could have done early on. Why you would expect Ukraine to be generous after the numerous put downs and actions that were clearly organized to benefit Putin is a mystery to me.
This sentiment is very popular in Europe. From the perspective of the American, it's like, help was offered for 90% of the time in the Ukraine conflict, then we took a break and suddenly we are more an enemy than China. From my point of view, the pushing away is not one-sided like Europeans like to portray, but has been mutual for awhile.
I think when you start to threaten your former allies by wanting to attack/invade them you probably should be dinged in the trust department for that.
The same goes for when you try to strongarm a country into fabricating evidence to shore up your lies.
The USA was an ally in 1945 and has since steadily eroded that. In 2001 they briefly regained a lot of sympathy but squandered it just as fast and now we're at low tide. And I wonder how much lower it will go before people with common sense will be back at the helm and reparation of the relationship can begin, but I don't expect the aftershocks of this to be gone quickly.
And no, help was not offered '90% of the time'. Most of the time it was just business in disguise, altruism did not factor into it as far as I can see.
I would suggest that China are currently a more reliable partner than the US because of their predictability, given that I cannot be sure whether or not this statement alone might result in a change of tariffs for my nation at the whim of America's king. I'm still looking for congress in all of this (did they ever even approve this war in Iran?!?) but idk if the republic is a thing anymore or not.
Yeah I can see that. The other poster is right about it being multi-faceted. My question is intentionally somewhat provocative. It forces someone to pick between two bad options, and I always gain respect for people who decide to pick one instead of intentionally avoiding it and just saying "oh they're both bad, idk".
hopefully this will all start to settle down around the end of this year if congress gets its teeth back and hopefully by the end of 2028. If it doesn't.... well then I despair, as the world I once knew is over.
Already within the subreddits of my nation there is an increasingly dismissive attitude to the historic alliances that kept us safe for around the last hundred years and I can't blame them. Especially if Hormuz remains blocked and the US just walks away leaving this pile of sick of its own creation on the floor. I imagine a new rather loose coalition might rise of such a status quo and its possible that China becomes a major player in that, given its likely desire as a major manufacturer to keep trade open and shipping flowing, which is the opposite of what the US has been doing since 2025.
> It forces someone to pick between two bad options, and I always gain respect for people who decide to pick one instead of intentionally avoiding it
IDK, if someone sees that a question is bullshit and refuses to play along with it, you lose respect for them? This is not a heuristic that will help you in life.
Both China and the USA have made many moves that benefit Putin. I would say neither party is a friend of Ukraine. China plays its own long games and the USA is being run by madmen. Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I don't like the way either is behaving on the world stage, and each for different reasons.
>Why do I have to prefer one over the other? I don't like the way either is behaving on the world stage, and each for different reasons.
This is the perfect encapsulation of what I mean in my original response to you. This IS the popular European sentiment. And this is what is off-putting to many Americans. The weight of China and the US is not even worth preference, despite the US having contributed positively to the Ukrainian conflict and European defense. We are not even WORTHY of being placed above China, we're either just as bad or worse is the typical response I see.
You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe get with the times and then report back.
Last I checked China hasn't threatened to take over either Canada or Greenland, has not started any major wars for which they expect the EU to pay for cleaning up their mess, has reasonably sane leadership and on top of that has been a fairly trustworthy business partner that does not engage in whim driven economic warfare. They also have a bunch of very dark sides that I am going to assume we are all familiar with.
I really wonder why you think that the USA should be given a free pass for what it has done in the last decade.
And that's before we get into human rights issues and other 'details'. Comparing yourself to China is not the flex you think it is.
Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the point that you feel you need to pre-empt that classification then maybe HN is not the place for you?
I think that one of the reasons for this "popular European sentiment" is the purely emotional one - it's emotionally more affecting when someone who was a close friend starts behaving badly towards you, than when someone who was a colleague with no close relationship remains thus.
The the popular European sentiment is understandable and IMHO correct though. Saying "it's off-putting" is no in way a coherent argument that it's wrong.
Europe has oil crisis right now because of an illegal war USA started, not because of China. Also, China did not locked accounts of international court justices, it was USA.
One of these two countries is an unpredictable threat and danger right now. The other is predictable threat in the future.
> This IS the popular European sentiment. And this is what is off-putting to many Americans.
You're not saying that it's wrong though. Just that you don't like it. So what, that means nothing. It's not wrong. Rejecting reality because it's "off-putting" will not help you.
The reply chain got too long so I will respond here.
>You seem to be completely out of touch with the way the USA has been behaving towards the EU as of late, maybe get with the times and then report back.
Last I checked China hasn't threatened to take over either Canada or Greenland, has not started any major wars for which they expect the EU to pay for cleaning up their mess, has reasonably sane leadership and on top of that has been a fairly trustworthy business partner that does not engage in whim driven economic warfare. They also have a bunch of very dark sides that I am going to assume we are all familiar with.
