The actual paper is here and Open Access.
👍
China is becoming the new world technology development leader.
Shouldn’t be surprising given that China has a huge and well educated population. China outnumber USA STEM Grads 8 to 1 and project to be 15 to 1 by 2030. China has also overtaken the US both in quantity and quality of research. And of course, China has a huge advantage with the state playing a major role in guiding the type of technology China focuses on instead of leaving it to the markets. So, it should be no surprise that China is already surpassing the west technologically now, and the gap will only keep growing going forward.
I am certainly not surprised.
I don’t think anybody who’s been paying attention is, but seems to be a shock for a lot of people in the west who’ve internalized the narrative that China just steals western tech and makes cheap stuff.
So the cyberpunk future of the 80’s of foreign mega corporations are coming true.
With a healthy mix of state owned enterprise. :)
Removed by mod
Sure, the chinese are just copying everything, they don’t research and develop new technologies. Mhm. Your 1980s racism needs an update.
Or they read the same thing from Japan a few months ago.
Really, different countries are doing research on solid-state batteries, who’da thunk.
What does that have to do with China allegedly being an „appropriation committee“?
They just copied the Japanese breakthrough, what does that have to do with China copying things?
Those two reports have literally nothing in common except the words „breakthrough“ and „solid-state batteries“, lol.
You absolutely don’t understand anything at all, so please just stop talking. Thank you.
Yeah beyond being about breakthroughs specifically about solid electrolytes, nothing in common. lol
Nobody said the Chinese are copying everything, but goodie for you for making up an argument that no one is making.
You should read your own articles after you use Google - the largest problem with your inaccurately titled and researched article is that the conclusions of that single, uncorroborated and unconditional headline (it wasn’t really a study) is based purely on the number of articles published, not on any actual technology or world content. China is by far the largest publisher of pseudoscientific articles, and there is no regulation on the validity of the data presented in those articles. Chinese researchers admit to pushing out their articles at the expense of quality, and the people tasked with identifying the false data within those scientific articles are overwhelmed by the amount of false articles. The Chinese scientific community turns out. You can read about that here:
https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/chinas-fake-science-industry-how-paper-mills-threaten-progress/
They publish false articles using duplicate and fudged data. That’s not racist, that’s academically and scientifically damaging and Irresponsible.
The greatest appropriating committee, certainly. Development? Not yet
🥱
Removed by mod
Literally the first paragraph of the article explains that it is 4% of the cost:
Chinese scientists say they have developed a new solid-state battery technology to match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
You seem to be confusing the cost of materials with the overall cost of production.
Removed by mod
None of these criticisms are rational. This response to an otherwise boilerplate news article speaks to an extreme anti-China bias.
Just because you feel threatened by Chinese technological developments doesn’t warrant baselessly acting as though they are hoaxes.
Removed by mod
And 7/200 is 3.5%, maybe you should read that article again…
Removed by mod
What does anything of that have to do with you quoting 50/200 as 25% not 4% 😂
Removed by mod
So you thought you’d add your own inaccurate numbers, okay.
Stay out of my inbox now, thx.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Percent is not two words.
Ah in your country it’s two words. If you don’t mind me asking, what country are you from?
I’m from Canada, and I see both usages. As the article says, colloquial usage tends to be one word, but legalese usage will sometimes use two. In this case, I just took it straight from the article though.
Ah nice. Enjoy your 100 per cent maple syrup.
Upvoting since I came searching for this after struggling to understand what battery could possibly be made 4 for $0.01 before it finally clicked for me how to properly read the title. Learned something new too, thanks for asking so I didn’t.
