> But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.
That's a strength. Them not having interest in global domination and regime change other than their backyard is what allows them to easily make partners in Africa and LATAM, the most important regions for raw materials.
You would think so, but historically that's why they never became more than a regional power. Empires for millennia craved trade with China but only the mongols from that region made it all the way to western europe in their invasions.
It is a strength, if their goal is to have a stable and prosperous country long term, and that seems to be what they want. good for them. But nature abhors a vacuum, so there will always be an empire at the top of the food chain. Such empires want to maximize wealth for their people and secure them against threats, that's why invasions and exploitation of weaker countries happens. That game hasn't changed. Friendly relations work, until you need a lot of resources from a country that doesn't want to give it up. Or, like with the US, when they're opening up military bases next to your borders and you need a buffer state. Or, when naval blockades and sanctions are being enforced against your country for not complying with extra-sovereign demands.
History shows that countries content with what they have collapse or weaken very quickly.
China will have a population crisis in a few decades for example, and it won't have the large manufacturing base and its people will be too used to luxuries to go back to slaving for western countries for pennies. Keep in mind that the current china itself is so great and prosperous because of all the invasions it did against western china and satellite states like Vietnam and north Korea (the US isn't special in this regard).
Yes, it can but those poles are expansionist/influential empires not isolationist states. For example, China wants involvement in African development but they don't want any say or interference in local affairs, they can exert influence but they don't want to.
if you've been tracking the shark deals they give countries for loans, I think you'd recant what you just said.
"while the CCP accuses the West of predatory interest rates, the average Chinese rescue loan carries an interest rate of about 5 percent, more than double the IMF’s standard 2 percent. As of Oct. 1, 2025, despite higher U.S. interest rates, the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights lending rate stands at only 3.41 percent, still significantly lower than what China charges struggling nations for so-called relief."
These countries paying these loans are the ones least able to pay them back, and at more than double IMF loans, they are really putting them in a vise.
China’s retribution or punishment against loan issues is nowhere close to IMF and the west. Same with them not wanting the state to do what they want.
You did the equivalent of showing some stat showing black and brown people do violence and crimes and saying “see how uncivilized they are” ignoring everything else.
Yeah waiting to see historical examples of contemporary China being interested in global domination and regime change, especially in contrast to the US.
History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.
In many senses there's hubris in the western* view of China accomplishments: most of what western companies have created has had significant contribution by Chinese scientists or manufacturing, without which those companies would have nothing. If you look at the names of AI researchers there's a strong pattern even if some are currently plying their trade in the west.
---
* I hate the term "western" because some "westeners" use it to separated what they think are "civilized" from "uncivilized", hence for them LATAM is not "western" even though everything about LATAM countries is western.
> most of what western companies have created has had significant contribution by Chinese scientists or manufacturing, without which those companies would have nothing. If you look at the names of AI researchers there's a strong pattern even if some are currently plying their trade in the west.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, it's important to recognize that this is only a phenomenon of the last ~30 years, and to avoid falling into the trapn of Han racial chauvinism. E.g. there were ~no Chinese scientists in Germany in the 70s but they were heavily innovating nevertheless.
Absolutely. China obviously has a longer history with innovation but they like to make it seem everything was invented by them at some point in the past. I'd say newer technology is where China has had a bigger impact.
Consequently newer tech is precisely where global cooperation is most required so no country can really do it by themselves. We could even say no country, western or otherwise, has been doing it on their own for the past 500 years or so but alas...
The whole “China copies everything” narrative is becoming less and less true.
It’s funny - it’s at the point with Chinese manufacturing for niche electronic goods (e.g rooftop van air conditioner) where some Chinese brands are more trustworthy - more value for your money and sometimes even better overall quality. With American brands you gotta make sure you’re not overpaying for dated tech that is inefficient. Maybe the same will happen with LLMs.