I'm aware of everything you've said. What I've noticed is Europeans just like to bash on the US given any reason. My original point is (proven by the exact quote of your words) that this type of European sentiment is accelerating a two-sided voluntary parting. Nothing much more than that. I am not defending the US's actions.
>Comparing yourself to China is not the flex you think it is.
Once again you are proving my point. Europeans are typically not willing to place the US above China. Any attempt to get them to do so will provoke this type of response.
>Your bio says that "Farming negative karma is not trolling when you're expressing your honest views." and that's all fine, you have a right to your honest views but if they're indistinguishable from trolling to the point that you feel you need to pre-empt that classification then maybe HN is not the place for you?
Calling me a troll is just an attack on me and not my argument. That's ok though, no offense taken. The bio is provocation for people who dig into people's profiles. I don't like to do that. I just take the person's posts as is.
> Europeans are typically not willing to place the US above China.
This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array with tons of values that all individually can be ranked. One some of these the USA is better than China on others it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just not how the world works.
> The bio is provocation for people who dig into people's profiles. I don't like to do that. I just take the person's posts as is.
And that's not true either because you clearly checked my account upthread to link it to Europe.
>This is not a scalar, it is a multi-dimensional array with tons of values that all individually can be ranked. One some of these the USA is better than China on others it is definitely not. You may want to collapse that all to a single 'but we're better' picture but that is just not how the world works.
This is correct... and like I said the common European sentiment. I think we've exhausted this dialogue. We're restating the same things in more words.
>And that's not true either because you clearly checked my account upthread to link it to Europe.
Your post I originally responded to says "Should have worn a suit." and also mentions Europe and Ukraine. That's basically the entire context of our back and forth. If you have many other posts about the US and Europe's relationship... well I have no knowledge of those posts.
> This is correct... and like I said the common European sentiment
It's actually the common *global* "sentiment", in that it is the natural conclusion of any rational actor regardless of location, and also in that most of the world feels this way.
Europe has nothing to do with it – all the countries being slighted by the USA, including non-European ones, are coming to grips with the same conclusion: the USA can no longer be relied upon*.
Let's not extend this beyond the European opinion, especially since it's obvious that East Asia does not share the same point of view. East Asia and Europe have very different threats that shape their opinion of the US fundamentally. Europe does not have China breathing down their neck, and with Russia bogged down they have even less to worry about. Europe can freely reject the US, which is what this chain of comments is about, the popular European sentiment. In contrast, if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan, it would be in a minority and publicly disagreed with as their nation's existence hinges on positive US sentiment. To a lesser degree, the same thing in other East Asian countries.
> Let's not extend this beyond the European opinion
Too late! You already did!
> it's obvious that East Asia does not share the same point of view
It's quite obvious that East Asia, and any other regions containing a country being slighted by the US, does share that point of view: that the US can no longer be relied upon. Countries around the world are diversifying their investments of time, effort, and favor, away from the USA.
This clearly surprises you. It is indeed shocking: that's how far the USA has fallen, *globally*, in only a year or so.
> In contrast, if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan
Nobody said anything about "anti-US". We're simply talking about trusting that a country can be relied upon [0]. After seeing USA's behavior over the last year, Taiwan is understandably increasingly concerned that the US cannot be relied upon to defend against a Chinese invasion.
And they're right! Based on the track record of the USA's ruler, they can expect:
1. To be coerced into falsifying information to help the ruler's political campaign, and/or
2. To be told to pay for the help (possibly by allowing the USA to annex some territory), making it not help, but a basic transaction, and/or
3. To be told they would be helped, but then left high and dry when the time comes to help, and/or
4. For the USA to themselves start a war between China and Taiwan, to distract from media coverage of said ruler's involvement with a human-trafficking/child-sex ring.
All of these things have already been done by the ruler. We can reasonably expect him to do them again.
> which is what this chain of comments is about, the popular European sentiment
Again, it's the common *global* sentiment. You are the only one seeming to claim it is limited to Europeans, which is an incorrect claim. Beyond that, are you simply observing that the common European sentiment over the last year (negative) reflects the common global sentiment over the last year (negative), or was there a deeper point?
>This clearly surprises you. It is indeed shocking: that's how far the USA has fallen, globally, in only a year or so.
No, I'm the one who brought up this topic of how Europeans have an increasing unpopular opinion about the US. How is this surprising to me? I literally brought it up. The reason I don't consider East Asia relevant, is because East Asia and Europe do not have the same existential issues. East Asia's dependency on the US is far greater than Europe, and from East Asia's political point of view, Europe may as well not exist at all. Its primary political relations are with the US, SEA, and China. European sentiment about the US holds no relevance there, as it is not Europe, and they are not Europeans. This may surprise you, but the world does not revolve around European sentiment.
