> US/EU automakers are still struggling to offer anything barely competitive.
Imagine yourself being one of the top management guys in one of those legacy car makers, you've spent your entire life building what you "earned" in that company...Suddenly the company tells you that you will be sidelined so more resources that once thought to be under your control can be allocated to an EV project so you can be further marginalize in the near future. what will be your reactions? You offer to help in the project (by building junks with your legacy understanding on cars) or you do anything possible to sink that project.
The result is the same - your legacy carmaker company is fxxked.
It is not like just US/EU legacy automakers struggling to offer anything competitive - Chinese legacy automakers that have been in the exact same market for decades with direct access to the exact same supply chain and government subsidies are suffering from the exact same problem. It is not about regulations, market access or subsidies. It is just human nature.
> The chinese people save too much and aren't buying their own products
Nonsense.
Total Retail Sales of Consumer Goods went up 4.6% in the first 11 months of 2025. That is the number with spending on automobiles excluded. A total of 24 million cars were sold in China in 2025 with vast majority being Chinese brands. If 24 million car purchases a year is "aren't buying their own products", then car industry doesn't exist in the US.
> Anywhere near the coast of China, a warship is within range of truck-mounted anti-ship missiles.[2] Lots of them.
truck-mounted? Are you on CCP's payroll to downplay and cover the rise of its military strength?
Chinese navy has YJ-20 hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile fitted on its Type-055 destroyers. At Mach 10 with 1,500km range, it is the most advanced anti ship missiles ever developed & deployed on the sea. YJ-20 itself is the ship-launched version of the YJ-21, which has been spotted on H-6 bombers for ages. With YJ-20 and YJ-21, you don't get to "coast of China" to experience their "truck-mounted" missiles.
Interestingly, you choose to ignore all these publicly available facts that can be easily verified and try to paint the Chinese navy as some 1980s forces relying on "truck-mounted missiles" for anti ship missions. Well done, you deserve a bonus for your strategic deception job!
Are you on the CIA's payroll to try to get CCP to waste money? I bet the truck mounted missiles are still cheaper. If they can service a target with a truck mounted missile instead of a Mach 10 missile, they'd be fools not to.
care to explain how the US doesn't operate such super effective trucks? Trump doesn't like them? or maybe the kick backs are not as good as battleships?
The other reply already mentioned HIMARS. There's also ATACMS, which are larger missiles that fire from the same platforms IIRC. The US also really likes to use air power against ships and keep them really far away from home turf, so they wouldn't have a lot of use for truck-launched anti ship missiles until things are pretty far down the shitter. It's probably not a coincidence that they also often seem to think the simple and cheap solution is beneath their dignity. That said, if I was in charge we'd have a lot more missiles.
its main Chinese competitor GLM is like making 50 cents USD each in the past 6 months from its 40 million "developer users", calling your flagship model "AI coding agent" is like telling investors "we are doing this for fun, not for money".
anthropic playbook does include the false claim publicly made by its CEO that "in six months AI would be writing 90 percent of code". he made that claim 10 months ago. it is a criminal offence for intentionally misleading investors in many countries.
just imagine all those poor engineers who have to maintain such a junk.
reply