> ... because apparently there's many more Israeli startups working on medical research, green technology and world peace.
> If there are, they certainly would do no harm in being more vocal ...
Perhaps, but - talk to someone who's done PR work for startups. Ask them what it would take for an Israeli startup working on, say, home bagel-making machines to get the sort of world-wide media attention that any Israeli creep-tech firm can get - for free - by association with a few nefarious deeds.
You pass everything, submarine design firms, intel labs, the Baha'i temple. Every kind of innovation you want: materials science, microchips, to sanctuary from muslim massacres.
> While companies in the US chase smaller footprints, there are a lot of new large reactors going up in China.
And the third-to-last para answers the headline question:
> Larger reactors generally provide more electricity to the grid for a lower price, a key consideration in view of China’s steeply increasing electricity demand. While smaller reactors require less up-front investment than larger ones because of their size, they’ll actually be more expensive per unit of electricity produced.
So it's just another verse in the modern-day song, about how the West mostly talks big and financializes, while China actually builds stuff at scale.
> GM has partnered with Peak Energy to develop next-generation sodium-ion battery cells, but they’re not going into EVs – they’re for grid-scale energy storage projects. GM Ventures is making a strategic investment in Peak Energy.
> Under the partnership, GM will develop the sodium-ion cells in its Michigan battery labs and retain exclusive manufacturing rights. Peak Energy will integrate the cells into its battery storage systems as it ramps up US manufacturing.
Co-locating grid energy storage systems and EV charging stations seems like a profitable setup, and conveniently adjacent to GM's existing business model.
Maybe re-read the article? For an NPR piece, it's loaded with specific attributions and named names, of people pushing "Chinese influence operation" theories.
Or do you mean evidence of widespread (& effective) Chinese influence operations? The article's thesis is that those pretty much don't exist. Notice the quote attributed to Ben Nimmo at OpenAI.
Apologies, my error was in having English as not my first language. I should have said that the only evidence of the proponents of the theory is vibes and feelings.
> Endgame: The State of the Russian Economy is Kiel Report No. 9 (June 2026) and includes the following [6 articles by various authors]
There is a huge market for academic-toned articles about the war in Ukraine. Ditto for journals willing to publish articles.
But with how greatly the character of that war has changed over time, and how many supposed experts have proven wrong - repeatedly - why should I bother to read anything beyond the shortest of articles, from a very short list of familiar-to-me sources?
- In Shakespeare's day, the physical ordeal of setting type, printing, binding, etc. were a non-trivial moat against copying of printed works. Not so now.
- Shakespeare was closely associated with London theaters and companies of actors. Selling tickets for performances (of plays he'd written) was a far better way to make money than trying to sell scripts.
> Users flagged the post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on HN.
I'd favor having a second type of tag, for submissions, which meant "the linked article is of low quality". Doesn't matter to me whether it's AI slop, or press release puffery, or tedious drivel, or by a painfully unqualified author, or something else.
I wonder if the signal people actually want is "low information density" rather than "AI-generated."
A lot of the frustration seems to come from content that takes 2,000 words to say something that could have been said in 200, regardless of whether a human or a model wrote it.
If a post is original, useful, and teaches me something, I don't care much how it was produced. What I notice is when a lot of words are used to communicate very little.
Yes, but low information quality is even worse than low information density. If I happen to know the subject well, and the article contains glaring errors, obvious omissions, or miserable fudges - I'd like a quick way to tag it as dubious.
> If there are, they certainly would do no harm in being more vocal ...
Perhaps, but - talk to someone who's done PR work for startups. Ask them what it would take for an Israeli startup working on, say, home bagel-making machines to get the sort of world-wide media attention that any Israeli creep-tech firm can get - for free - by association with a few nefarious deeds.
reply