It's most notable to me in mid level manufacturing equipment. Once upon a time you would never touch a chinese made CNC, lathe, mill etc. Now they're totally fine, and offer significant value for your dollar. Sometimes outperforming other countries offerings while being cheaper to boot. Especially in new industries and processes, suggesting innovation is not the differentiator it used to be.
Enterprises often prefer having US based support and so can prefer US or European machines that have that supply chain setup.
Ironically, the best way America could have prevented China’s rise in tech was by stapling green cards to diplomas of Chinese citizens who completed their higher education in the U.S. like the plan in the early 2010s.
Those students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector, and the US would have found the pain of isolationism that much sooner.
It is not possible to keep core IP secret. HN folks, of all people, should know this. Anything that thousands of people know is de facto public knowledge.
How are you going to gain core IP research if you don't have experience or access to leading edge researchers to pass you knowledge in the first place?
Talent is proportional to population, but that only matters if society and state has the infrastructure to raise that talent up. Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets.
> Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets.
The reason why these statements are not true is because of colonization, delayed industrialization, and Western intervention post-independence. Getting out of this “quicksand” is exceedingly difficult.
China did well to industrialize quickly and keep intervention at bay - in fact, you could argue that it making the rest of the world reliant on its industrial capacity helped address the intervention problem.
This world view is just wrong from top to bottom. Between 1945-1970, China was in a much worser state that any of those 3rd world countries in many aspects. Are you saying post 1970, the reason why these countries did not develop as fast as china is because of colonialism and intervention? You can apply the same arguments to Japan in 45 and Korea in 50. But but but aid? Ok and we send billions to countries all around the world every year.
China wasn't beholden to neoliberalism and the World Bank and IMF.
China made the right choice to dump a ton of resources into different industries without the expectation of immediate RoI or any RoI at all. Anyone or anything that got in the way of their goals were dealt with.
>"...The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP..."
I do not think they need permission. There is no force that could order country to recognize IP. Do you really expect all world forever pay rent to few giant corps?
You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP AND selling stolen IP in our markets.
1st: yes force can be used to discourage the theft of IP. This is merely an obstacle, not a total blocker
2nd: yes force can be used to block IP from our markets. This is actually incredibly trivial and would have been very easy 40-years ago.
Sorry no. If you can't imagine how one country couldn't use force to stop another country from stealing IP then you are either not intellectually up to this conversation or not arguing in good faith.
>"The issue is allowing the Chinese to steal IP and then compete in our markets with that stolen IP"
That was the original message. My understanding of "our markets" was customers of the US which include the US itself, China and many other countries. Sure the US can prohibit importing of China's goods. It can not control what happens in the rest of the world to the degree that it once could.
The inclusion of China in the WTO is what changed everything.
The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So they got Clinton to spend his last days in office lobbying very aggressively for China's inclusion into the WTO.
China had different plans. Keeping the plunderers out (this time) was one of the smartest moves any nation has made in recorded history. Then the same elites slowly pivoted against China, post realizing they wouldn't be allowed to own China. If we can own you, you're our friend; if we can't own you, you're our enemy. And this is quite obviously not a defense of China's human rights record or anything else, that's not the point. China only mattered (in the enemy sense) when the elites realized they were going to be locked on the outside of the rise.
They didn't keep the foreign corporations out. Having them as on-shore competitors is what keeps their own companies from merely seeking rents. Foreign companies also didn't bring their best products in the beginning out of the fear of getting copied, but that strategy is not sustainable over time as Chinese companies get better at making things.
Eh? They are a country with a culture that values education like a few other asian countries. They were set back by the colonial bullshit of Europe, devastation of WW2 and communist revolutions and so. They would have gotten to the same point as they are today, just longer if anything if any attempt was made to hamper it.
But they didn’t do it, because the current administration can’t get it through their thick skulls that the key advantage the US can have in this world is a monopoly on all the really smart people.
Massive vector for theft of trade secrets and intellectual property.