> No, I'm the one who brought up this topic of how Europeans have an increasing unpopular opinion about the US
This may surprise you, but the world does not revolve around European sentiment. It should be no surprise, however, that a significant sample (Europe) of a population (the world) has a similar mean to that same population. And that's precisely what we see here: European trust in the USA is eroding, just like East Asia's trust in the USA is eroding, just like global trust in the USA is eroding.
> East Asia's dependency on the US is far greater than Europe
And yet, they still have lost trust in the US. Let that sink in.
> if there's anti-US sentiment in Taiwan
There is!
> it would be in a minority
It isn't!
> their nation's existence hinges on positive US sentiment
Their nation's existence actually hinges on the daily positive vibes of one greedy senile narcissist, which is part of why they have lost trust in the USA.
The world, including both Europe and East Asia, has an increasingly unpopular opinion about the USA. Are you simply observing that the common European sentiment over the last year (negative) reflects the common global sentiment over the last year (negative), or was there a deeper point?
The other poster mentioned the opinions about the US and China being multi-faceted, I like to see it with vectors. My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector? If the average vector points left the opinion favors China, if it points right the opinion favors the US.
The American point of view is, yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security. These are two separate vectors, right? Now average them. And plot China's vectors. I imagine the vectors China produces is much lower in magnitude, and as such provokes a lower emotional response in terms of opinions.
> My question is, given all the vectors, can you provide an average magnitude and average direction of the vector?
It's an interesting question! Since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of Europeans, I'll toss it back your way to answer (with data, of course).
> yes we did make a claim towards Greenland which is European territory, but we also helped with European security.
"Yes, we did threaten to invade a sovereign European country for territorial conquest, but we also did good things in the past" is really weak. How has the US helped Europe's security over the last year?
Most of the work in that direction over several decades is being intentionally destroyed as of late by the USA's ruler as a signature policy position of his. We all understand that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, right? What happened recently outweighs what happened previously.
I make a distinction between the US and the Biden and Trump administrations. Biden was incompetent and timid, Trump is a greedy megalomaniac. The key problem is that the US system elected either of them. Both have savaged US interests in the name of putting America first, while actually acting for small vested interests, like cronies and the Israel lobby.
Pretending America has been a strong ally is foolish. The Biden policy yo-yo has resulted in thousands of dead Ukrainians, while Trump has actively sided with Russia in negotiations and cut off meaningful aid. But Ukraine is now essential for NATO security. It is fortunate they see EU membership as their future, because a Russia or China aligned Ukraine would be a huge problem.
America did not just "took break". It actively took Russian side in negotiations trying to make all the Russian wishes to happen. And now, after Europe bought missiles for Ukraine, USA is sending them to Iran despite them already being paid. And is easing sanctions on Russia.
Also, threatening Greenland was not just "taking a break". Lying about what allies did in Iraq and Afghanistan was not just "taking a break". Insulting Europe, quite grossly, was not just "taking a break". And tariffs were not just "taking a break" either.
For that matter, trying to make Europe more fascists is not "taking a break", it is "meddling in".
They have a working operational system and battle tested tactics, not only procurement.
It's not the rifle that distinguishes the special forces, but how it's used.
They built a network centric warefare with starlink and cheap android tablets down to the drone teams in the field.
They built a network of cheap acousting sensors (old phones) as passive sensors and using ML models to find the drones cheaply and increase the coverage. (Radars are expensive and easy to hit because they emit).
What they achieved is a "sensor fusion like" distributed system buid on cheap components and updated realtime. And all this is battle tested in the new environment of transparent battlefield (there is always a drone looking).
Also a lot of real-life electronic warfare stuff and drone applications.
This is what's missing in the US army. They are optimized for a symetrical 20th century warfare.
UKR = entire country of +40m is on the battlefront so they can do total war mobilized homefront distributed system... so can Iran. But it's very different for force projecting security guarantor US - can't convince paying protectorates to pivot total war defense posture in peacetime, that's what they bribe US not to do.
And ultimately whatever model of distributed lethality / survivability (which US planning foresaw) is less relevant that US global commitments requires high end hardware that has to be rotated / propositioned selectively, and sustainable only in limited numbers vs adversaries mobilized on total war.
But the fundamental problem is US adversaries are catching up on precision strike complex. Iran isn't asymmetric warfare, but restoration of symmetry. It's not so much US getting weaker as adversaries getting stronger, and without monopoly over mass precision strike (which naval / air superiority / supremacy is only delivery platform), US expeditionary mode simply on the losing side of many local attrition scenarios. Ultimately all US adversaries will gain commoditized local precision strike (even deadlier if bundled with high end ISR), at varying scales due to proliferation requiring persistence across global theatres US simply doesn't have numbers/logistics for.
