All you need to fix that is 3:2 pulldown, which all modern TVs should be able to do.
Unfortunately this is another basic feature that tends to be "branded" on TVs. On my Sony Bravia it's split into a combination of features called Cinemotion and Motionflow.
3:2 pulldown (or other telecine patterns) is what was used to go from 24 FPS film to 30 FPS interlaced NTSC video. Your TV or video player needs to undo that (going back to the original 24 FPS) in order to fix a judder ever 5 frames. But that is not going to fix the inherent choppiness of fast camera movements with 24 FPS film and is also not relevant for most modern content because it is no longer limited to NTSC and can instead give you the original 24 FPS directly.
It's most accurate to say that China is still run by folks who are committed communists. These planners, by virtue of their decades of experience, understand the social value of markets and broad based technological growth, and want to wield those even better than liberal planners.
"diversity" is an overbroad concept that covers many disparate social practices, a lot of which have nothing to do with technological progress.
I guess that the more focused question is whether China needs to import some amount of tech talent to succeed, at least temporarily. The reporting on this EUV prototype does suggest that that is what they did, giving foreign researchers special visas and whatnot.
I have to admit that the objective and historical parts of your analysis are completely correct and well researched, even though I totally disagree with you about the subjective merits and morality of the whole thing. Kudos.
US unipolar hegemony has averted an all-out war, but it has also been very bloody, or at least immiserating, for people at its periphery.
Multipolarity doesn't imply we go back to the 1910s. The idea would be to strengthen multilateral institutions that put a check on things like the World Wars.
Humans are pretty much the same as they were in the 1910s, or the entire history before.
If there is anything that keeps us from tearing each other's throats out, it is a) democracy, which in most countries makes going into a war of aggression somewhat harder (I know, the US is a huge exception, but Trump I. was partially elected on the basis of Clinton being perceived as a war hawk), and b) the intuition that weapons are now so destructive that there is nothing to win, except scorched earth.
Still that didn't stop Putin from launching his war; miscalculation such as his ("the enemy is a paper tiger and will fold immediately") is very possible even today.
IIRC the same delusion led Saddam to invade Iran in 1980.
>Even if the US and China were at parity in AI systems, it seems likely that China could direct more talent, capital, and focus to military applications of the technology. Combined with its large industrial base and military-strategic advantages, this could help China take a commanding lead on the global stage, not just for AI but for everything.
China spends 1.5% of its GDP on its military. The US spends 3.5%. I get that the two countries are engaged in competition for dominance, but why is China the bigger threat here?
Also, there are a great deal of groups and institutions out there that are pushing for more diplomacy, more cooperation, and a ratcheting down of tensions. If Dario is going to get political anyway, why not go that route?
It's also funny that there's a scary implication "China could do XYZ and focus on military applications" when Anthropic and Palantir teamed up last year to offer Claude models to US Defense orgs
Unfortunately this is another basic feature that tends to be "branded" on TVs. On my Sony Bravia it's split into a combination of features called Cinemotion and Motionflow.