Yes it takes a deep understanding in the field, so please tell us why ASIPs methodology is wrong?
It's a critical technology tracker. If they were biased with this tracker like you say, to get more finding, how did they skew and bias the tracker in their methodology? Enlighten us? I'm genuinely interested to know how they made a biased tech tracker report? Please educate us.
Oh that's easy; he already stated it. It's according to his logic that if something says Chinese tech is ahead, then it's because it was
obviously written to scare the US into putting more money into tech. LMFAO Look at the US right now!! You have trade wars/economic shakedowns of allies, threatened invasions of Canada and Greenland, ICE Nazis going door to door asking where the Asians and Latinos are while arresting some 200 US citizens! Scare
this country?? It's not even recognizable anymore and all of it if from fear of China; America never acted like this before the China challenge reared its head. Scaring a country like this is just cruel; it's like jump-scaring mental hospital patients. If anything, telling the US that China has already surpassed them at 90% of critical tech is just demoralizing and it tells them to just give up with some grace.
And another thing,
@jli88 How many of the publications in the US were done by Chinese researchers? How many US papers were authored by Zhang, Li, Zhao, etc...? I'm not going to speculate on exactly where everyone's true allegiance is or how many Chinese ultimately go home when they have something worth contributing but I'm telling you with 100% honesty, if a large portion of the critical tech papers coming out of China were done by Smith, Johnson, Jones, etc..., I'd be very very worried, especially about being in a conflict with their home country.
