And, an aside, I'd personally recommend getting rid of the emoji bullet-point additions: in this day and age, well, you know.

Reports I've read are that China was surprised when the UK got in touch a few years before 97, wanting to start the prep work for the handover of HK. China, it seems, just assumed the UK would call HK a historical legacy whose lease agreement was made with a now-defunct country, and leave it at that without a handover.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47025411

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

Like with the implosion of the Japanese economy, people will just not invest, instead parking their money in low-yield bank accounts. It was, in some cases continues to be, an issue for that country.

This was the multi-decade problem Japan ran into after its hot economy imploded, and unleashed the "lost decade" (which became decades). It was not a marginal issue, and for year the Japanese government tried everything it could think of to get people to invest in things - to little effect.

Everyone knew there was a bubble. People began to get impatient for what obviously was going to happen, as you say.

Well put, and it makes sobering reading to see the impact of what happened the last time Germany was deeply reliant on money from the US.

China is in a life-or-death race against time. A good number of their decisions are explained when viewed through this demographic implosion-bomb they are facing.

I have no idea if this is true (I've asked economists-in-training, they say they'll get back to me), but I've read that the huge increases in tax rates on high income during the war was less to generate revenue (tho more revenue was certainly a need - there was also a growing focus on growing the number of people who paid taxes, which prior had been quite small), but more to ensure profits were not realized and instead kept invested in the economy and the war machine.

A kind of practical "hodl" to keep the wartime economy stock with reinvestment - or really to discourage removing money from industrial investment - to benefit the war-time economy.

Would like links to things to learn more about this line of reasoning.

However, there is value also in being able to demonstrate success. Perhaps you might consider doing both things: pursuing your novel ideas, but also finishing your exams! As the internet meme goes, "why not do both?" There certainly isn't any downside!

I thought perhaps that's what you meant. A bit mercenary of a take, and maybe not applicable to this case. On the other hand, given the legal topic is up for grabs, as you note, I'm sure there will be instances of this tactical approach when it comes to lawsuits happening in the future.

I get what you mean in principle, but the problem I'm struggling with is that this just sounds like the web in general. The kid hits up a subreddit or some obscure forum, and similarly gets group appeasement or what they want to hear from people who are self selected for the forum for being all-in on the topic and Want To Believe, so to speak.

What's the actual difference, in that sense, between that forum or subreddit, and an LLM do you feel?

And let me add that I don't mean this argumentatively. I am trying to square the idea of ChatGPT, in this case, as being, in the end, fundamentally different from going to a forum full of fans of the topic who are also completely biased and likely full of very poor knowledge.