Absolutly. This would be a fun topic to dive into, but I don't know where to get raw, unbiased info about the deals (nor do I have time).

Are those other capitalist countries building infrastructure or just extracting wealth? It often seems like only the latter while China is at least building infrastructure first. I'm not sure how predatory it is, but it seems less predatory than what's happened in the past.

I can't get past NYT's paywall, and it's the NYT, they're not going to give an unbiased assessment, but I found the wikipedia article. I'm failing to see how China "took the port back." Looks like a Chinese company bought an 85% stake into Hambantota International Port Group, an entity created by the Sri Lanken government to run the port. The agreement allows the Chinese company to operate the port for 99 years.

Then there's this bit:

Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown states that China's relationship to the Hambantota port has become the opposite of the theorized debt-trap modus operandi. Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics. As of at least 2024, the port is not a significant commercial success, although shipping through the port is increasing. 

Didn't those trees become coal, not oil?

OP, I wish you would stop spreading rumors. As others have pointed out, there's no real evidence these allegations are credible.

For more context, nearly all modern solar equipment and energy storage devices (like Tesla Powerwalls) come with cellular equipment for firmware updates and production monitoring when there isn't a better connection available. It's just how it's done nowadays, it's not inherentely nefarious.

Now for some critical thinking. What does China really gain from taking out PV power sources? Those power sources are only producing power less than half the time people need it. Wouldn't it be better to attack the 24/7 baseload power producers like a gas powerplant? If you take out the PV that gas plant will compensate, just like it does when it's cloudy. For this reason there's little point to attacking the auxillary, intermittent power sources.

I think so. Journals are only in use today because that's how scientific reporting was done before the internet. They're still around because institutions and academics need some way of keeping score. What's the point of it all if you can't say you're better than someone else?

Journals could be replaced with something like Wikipedia, but more sophisticated and editing would be a highly controlled process that requires reproducible data and peer review.

Score could be kept with citations. You'd be required to list the work you built on, as we do today, and the authors would receive credit. No citation would be worth more than another. If you published something useful for a particular field or made a major discovery that opened a new field, then your citation count would reflect it.

Perhaps competing labs could both receive citation credit if their results essentially showed the same thing. If nobody could scoop anyone else's work, then cooperation may be encouraged over competition.

The entire wiki would be a public good, funded by governments across the world, free for all to read and for those with the relevant credentials to publicly comment on.

Negative results could also be published. "We had this hypothesis, we tried this, it didn't work out." It'd probably save time and these works could be cited as well. Imagine making a very important mistake that saves everyone time and effort and being rewarded for it.

I also feel like there is opportunity here to expand a particular field's community. Since the wiki would be more free and open, academic silos may have more metaphorical doors, allowing more cross-field dialog.

I could go on, but I think the tools we need already exist, but we're not using them because... tradition. It would be easier, more efficient, and flexible to use some kind of wiki structure than what's currently happening.

Edit: I thought of one more thing. Searching for information could be so easy. Instead of finding a dozen papers (some slightly off topic, some of questionable quality, some poorly written, some your institution isn't subscribed to, etc) and review articles, all of the information could be easily compiled into review wikis. The level of detail could be easily changed depending on what you want and it would all be right there.

Why does it often seem like only China is using modern tech to make real quality of life improvements? It's the opposite of the US. Seems like that same modern tech is making everything a bit worse day after day.

Evolution and natural selection never stops, we've only changed what the selective pressures are.

How is a microchip edible? Big as a sand grain? How does it work? How long has this tech existed? How many microchips have I eaten? Do they stop working if I eat them?

It's just a ship dropping out of warp a safe distance from our system. While inconvenient, it's considered best practice to drop out well away from the system's center to shed the particles you've accumulated in your warp bubble during transit. They are extremely energetic and can cause immense damage if released irresponsibly close to an inhabited planet. This is especially true when visiting a primitive world that hasn't set up any sensible warp safety systems.

"So they told me that, according to the most advanced theories and techniques in every field, based on extensive theoretical research and experimentation, through analysis and comparison of multiple proposals, they did find a way to preserve information for about one hundred million years. And they emphasized that this was the only method known to be practicable: carving words into stone"

Honest question:

If they're bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments instead of building new single family dwellings, isn't that helping the housing crisis by supplying higher density housing? Like you can house more people with less land?