1. The image at the start seems to from a LNG terminal, from stories a month or so ago. It can be found here (click over to the third image in the set);
And in fact is a general publication describing the current state of play. The original story in this HN post focuses almost wholly on China, which isn't surprising, since the reporting originates in China.
As it is, my view is that it's not how many robots you have, it's what you have, where they are, how much they cost you, if they're worth it/useful, and if the numbers you're providing are in fact accurate. Extensive growth, by spending more, is easy; intensive growth, by spending more efficiently is hard. State run growth is very nearly almost always extensive growth; you tax something (which retards its development) and put the money elsewhere. If you've moved the wealth from somewhere it was efficiently used, to somewhere it is inefficiently used, you're actually losing wealth, by that wealth you now no longer generate.
Communist States normally do not publish truthful and accurate numbers for anything, and there is no indication in the HN story, or the FoR as to where these numbers come from. It may be they come from the national robotics bodies (which are members of the FoR), in which case they come from an organization under the thumb of the Chinese State, and so where the numbers are not going to be accurate or truthful.
Mm.
1. The image at the start seems to from a LNG terminal, from stories a month or so ago. It can be found here (click over to the third image in the set);
https://www.instagram.com/chinaxinhuanews/p/DBxSzRYqZaD/?img...
2. The reporter is in Shanghai, in China, and so is subject to the Chinese State and its requirement to publish positive stories.
3. The Federation of Robotics looks legit - around for a long time, based in Germany, multi-national, currently has a Japanese boss.
4. The actual original publication from the FoR is here;
https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robot-density...
And in fact is a general publication describing the current state of play. The original story in this HN post focuses almost wholly on China, which isn't surprising, since the reporting originates in China.
As it is, my view is that it's not how many robots you have, it's what you have, where they are, how much they cost you, if they're worth it/useful, and if the numbers you're providing are in fact accurate. Extensive growth, by spending more, is easy; intensive growth, by spending more efficiently is hard. State run growth is very nearly almost always extensive growth; you tax something (which retards its development) and put the money elsewhere. If you've moved the wealth from somewhere it was efficiently used, to somewhere it is inefficiently used, you're actually losing wealth, by that wealth you now no longer generate.
Communist States normally do not publish truthful and accurate numbers for anything, and there is no indication in the HN story, or the FoR as to where these numbers come from. It may be they come from the national robotics bodies (which are members of the FoR), in which case they come from an organization under the thumb of the Chinese State, and so where the numbers are not going to be accurate or truthful.