What's the most alarmist position you could take here? Probably cutting off all US trade immediately.
But that doesn't result in a recession in China. They're growing at 7%, about the same as exports to the US. From that 7% subtract imports from the US (which would also be cuttoff and replaced by Chinese companies), and imports for export (which don't produce value for China)... and the result is that an end to US-China trade does not produce a recession for China.. they would still be growing by a few percent (note, the US economy only grows at 2-3%).
So they'll still have a growing economy... and they're still moving people from the rural areas into cities. So it's not clear to me that this collapses the housing bubble there. Possible though? Sure, maybe.
No, it does not happen with the iPhone or most other Apple products. They are incredibly hostile to 3rd party repairers.
Apple is notoriously draconian about ensuring that 3rd parties are blocked from accessing schematics and repair manuals. I'm talking, they threaten lawsuits to anyone publishing schematics, and there is no legal way to obtain those schematics unless you're an Apple authorized repairer - in which case you'll never need them because your job is just to replace entire logic boards after minimal diagnostics. This creates enormous waste and costs a lot more than an actual repair would. In some cases they don't even do that and just tell the user tough shit, get a new device.
Not sure how much innovation this is, considering it trades extended flight time for the inability to replace the battery pack. You get to fly longer, but once you're done, you're done until you can plug it in and give it the 90 minutes it needs to recharge. For most applications, field-swappable batteries are a must.
The real breakthroughs will come from new battery chemistry and fuel cells.
If the differences between sexes are less impactful than differences between individuals, why is virtually every olympic sport segregated by gender, with significant deltas in performance at every part of the performance distribution? Why are purely intellectual competitions like chess also segregated by gender due to a performance disparity?
As stated in a different post, there are differences. Of course there are. My Point is that in a world in which Technology and the capability of using said Technology is getting the deciding factor the physical differences between sexes are getting less relevant.
Also, if you take boxing athletes are put into different weight classes. Making it rather futile to tell if Floyd Mayweather or Anthony Jushua is the better boxer, right?
Also, out of experience, These differences are much less pronounced if do not only look at Olympia-Level individuals. But I digress.
That is not what you wrote in the gp post. You specifically referred to physical differences and now you're back-pedalling because that argument crumbled. Stop and read what you're writing. All you have to offer are personal anecdotes and personally biased speculation which is contrary to trivial evidence. A rational person would re-evaluate their beliefs at this point.
'There is not a gender skill gap when it comes to using technology' is a very different argument to 'certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes'
Ok, sorry that I didn't provide a detailed Definition of what I have been talking about. And no, I'm not back pdealling. Physical differences, as I understood them in my original post, are measurable differences in e.g. brain density and weight, volume and such.
Also, I stand by by the argument that the difference betwen individuals is bigger than between sexes. Taking the extreme edge cases will of course show a certain tendency, right? But I did not considere Sports or stuff like that when I first posted.
So, instead of declaring my Argument having crumbled, why didn't you just ask which diferences I referred to?
And by the way, always bringing up the same Arguments (Sports for pure physics and chess for "IQ") whithout further Analysis of how the coresponding data is measured and what could have caused the differenmces doesn't help any discussion.
If the differences are insignificant then why are most sports segregated by gender? Why does the entire female FIDE rating distribution sit 200 points lower than the male distribution?
The FIDE gap is not one that can be hand waved away as under-representation or discrimination or anything else. There are clearly differences between genders and races, and sometimes they are clearly significant. Whatever your views may be regarding how society should treat those differences, don't insult your own intelligence by claiming they don't exist.
How can you say FIDE isn't just an under representation gap caused by culture or the federation itself? The number of boys who play chess dwarf the number of girls.
If we took 1000 random 5 year olds and subjected them to 3 years of Magnus Carlsen style coaching I'm confident there would be no "FIDE gap."
That kind of ignorance goes both ways. I for my part become suspicious of any Argument that is using data with a limited amount of context and Details on how the data was collected and analysed.
Especially if the aim is to have some kind of "proof" for the superiority of one group of people over another.
Using your specific example of the 100m-record. Women's 100m 1988: 10.49s, men's 100m 1987: 9.93s. Less than a second difference. And I would argue that with a time of 10.49 even a women would have been competitive during the 60s.
And now I stop this arguement, as long we are talking at this level of who is superior there is no way we reach the point where we talk about how we act on those, most of the time only perceived, differences. Which is the more important question, right?
If gdp growth stagnates, there's a very real risk that the Chinese housing bubble will collapse and bring down the entire economy with it.