TLDR: US expeditionary model is bunch of goons with rifles in trucks, driving around neighbourhood where everyone had knives that could not get in range. The second everyone else buys guns, then rifles, the expeditionary model breaks.
I think the majority of Americans are on Ukraine's side but of course the president has other ideas. The UK has some Ukranian drone manufacturing going on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dvjwygk1o
> I think the majority of Americans are on Ukraine's side but of course the president has other ideas.
I think that it's understood that when we use shorthand such as "US is not supporting Ukraine" that it is the respective governments that we are discussing. The point about the "majority of Americans" is true enough (though you might say that the majority of Americans care about the price of gasoline and groceries and little else politically) but it is rather irrelevant if the administration does the opposite.
In other words, "thoughts and prayers from people" is not enough to make you an ally. Money and policy is the real thing.
Yeah though most of the US government excluding Trump is pro Ukraine. Biden at least gave some weapons and Lindsey Graham pushed a tough sanctions package which was working quite well until stopped due to the Iran invasion.
>We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America.
The soviet union collapsed as a result of military overspending and massive supply chain corruption in an attempt to keep up with an opponent with lower levels of corruption and a far more powerful industrial base.
Which is to say, inviting the gold toilet brigade from Ukraine to come and build our weapons while showering them with cash would signal that that Christmas came early for Putin.
Reality of course is the other way around: the US defense industry gets to build gold toilets (for the White House ballroom built on the ruins of the East Wing), while the Ukranians absolutely must build stuff that works and is cheap or they get a missile on their heads.
The US survived spending a trillion dollars to achieve very little in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure they'll survive spending another trillion over a decade to achieve nothing in Iran other than hundreds of thousands dead.
The reality is that most of the Ukrainian leadership is like Timur Mindich - furiously stashing away cash for the day when they inevitably have to flee to the west like he did. For now they are generally safe in Ukraine as Russia avoids bombing leadership centers for strategic reasons.
The west tolerates nearly all of the corruption in Ukraine but keeps tight control of two political organs in Ukraine - NABU and SAPO.
These "anti corruption agencies" will mostly hear and see no evil until a politican in Ukraine deviates from western foreign policy goals. Then they "discover" how corrupt this one individual turned out to be and crack down on them until everybody is once again on the same page.
Twice they have threatened Zelensky (once when he tried to bring the agencies under his direct control) and twice he has backed down.
It's not about steamrolling, never was. The whole point of the exercise was to install a puppet government. In Ukraine, the TV actor installed by the Biden administration is currently the acting president. The moment funding runs out - so will he.
Being steamrolled requires Russia have the logistics to drive a steamroller more than a hundred yards. There is a reason it was intended to be a three day war.
Bombing a school is unconscionable but its a shadow of Russia's crimes in Ukraine.
Surely, Ukraine being such an awefully corrupt country, Putin was easily able to bribe his way to Kyiv and take it in three short days. Oh, wait... maybe someone is spewing russian propaganda here?
> inviting the gold toilet brigade from Ukraine to come and build our weapons
Ukraine is a massive weapons manufacturer. It's a small country holding Russia's entire military-industrial complex at bay. We have a lot to learn from them, even if it's just tactics and industrial organisation. And those lessons don't only apply to fighting pisspot dictatorships like Putin's.
What would you manufacture at scale that would open the straits?
If you had an interceptor with a 99% rate of interception (even in such a tight space, and assuming it could intercept underwater as effectively as in air) then if the Iranians fired 50 drones at a ship, they’d have a about a 40% chance of getting at least 1 through (1 - 0.99^50).
So they would likely sink 4 in every 10. No sane insurer let alone captain or crew would take such a risk I think.
This is the issue with interceptors, you need phenomenally high reliability AND very large numbers AND very cheap prices per unit to make them workable.
As it is, I would argue this is a classic example of America trying to solve a POLITICAL problem with MILITARY force. This has never actually succeeded as far as I know. Certainly not on the last few decades.
is china helping ukraine also? The real "force multiplier" is basically the same as it was 100 years ago: fancy advanced tech works great to clear large, unoccupied spaces with no terrain costs; it still won't go into a jungle, climbmountains or fight in the streats.
Whats compounding existing reality, is how cheap it is to use commercial tech from any of these manufacturing hubs, china included, and turn it into a small but persistent offensive weapon.
So now Americas got billions of dollars worth of ammo up agains millions of dollars worth of fodder, and that won't clear the way to controlling a large, well defended plot of land.
America's leaders are drunk and high on their own propaganda, even while Ukraine has demonstrated just how useless the old, bulky and costly tech is.
As someone says, don’t interrupt a rival when they are making a mistake. China can gain quite a lot by just waiting on the side lines, contributing as much as they can get away with while still looking reasonable (which is quite easy, when the other protagonists are Putin, Trump, or Khamenei jr).
reply