It’s notable that China did not adopt the same policy during the period you are associating with their rise. Indeed, they’ve taken the opposite stance in recent years and (now that they have stolen American IP) have moved to seize control of assets and expel the superfluous foreigners.
There is a lesson to be learned there, but it’s contrary to the argument you are trying to make.
> History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.
It's worked for a very long time for aircraft.
China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline.
If for no technical reasons and purely political, COMAC may still be decades away from being able to fly to most of the world.
Likewise, in ~5 years, China may be able to build Chips that are as good as Nvidia after Nvidia's 90% profit margin - i.e. they are 1/10th as good for the price - but since they can buy them for cost - they're they same price for performance and good enough.
If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. 40-50% of vehicles are foreign-made already[1]. I would strongly wager it's vastly more likely that these Chinese vehicles do not meet US safety standards - which are quite high.
Yes. The EU focuses on safety of pedestrians, and the US focuses on safety of occupants. That's not to say a vehicle cannot do both well (see the many European vehicles sold in the US), but that is to say Chinese vehicles may not meet the US standards. The US has a lot of vehicle regulations that significantly differ from the EU market.
Because, as a EU citizen, I have never in my life seen any tests that carmarkers are advertising with that focus on pedestrians. I am regularly seeing tests that focus on occupants though, e.g. the Euro NCAP. But I am by no means an expert.
It would be hard to focus on pedestrian safety from a carmaker standpoint except for adding software features that recognize people in front of you and auto-brake or smth, which definitely is not the focus of the tests here. It may be a requirement though. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that you just made this up, sorry.
> If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.
Note that this happens at the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances, so as of this writing, there's no such thing as certainty about politics.
The question of “can we trust the American government” is now being asked more often. Existing alliances and new potential alliances face that question, whether or not you personally believe that they should trust America.
Even if no concrete actions are being performed with asking that question, the fact that question is even being asked is a major drop from where we were.
From the US perspective, we have been asking ourselves "can we trust Europe's military capacity" for a very long time and the answer (prior to 2025) was: NO.
With Trump on one side and Russia on the other, it seems like the answer has shifted to: MAYBE.
> From the US perspective, we have been asking ourselves "can we trust Europe's military capacity" for a very long time and the answer (prior to 2025) was: NO.
NATO's mutual defense clause has only been activated once: after 9/11, when the United States declared war on the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Out of the 3621 deaths of coalition soldiers, 1160 of them were from nations other than the United States, including 457 from the UK, 159 from Canada, and 90 from France.
Frankly, this sounds like you're repeating propaganda.
When the US called its allies to its wars, NATO responded. Now that the rest of NATO is being threatened, the US is playing neutral, trying to see which side will bid highest for their help.
The US has become unreliable and erratic. Countries aren’t cutting ties or anything, but certainly investing to reduce exposure to capricious US leadership. Much of Europe is increasing domestic military production rather than just buying more from the US precisely because the US has publicly discussed leaving NATO and/or not honoring its guarantees.
Increasing domestic military production is actually a great outcome.
Obviously Wall Street would have preferred purchasing from US-listed/owned arms companies, but from the perspective of a military alliance, having well-armed allies is the main point.
It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods if they led to Europe finally spending on their own defense.
No one is going to walk away from that kind of alliance tomorrow, sure. Stuff like "we're going to remotely disable military equipment we've sold you" is going to have consequences though. It's not walking away from alliances, it's just focusing on more stable countries.
It's "block everything that depends on US clouds", which is a considerable downgrade (because you can't upload all mission parameters to an airplane without going through the cloud, and you can't use self-diagnosis features), but not entirely a kill switch. Close enough, though.
I observe serious financial commitments towards walking away from US tech:
The EU is pumping money into what they call "digital sovereignty" left and right. Germany just cancelled their Microsoft subscriptions and replaced them with self-funded Open Source for Schleswig-Holstein, which is roughly 5% of all government employees. That's one hell of a trial run. Germany's "OpenDesk" and France’s "La Suite numérique" even made into the new "Franco-German Economic Agenda 2025", which self-describes as "bilateral coordination to full swing for a more sovereign Europe".
