Overworked Chinese workers have been making western consumers better off for more than two decades now. Chinese domestic consumption is very low even among developing countries, negligible compared to its gigantic export.
Upon joining WTO one prerequisite is 5 days-8 hours work week, while presently in China you often find 996 schedule instead, with factory workers even worse with 12 hour shifts and 2 days off a month.
It is simply sweatshop in the 21st century again, a hallmark of Neijuan.
I'm not saying workers aren't necessarily overworked etc. I'm just saying that's not what this word and concept is about. This concept is about capital owners.
It would hardly have become a popular slang term on the Chinese internet if it were only about the worries of a small minority of capital owners. Any kind of excessive competition dynamics may be described as neijuan. I would like to give you some social media usage examples, but Weibo is censoring the #内卷# hashtag. In any case, the Wikipedia article has examples involving students competing in exams and graduates competing on the job market, among others.
Like other comments on OP have pointed out, the term at this point is vague and used for various reasons.
But given the term's emergence in a country with a communist government, and the origin described by wikipedia, I think what I'm saying is more aligned with the term's origin.
Whatever the term means on Chinese internet sounds like standard (I'm sure partially valid) doomerism. I can accept they use it to describe that.
Basically Model Y has been consistently in top 3 by monthly sales of EV in China so far in 2026. If you count by 3-month or 6-month periods, it is only next to Geely EX2 at 1/3 of its price as pointed out by another comment.
Part of the fluctuation is due to one month of every quarter the Tesla Shanghai factory is oriented at export, so domestic number drops dramatically.
HN is full of ppl claiming Chinese EV is superior in every way without realizing that Tesla is incredibly popular in Chinese domestic market.
Yep, somewhere between Chengdu and Siguniang (4 sisters) if I remember correctly (it could have been on a later leg on to daocheng, but I think it was really early in our trip). You get into Tibetan areas very quickly if you go west from Chengdu, if you are looking for some interesting touring in China, you could do a lot worse than that area. Today the roads are much better and you avoid really high pass driving with lots of tunnels.
Meanwhile ppl freak out over Anthropic using timezone and Unicode for the same purpose, without realizing Chinese are simply ruthless in abusing iOS or Android or Web. Pinduoduo, who owns Temu, is infamous for exploiting an Android 0day vulnerability for such purposes.
The keyword is soon, so OP simply meant current generation of LLMs are not likely to prove RH, judging from the performance shown in the paper.
Why? Because such explicit numerical improvements are not that interesting, which is best summed up in a review paper [0] of our efforts on RH spanning a century and a half,
> The pathetic attempts to enlarge the ridiculous zero free region
in the critical strip is a perfect example of what brute force can do without
fully exploiting fundamental arithmetic aspects of the problem. (italic added)
For outsiders, zero free region is another angle abundant with numerical improvements but no groundbreaking insights. For percentage people stop at ~40% because there is no need to proceed further, just like we are not interested in computing the googol-th digit of pi although in principle we could.
The groundbreaking results are like Selberg's that goes from zero to 0.01% (actually it is left unspecified, all we know is the percentage is positive), or Zhang's twin prime bound from infinity to 70,000,000. After this leap the pure numerical difference between 0.01%, 40%, 67% or even 100% is not substantial, and that's partly why Selberg did not even bother to compute it. Also RH will not follow from 100%, because in mathematics 100% does not mean all.
On the other hand, it is also wrong to dismiss such results all together. Riemann already know the real part of all zeros are bewteen zero and one, and RH says they equal 1/2. If someone or some LLM proved they are all less than 0.99, well this would be huge, and I'd bet they would easily get a Fields and be remembered forever. Innocent looking results could have drastically different technical depth behind them.
Alas math ppl tend to agree that RH will not be proved one bit at a time. The fundamental arithmetic aspects, once found out, will likely knock out not only RH but all the other L-functions in one go.
Huh? In June the best selling EV in China is Model Y across all price ranges. Model 3 a tie for the 8th with many ~$10k entry level higher up. If you only rank among ~$40k, then it's a tie for the 4th.
It is faltering badly when you consider first mover status and previously being the #1 EV brand in China. This would be like if GM/Ford/Chrysler lost their #1 status to Toyota in less than a decade.
Toyota didn’t start outselling GM until 2021. Honda and Hyundai still sell fewer vehicles than Ford and GM in the US.
Tesla still sells a lot of product and does relatively well for itself, but proportionally to its prior status in the market, it has fallen far.
Tesla’s small model range makes their numbers look better because they can say that their two volume models sell very well. In reality, BYD is shipping hundreds of thousands more BEVs than Tesla and Volkswagen Group is outselling Tesla in Europe.
Another way to put this is to say that it’s really impressive that the Model Y sells number similar to the RAV4 and CRV in the United States. It’s far less impressive when you consider the fact that Toyota has nine SUVs in their lineup.
When you have a small model lineup like Tesla has it skews things a bit. Let's say you have a buyer who really likes the Tesla brand and wants a subcompact city car, or maybe they want a 3-row SUV. Let's say about 40% of them say "you know what, I like Telsa so much, I'll compromise and get a Model 3 even though it's bigger than what I want" or they say "I'll get the Model YS even though it's not a full large sized 3-row SUV I want."
This scenario now pads the numbers for those models and makes it look like the Model Y/YS/3 are incredibly successful, even though they didn't quite fit their buyer demographic and those buyers might not be back as repeat buyers as soon as there's another option available on the market that works better for them.
This hypothetical leaves 60% of potential buyers defecting to other brands right away. They'll say, "Tesla doesn't make what I want, I'll go buy an EV9 or a Renault 5 instead, even though I prefer Tesla."
A lot of those buyers are buyers that Tesla could have had, but they don't have because their model lineup is too thin.
This is exactly why most large volume brands have some kind of badge engineering and sub-brands going on. Toyota doesn't lose any buyers that want a Camry but want it to be more luxurious, those buyers are directed to Lexus. Hyundai doesn't lose any buyers that want more aggressive/sporty/modern styling, those buyers go with a Kia.
Tesla sells far too many cars to not have any of this yet, but they've just under-expanded, IMO.
Upon joining WTO one prerequisite is 5 days-8 hours work week, while presently in China you often find 996 schedule instead, with factory workers even worse with 12 hour shifts and 2 days off a month.
It is simply sweatshop in the 21st century again, a hallmark of Neijuan.
reply