Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jhancock's commentslogin

The U.S. blocking advanced chip sales to China has ensured China increased their efforts to someday no longer need them.

In effort for us to see clear eyed, it would be good to stop assuming someone is a spy without a shred of credible evidence. Avoiding trade restrictions by routing them through another country does not indicate spy craft.


I’m not sure if you haven’t followed this story or if you’re constructing some kind of specious argument that the only evidence you’ll accept is a personally signed letter from Xi Jinping. I’ll assume the former.

* US intelligence agencies reportedly monitored Alice Huang for over a year and concluded she was passing information directly to Beijing.

* A memo overseen by Marco Rubio reportedly concluded that China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) recruited her to gather intelligence on Jensen Huang and potentially influence Nvidia's chip exports.

* The FBI reportedly warned US lawmakers nearly a year ago that she might be supplying information to China.

* She was a director and controlling shareholder of Megaspeed, which US authorities investigated over suspected diversion of restricted Nvidia chips to China.

In the spy world, this is about as close to irrefutable evidence as it gets. We know that any strategically important or large company in China requires Party members in positions of authority inside the company. The CCP exerts direct power over these companies in a multitude of ways. Megaspeed is a clear example of the kind of company they oversee. To assume anything other than Megaspeed being in clear cooperation with the CCP would be a rejection of everything we know about how companies operate in China.


Covert actions in the interest and by the request of a foreign power is spy craft. If you do this openly, then it would not be called spying, it is done all the time; sometimes it is called diplomacy. If you hide the fact that you are working for a foreign power, you are a spy. It is not a necessary condition, but it is sufficient.

It will take years for China to catch up without these GPUs, that's the whole point. By that time we have advanced AGI and can just stay ahead of them

From my perspective curtailing Ant's plans was positive regulatory action.

Political priorities and good governance is why we have government.


Seems like a pretty terrible idea in hindsight, destroying private lending, given how desperately the government is trying and failing to raise domestic consumption now.


The private lending held back involved a) high interest rates b) unconventional methods of governance/collections which would be somewhat decoupled from Ant's lending platform down to the local level of collections.

An example of the ugly side of China private lending is what is termed "flesh loans". A young girl is forced to have nude pictures taken of her to secure her high interest loan repayment. Ant was going to put hundreds of billions in capital backing loans that had loosely controlled and often unethical/violent collections system.

Yes, curtailing loads of easy capital can be at odds with pressing domestic consumption growth. In this case, I think the government made a tough but decent decision.


From a legal perspective the US may be safer than other places if the US is the one seeking your data. The US doesn't need legal process to authorize digging into your foreign server.

From a practical perspective, I'm not sure any servers are safe anywhere...depending on who may want your data.


I guess you mean assuming your data is stored somewhere in the clear (and whole).

I'm surprised there isn't a lot more attention to encrypted, distributed, erasure-encoded stores.


This type of attack has been happening a lot the past 2 years. I've seen one that was very well done...the GitHub account of a fairly well known security researcher had been compromised...their identity and code was being used as part of the recruitement. I reached out to the person...who was understandably embarrassed and told me they had reported this to LinkedIn + Github but saw no action.

This is the part that really irks me: LinkedIn and Github know this is the end goal of many of the rampant supply chain attacks but they a) don't have a first class mechanism for reporting b) don't seem to be improving their systems or even warning people. I have been hit be this enough times that I follow along to get screenshots of the scammer. One might think with all the surveillance systems Microsoft/LinkedIn/Github/Google-Meet/Calendly have in place that a potential victim reporting it along with an actual picture of the scammer could get us somewhere.


Call it a conspiracy theory, but I think a lot of these businesses actively avoid making serious efforts because even trying creates expectations. Ones that they don’t want to be on the hook for.

Like the Facebook problem. They were never in more trouble with people and legislators than when they were spending mountains of gold trying to police content.

It’s much easier to shrug and say, “Sorry folks, it’s the internet. Good luck.”


Nice. How easily is the protocol categorized by an external observer? I'm noticing protocols like wireguard more commonly hitting problems as websites rely on third party systems to protect them from non-human interactions.


Somewhat easy, unfortunately.

If you look at Wireguard traffic, you'll see a <EndpointID>.iroh.invalid SNI in the QUIC Initial packet.

Encrypted ClientHello can fix that, but support hasn't shipped into rustls yet. So it's definitely fixable.

The interesting thing is that the ClientHello is undetectable when it's sent via the relay transport (sent inside a WSS connection). And in that case, any traffic that happens on IP is fully encrypted and can't be categorized.


...and the answer is still incorrect. You seem to want the short "answer" western media has pressed into your mind. The real answer is more complex. Protests were widespread throughout China. They were about the economy. The economy was regressing quickly as a result of a sharp western recession. Workers were losing everything and there was little social safety net in place as there is today. People had been told to work hard, get their kids to study hard and they would be rewarded...it was all falling apart. Western media wants you to focus on a small subset of student protesters regarding democracy.

LLMs are simply trained on inputs. For topics such as this you cannot expect the "correct answer" as it requires a nuanced discussion and more background info.

In short, its an inappropriate question be asking any LLM. This is the sort of thing that requires a small study group of human minds...open ones.

You could start here: https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.ph...


I'm not wanting a specific answer, I was just showing that the model itself is not censored.


I hear ya. In this case, for me, there is not much diff from "govt won't let us discuss it" and "here is a misleading answer".


Censorship and highly selective views exist everywhere. This is a short and worthwhile read https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.ph...

Does the content of this article resonate with what you hear from western media on the subject every year?


I’ve been using podman on Mac. It’s been a nice fit as the container build files are identical to what I use on my fedora server. I have noticed my 2 virtual core 4 gb Linode vps runs apps faster in the same container as when run on my MacBook Air M2 16 gb. I expected some performance overhead but didn’t think it would be noticeable as it is. Overall happy with podman. How might OrbStack differ?


Having used both, it feels like OrbStack "just works" more than Podman. The main example of this is Supabase.


I was told by someone in the industry that New Zealand leads the pack for travelling outside NZ and coming home to refute charges.


everything points to money


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: