Plays stupid games, win stupid prizes as the saying goes.

  • Fisting for Freedom@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Plays stupid games, win stupid prizes as the saying goes.

    Oh no, what will the US do? I mean, apart from producing it domestically or sourcing it from other counties because it’s not a particularly rare element and the refinement process uses waste from things like aluminum smelting.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, a few decades later US may figure out all the tech needed to mine and refine gallium, develop mines, build refineries, train workers, and so on. In the meantime, Chinese companies will be dominating the tech market while western companies starve.

      • Fisting for Freedom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We actually produce gallium in the US already, the technology for refining it is well established, and you don’t actually mine it directly because it doesn’t really occur by itself - it’s commonly derived in bauxite, which is mined for it’s aluminum content, which I why I mentioned waste products form aluminum refinement, because that’s the most common source for industrial production. Also, other countries can do this, too

        But, sure.

          • GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You keep using this chart, but it doesn’t mean anything. Just because most countries don’t produce Gallium, doesn’t mean that they’re not easily capable of it. It’s just cheaper for companies to source Chinese gallium. If it were in sharp demand, it would become profitable for domestic refineries to produce.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              It means that producing gallium is going to require a significant amount of time. You can’t just magically will mines, refineries, and supply chains into existence. This is going to take years to do. Meanwhile, since China has fully domestic supply chains right now, it’s going to be Chinese companies dominating the global market while these alternative supply chains are built out for western companies.

          • Fisting for Freedom@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You know that we can grow the industry in the US pretty trivially, right? And, again, other countries can and do produce it? You’re presenting this as some massive win, when it’s really just someone observing that we should fix that before it becomes a serious problem.

            Alas, this isn’t a big deal and you’re going to have to look elsewhere for the defeat of the west. Sorry!

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I absolutely know that US is not capable of growing industry trivially. In fact, industry only accounts of around 11% of US GDP at this point. There is also no skilled labour needed to grow the industry. Here’s just one example of that https://www.popsci.com/technology/stinger-missiles-raytheon-ukraine/

              Meanwhile, as the chart very clearly shows, other countries produce negligible amounts of gallium. Ramping up production of that overnight isn’t going to happen. The real point here is that gallium and germanium are just a couple of items where China is a bottleneck, and restricting their export is simply demonstration. There are plenty of other things China can cut going forward if US continues to play this game.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve just stated the basic facts of the situation, desperation is all on your end it seems.

              • APassenger@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                China can have a near vertical climb in production (your chart) but no one else can?

                The vertical change takes planning and time, but no one has a lock on it. Especially if it becomes a strategic resource (and it has).

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  China spent decades investing into their industry, and developing the skills needed to have the vertical climb we’re seeing. Nobody has a lock on it, and I never said that others can’t do it. What I said was that it will take significant time to do, and Chinese companies will have a market advantage during that time.

                  It’s also worth pointing out that the reason China is able to do these things is due to the fact that it retained ability to do state planning and it has large scale state owned industry. On the other hand, US ended up being largely deindustrialized because it’s run by financial capitalists who don’t see such industry as being profitable. I recommend reading this article explaining the dynamics of this https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/08/the-value-of-nothing-capital-versus-growth/

                  US would need to either provide massive subsidies for businesses to make this appealing or create its own state industry. Seems to me that neither option is likely given the current political climate in US and the financial situation it finds itself in.

  • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aside from the issue, the web (mobile) layout is quite interesting and most advanced I’ve come across. At first I thought it was a bug in the web design, but once I realised how it works, I started to enjoy the reading as it was quite engaging.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just because you can’t read or interpret most of the articles or dara you spew out doesn’t mean the rest of us are similarly challenged.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, I think you’ve given us plenty of proof of just how challenged you are. Your lack of self awareness is just a cherry on top. You’re like the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, of course you think that. From the false data you constantly propagandize, you demonstrably believe that no means yes and 1 = 4

                Telling that Dunning-Kruger is the first technical term you bring up that you might actually know the definition of.