I mean, the current administration has repeatedly threatened to invade militarily two of its allies. Also, it has repeatedly threatened to not honor military agreements with most others, and both the current president and vice-president have insulted the leaders of several allied countries to their face.
Oh, and if that weren't sufficient, the current admin has unilaterally broken all trade treaties (alongside most intellectual property treaties) it held with its commercial partners.
The EU is slow at it, but it's no accident that everybody is doing their best to move away from US tech and military dependencies.
But at the same time they are fielding multiple new stealth aircraft and their jets and missiles outperformed western aircraft in the recent Pakistan India flare-up.
Roughly speaking, an aircraft must fulfill a certain amount of economy (cheap, low cost to operate), safety, and performance.
If you compromise on safety, you get something that is still suitable for the military. If you don't care about economics you can participate in the space race.
But for commercial air travel, you don't have the luxury to pick just two; a competitive commercial airliner has to perform exceedingly well in all three regards.
If you're an airline using expensive aircraft you will go bankrupt. If your aircraft is too slow then your competitors will eat your lunch, and if you have a reputation of being unsafe then your customers will run away or the government will pull the plug (likely both).
IMHO affordable commercial air travel is one of the biggest marvels of 20th century engineering.
China currently can't make the high-performance, efficient, long-life jet engines that US & Europe make. The commercial market is heavily cost-sensitive, so they can't compete there currently as a result.
This doesn't matter so much for military purposes: they can easily eat the cost of a higher maintenance and replacement schedule on a smaller number of military jets with fewer hours on them.
This gives them more iteration cycles, speeding their building up of experience.
They're catching up. Industrial espionage will help them along too, but not as much as the experience from engineering their own designs.
It’s would be a result of where the money and resources go, I assume. Apparently they haven’t felt a need to manufacture their own commercial jets but they did for military jets. They definitely feel the need in the case of chips.
> China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline
And both those planes have a strong dependency on "western" components that won't be overcome before the 2030s, and even then, they're around a generation behind.
5 years behind becomes 3 years behind. China is expanding their manufacturing abilities faster than the US. Soon they will surpass the US. Look no further than their generic consumer electronics manufacturing.
Re: Western. A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.
Essentially countries that were developed prior to 1990 or so , although South Korea is a tricky case today going by this definition, as are Taiwan, Hongkong and Singapore
> A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.
Wait, really? I thought "international community" meant all countries.
There was a particularly memorable use of this sense some time ago, when the UK representative to the UN explained that they abstained from a vote in the General Council that passed with something like 200+ members voting for it because "the international community is still divided on the topic".
Sometimes it's used in the expected way, but (more?) often, "international community" euphemistically refers to whomever is currently one of, or an ally of the above mentioned countries.
China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many many other countries that are very active members of the international community are not counted among members of THE "international community". Hell, much of Europe isn't either, including some of the former colonial empires, on some topics.
China, Russia, India are certainly referred to when using this term. Iran and Saudi Arbia may or may not be. Usually not Pakistan, so I really dont know what in the hell you are saying.
It's just straight up low expectations and underestimation derived from racism in the assumption that Americans are smarter and more capable, and Chinese are only good for copying designs and making things we come up with. The idea that they can't do that like we can is pervasive.
It’s absolutely fascinating and mystifying (and dismaying) to see educated and otherwise smart people in engineering in the US hold an opinion that two countries with over a billion people each can’t accomplish anything in engineering or science without “us”.
Despite ample and repeated evidence that they can and, in China’s case, that they’re the best in the world in several areas of manufacturing.
Why would I do that tho? If we look at the names of scientists/researchers/engineers/businessmen, the conclusion would be that the US has contributed nothing to the world. Europeans did all the hard work!
this is true for anyone - create challenges, and you optimize efficiency elsewhere.
