Thanks for catching that, fixed! Legend didnt match because I made a mistake when I tried to clean up the contrast in the pie chart.

Clank clank beep boop that mug is broken because the top is closed and liquid would leak out of the open bottom. just throw it away ;)

LLMs often have a distinct writing style. It's not guaranteed, you can get false positives and false negatives, but if you start paying attention it becomes obvious in many cases.

This article goes ham on the rule of threes, it does the "not just x, but y" cliche, em-dash with spaces on either side, bold heading-sentence paragraphs, it visibly has hallmarks of AI driven writing.

If you personally can't tell then just say that rather than casting aspersions on everyone else by claiming they can't.

No human* would waste the time to write a piece that is both highly polished while being so long that any useful information is spread so thinly it is essentially empty. This is how people "can tell" if it is written by AI.

Not a dig at this author by the way or saying it applies to this post, just in general.

*or if they did anyway, the result is the same: bad writing.

Fun fact, the author admits to using a LLM.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47963465

Haha, good one Altman!

I wake up, there is another psyop, I go to sleep

> thought they were visually helpful in this instance

If you're the author, can you comment on whether you used AI to write this? (Specifically, the text.)

Where it might be suffering is in its presentation of a list of facts unorganised around any thesis. It took me until your China Question section to see the meat of your piece.

If I had to suggest some edits, they would be making everything above that section more concise (by reducing the number of charts and/or moving them to footnotes) and adding a summarising subtitle.

There are also jargon jumps, e.g. from TFAB to TCB. (I initially assumed the FAA was a TCB, the latter being a generic international term.) This compounds the lack of conciseness presented by the accredition-body breakdown and TCBs vc. test-only labs sections. If those sections were moved after your thesis section, you could dive into whether China's labs differ from the U.S. labs in those respects.

the headline hints that there's some sort of non-obvious factor that's going to be revealled. I scrolled past countless redundant and information-sparse graph-like figures and never found it; moved on.

If you've only got a paragraph worth of information to share, say it and let us get on with our lives.

You don’t actually need a license to use the ham bands in a true emergency.

Where I’m at a Baofeng can hit the local repeaters just fine. I handed them out to my family when we had a major multiday communication outage (cellular and internet were down) and set them up to listen to the repeater. I told them if there’s a life threatening emergency they can transmit. It made everyone feel a little safer.

While I personally have a better radio, they are great as cheap backups.

I'd wager Baofeng is the most common emergency radio. Baofeng or something equivalent is what people in the 3rd world have largely been able to actually afford and there in the rough that's actually what's being used. I recall Baofengish radios being the most commonly spotted ones in the Syrian Civil War.

I would love to see reshoring, but we have to be realistic about it and target the areas most critical to sovereignty and security. The scale of Chinese manufacturing is mind boggling, and we probably aren’t going to be making random affordable consumer products any time soon.

Maybe the FCC lab rules ought to be more selective, allowing consumer goods but not commercial/industrial goods at these labs.

Alternatively, maybe we can subsidize the consumer. What I don’t want to see is everything becoming 10x more expensive or completely unavailable at home while the rest of the world gets to keep the status quo.

It's cheaper and they are friendlier. They don't rubber stamp, the tests are still done, but if you are struggling to get over a .5dB hurdle they will "work with you" to snuff it out.

The tests can be 100+ parameters and every single one is a hard binary pass/fail. So a mouse fart over the line on one test and you are not compliant. This is where the Chinese lab may feel that maybe their antenna placement was slightly off, or maybe you say that actually the "center of noise" (a bs thing) on your product is 5cm away from the testing center point, and move it with a wink and a nod.

In western labs the people are just as friendly, but that antenna is definitely in the right spot, and your product goes in the same spot as everyone elses.

Yes thats evidently clear but you usually don’t need external accreditation if you do in house testing and keep a compliance file for the product, this applies for both the US and EU.

In-house emc testing is quite fun and you dont need much more than a spectrum analyzer, antenna and E/H-field probes.

I think this increases the relevancy for these tools and information. Gone will be the days of just sending your design to manufacturer in China and having it get fully certified and built through just one contact.

It's unflagged and undead now, so probably not because of that but a mistake? And the comment is coming for our brains too

Clank clank, beep boop. You should walk to the car wash since its only 30m away ;)