Also, isn't this the usual path to better computer science? Reducing computation needs by making better/more efficient algorithms? The whole "trillions of dollars of brute force GPU strength" proposed by Altman, Nadella, Musk et al just seems to reinforce that these are business people at heart, not engineers/computer scientists...
It is an odd category, and Japan is often considered to be "Western" - these days at least. That certainly wasn't the case even a few generations ago.
I think it's ostensibly supposed to be more about shared cultural values, but even that is a pretty weak way to divide countries. Perhaps "an ally of the United States" is a little more accurate?
Any societal dividing line like this is bound to hit on problems once subjected to the real world.
I think Japan likely shares more values culturally with China than USA outside of political systems. In any aspect outside of that Japan is not western.
The leaders of Japan during the Meiji era (starting 1868) will be sad to learn that their attempt to thoroughly Westernize Japanese society failed even though it enabled Japan to dominate China (and most of the Western Pacific) for decades.
The whole "western" or "the west" always makes me laugh. Half the time it's a dog whistle for "white". Like many right-wing commentators love saying "Western Values" to avoid saying "white, Euro-centric, Christian values".
Mexico is a modern country, an industrialized country, a country that is exactly as "western" as the US or Canada. They have the same religious beliefs, speak a dialect of a European language. They have European style cities, a long history of cultural contributions. Yet they're not white enough to be part of "The West".
I think at this point we should be honest with ourselves in it's usage. 90% of the time it's a racist dog whistle.
The number of nuclear armed countries with large economies that will get worked up if you call them racists for being ‘the west’ is waaaay larger than zero.
I am not sure exactly to what degree, but "I hate the term 'western' because some 'weste[r]ners' use it to separated what they think are 'civilized' from 'uncivilized'" is definitely a bit of an antiquated perspective at this point; almost like a justification to hold on to other older perspectives about "racism". I have started resorting to using terms like European Cultural Block because of it in certain communities that understand contemporary topics and have an advanced understanding of the world.
Your first statement is not likely unique to China though, even though they have demonstrated that in about the last 40 years, which I don't really think qualifies as "history". What it does demonstrate is that societies that have a certain kind of ethnic self-respect and can cast off the detrimental influences of foreign, hostile, and even enemy elements to pursue their own self-interest and survival will succeed, regardless of hurdles placed before them.
It's really just a story of personal development and either escaping, evading, and avoiding detrimental, toxic people and their behaviors. All of humanity that all has to currently still share a single planet with ZERO save spots, would be better off if we all not just allowed each other to be ourselves in our won places without others subverting, subjugating, infiltrating, dominating, poisoning, or polluting any other people on the planet. Then everyone can decide if we want to be friends or not friends with each other, collaborate and be friendly or simply avoid each other. We do not have to like each other to get along if everyone agrees on a base understanding that no people can parasitize and abuse and manipulate any others.
>History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.
I don't think you can really produce a definite counterfactual that they would or wouldn't have taken longer or shorter without it, but certainly they were pushing for self sufficiency long before technology restrictions. But we're not going to be handing our technologies to our competitors on a silver platter, and it's also best for businesses to start weaning themselves off the Chiinese market. Virtually every market reliant on them today is in big trouble.
As for hubris, I think that's more a projection of your part if you want to start bringing up race cards with regards to contributions, that kind of argument would be applicable to everyone. And AI research is highly diverse and international, Chinese names don't dominate the list more than Turks, Greeks, Malaysians, etc.
western is a cultural term derived from a geographic one. The US is also not 'western' strictly geographically as it is not in western europe, neither is australia. But they both originated from Britain's empire and share in it's cultural ancestry. It means "western europe and it's cultural derivatives". Spain and Portugal's empire fell away long before britain and france's and they don't have similar geopolitical relations like NATO, so it's hard to consider their former colonies/upstarts part of the same sphere of cultural influence.
China for sure will catch up, the question is what they will do with it. They're not ambitious like the US/West. The US wanted influence all over the world as an extension of the cold war and to keep economic interests safeguarded. But China just doesn't operate that way. They're more hands-off. They could be opening up alibaba cloud datacenters all over the US, offering it as an AWS/Azure alternative, funding tons of startups all over europe, the US,etc... to exert their influence, but they won't. They have a more long-term low-and-slow approach to global domination. The "100 year marathon" as they called it, which they'll win for sure.
China's greatest weakness is not just their lack of ambition,but their command-economy. They're doing capitalism but with central control of the economy. It intertwines government policy with corporate policy, making it harder to do business overseas (like with bytedance/tiktok).
Oddly since I got many downvotes with this statement, it's clear the average hacker news reader knows very little about world history or common knowledge
> History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years.
Really? How long has China been attempting to build their own jet engines? How long have they been attempting to build competitive CPUs?
History has shown withholding tech successfully keeps them at least a generation behind the west.
In some fields like CPUs they “make up for it” by just building larger clusters, but ultimately history does not show what you’re claiming. The only thing it shows is that we need to be even more diligent in protecting IP because a large portion of their catching up is a direct result of stealing the tech they were cut off from.
Huh? Did you read your own link? The jet engine that was shown at an aviation show as a non-functioning prototype in 2011, with hopes they'd have a functioning version by 2016, and in service by 2020 (it wasn't in service in 2020). Notice at the very top of your own article it says "still in development".
>CPU since 2000
That isn't remotely competitive, and at least a full generation behind.
What part of "a non-functioning prototype" don't you understand?
Literally anyone can make a prototype jet engine. The metallurgy and process to make a functioning one is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Which is why... China still buys the vast, vast majority of their jet engines from Russia for military use. And their commercial passenger jets use engines from CFM.
It’s helpful to think of westernism as a platonic ideal. Individually derived reason and virtue, superior to state and sometimes ‘gods’ as a tradition to drive up the total survivability, richness, and stability of the community.
Concepts that enable the individual should empower a chosen configuration of society not the other way around.
Contrast this with non westernism where either education of the individual is not valued or the state is the primary goal over the individual.
I’ve worked with states governments and individuals around the world for 20 years and find this very useful definition. What’s confusing is the nations who have half adopted westernism but don’t fully due to either caste systems or government dominated thinking.
It’s an arrow towards rationalism over tradition, individualism over collectivism, flatness over hierarchy, and future over past. But only the limit of the resources any given society has.
I find "western" is often used to disparage "western thought", as in it can't grasp the deep wisdom of those mysterious orientals that transcends normal logic and reason. Declaring such a split is the underpinning of a whole lot of woo-woo beliefs.
Same, but in the hundreds of thousands monthly and growing at steady clip, and AWS extending credits worth -millions-, just to keep them there because their margins are so fat and juicy they can afford that insane markup.
That's where the real value lies. Not paying these usurious amounts.
For me speed is interesting. I sometimes use Claude from the CLI with `claude -p` for quick stuff I forget like how to run some docker image. Latency and low response speed is what almost makes me go to Google and search for it instead.
I use gh copilot suggest in lieu of claude -p. Two seconds latency and highly accurate. You probably need a gh copilot auth token to do this though, and truthfully, that is pointless when you have access to Claude code.
I'm partial to this, the only thing I've found that is harder to achieve is the "edge" part of cloud services. Having a server at each continent is enough for most needs but having users route to the closest one is not as clear to me.
I know about Anycast but not how to make it operational for dynamic web products (not like CDN static assets). Any tips on this?
DIY Anycast is probably beyond most people’s reach, as you need to deal with BGP directly.
One cool trick is using GeoDNS to route the same domain to a different IP depending on the location of the user, but there are some caveats of course due to caching and TTL.
To get anycast working, you need BGP, and to get it working well, I think you need a good understanding of BGP and a lot of points of presence and well connected at each. BGP's default metric of distance is number of networks traversed, which does funny things.
Say you're in city A where you use transit provider 1 and city B where you use transit provider 2. If a user is in city B and their ISP is only connected to transit provider 1, BGP says deliver your traffic to city A, because then traffic doesn't leave transit provider 1 until it hits your network. So for every transit network you use, you really want to connect to it at all your PoPs, and you probably want to connect to as many transit networks as feasible. If you're already doing multihoming at many sites, it's something to consider; if not, it's probably a whole lot of headache.
GeoDNS as others suggested is a good option. Plenty of providers out there, it's not perfect, but it's alright.
Less so for web browsers, but you can also direct users to specific servers. Sample performance for each /24 and /48 and send users to the best server based on the statistics, use IP location as a fallback source of info. Etc. Not great for simple websites, more useful for things with interaction and to reduce the time it takes for tcp slow start (and similar) to reach the available bandwidth.
You could start using DNS Traffic Shaping where DNS server looks at IP making the request and returns the IP of closest server.
Azure/AWS/GCP all have solutions for this and does not require you to use their services. There are probably other DNS providers that can do it as well.
Cloudflare can also do this as well but it's probably more expensive than DNS.
Even 1 Gbps is plenty to handle 1,000 connections unless you're serving up video.
That's 1 Mbps per user. If your web page can't render (ignoring image loading) within a couple seconds even on a connection that slow, you're doing something wrong. Maybe stop using 20 different trackers and shoving several megabytes of JavaScript to the user.
The thread is about self-hosted CDN capabilities. Serving large images and video is what CDNs are for. I’m just talking technical limitations here, chill a little bit with the “your web page”.
This sometimes works, sometimes not. Because of how DNS resolution works, you're totally at the mercy of how your DNS resolver and/or application behave.
Putting something on the Internet by yourself has always been outside the reach of a non-tech person. Years ago regular people weren't deploying globally available complex software from their desktops either.
I’d say what you’re doing is architecting, like the old term for “software architect”. Those are professional who know how to design a system from a high level and have the experience to judge a good implementation of it but they themselves do not write the code.
Likewise real world architects have the skills to design a building but do not care or know how to build it, relying on engineers for that.
I think it’s important to distinguish because we’re increasingly seeing a trend towards final product over production, meaning these “vibe” people want the tool in the end and consider the steps in between to be just busywork and AI can do for them.
That’s closer to product design than to engineering. If I can imagine Monalisa and write that thought to paper, communicating that thought and getting a painter to paint it for me does not make me Da Vinci.
If you had developed novel techniques of sfumato and chiaroscuro, spun new theories of perspective and human anatomy, invented new pigments, and then explained all of that to a journeyman painter, with enough coaching, detail, and oversight to ensure the final product was what you envisioned, I would argue that 100% makes you Da Vinci.
Da Vinci himself likely had dozens of nameless assistants laboring in his studio on new experiments with light and color, new chemistry, etc. Da Vinci was Da Vinci because of his vision and genius, not because of his dexterity with his hands.
You're not considering how scalable your simplified solution is to a team of 100+ people developing the same codebase.
Most of the problems of software engineering are not technical, they are social. Web development is simple for a team of 1-10. I love the idea of hand-writing CSS and relying on simple scripts for myself and a few teammates. Unfortunately it doesn't scale to large orgs.
For what most people are doing with static site generators (blogging) going "raw" HTML is honestly not a bad choice. Most usage of Markdown is just to avoid writing tags. It's not a whole lot more work to write `<em>foo</em>` instead of `_foo_`.
HTML was meant to be hand-authored, not a compilation target. It's like if people forgot you can still cook rice without a rice cooker.
That's a strength. Them not having interest in global domination and regime change other than their backyard is what allows them to easily make partners in Africa and LATAM, the most important regions for raw materials.
reply