this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
285 points (98.0% liked)

World News

50399 readers
2476 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Last week, China's Ministry of Commerce published a document that went by the name of "announcement No. 62 of 2025".

But this wasn't just any bureaucratic missive. It has rocked the fragile tariffs truce with the US.

The announcement detailed sweeping new curbs on its rare earth exports, in a move that tightens Beijing's grip on the global supply of the critical minerals - and reminded Donald Trump just how much leverage China holds in the trade war.

China has a near-monopoly in the processing of rare earths - crucial for the production of everything from smartphones to fighter jets.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 64 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (8 children)

PSA: rare earth's aren't rare. It's the separation from each other and the bulk of earth that makes it cumbersome. It's basically processing capacity that China has today.

Invest in local processing plants.

[–] BCBoy911@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

China spent the last 2 decades investing in infrastructure, energy, heavy industry and manufacturing while we were........ doing what exactly? Selling smartphone apps to each other, pumping crypto, gig economy and letting private equity gut our services?

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are correct but also are missing something. As far as tech services go, the US is (but rapidly decline as due to Trump) a titan. But like I said, right now and especially in the last 10 years they have been going through some extremely serious enshitification of the internet, internet services, and a plethora of other stuff. As far as I am concerned the past 10 years have been extremely static in a lot of development.

[–] Inaminate_Carbon_Rod@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No it just the ever growing feeling of sameness and nothing new coming up.

As a young kid in the late 80s and early 90s I saw shit just go from big to bigger in only a few years. Jokes about computers becoming obsolete the moment they are shipped were everywhere. Graphics and computing power exploded in the 90s and all the way until the 2010s and... things didn't seem to be that much different. A computer I would have had in 2000 would be aching for a replacement in 2005, and the same from 2005 to 2010 and so on. But now I feel like a computer I would have had from 2015 or 2018 would not be too far behind today.

Maybe things got more efficient. But it just seemed like things haven't changed that much. I mean they did. Cloud computing has gotten huge, but in terms of users and usability things haven't budged.

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

The maxed out laptop I bought this year had 10x as many cores as the maxed out one I had previously from 2016 or 2017. RAM was faster and 4x larger, the clock speed was a bit higher, the storage was maybe 2x.

I definitely feel it perform significantly better. The main difference is the number of cores and the amount of RAM, and particularly how cool the CPU runs.

But my last laptop felt the same way when I bought it. I think this is mostly because developer optimization is inversely correlated to hardware spec improvements. Gross under-optimization is allowed if the hardware permits it.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 1 points 10 hours ago

I also feel that the new high-end desktop I bought last year also runs like a dream (I spent thousands of dollars on it), and I am able to do all the things I wanted to do on all my old games perfectly. But other than making AI furry smut (and it is literally my only use of AI) it isn't that much different. This is why I want my computer to last at least another 10 years before a replacement... if that is even possible.

There’s nothing to excite the regular consumer anymore.

There’s fun stuff if you happen to be wealthy.

There’s nothing for us plebs anymore.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (3 children)

How many years does it take to get a processing plant up and running? Longer than Donald has to live, I'll bet.

[–] SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

Probably, considering the average lifespan of a dementia patient. However, processing capacity could be built quickly* if it were a priority. It's just that the private sector isn't capable of creating or funding that priority on its own, so a competent government is required.

*years rather than decades

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 8 points 2 days ago

Well, since they're disappearing all of the laborers...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] suigenerix@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, resource availability isn't the issue, and "just invest more" has some massive hurdles:

  • China has over 25,000 patents in the field of rare earths
  • China doesn't have the strict environmental-protection regulations like much of the rest of the world. It keeps the price very low, but at great cost to its environment from toxic run-off and the like
  • Complex, expensive solvent extraction processes require extensive experience that China is well ahead of the rest of the world on
  • China has a highly integrated supply chain from mining to finished product manufacturing

All these mean any processing outside of China is going to be incredibly expensive and competitively unprofitable. It's not impossible to do, and removing dependence from China is probably worth it, but it's going to take a lot of capital and time to achieve and sustain.

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 8 points 2 days ago

... any processing outside of China is going to be incredibly expensive and competitively unprofitable.

China itself is mining rare earths abroad such as in Myanmar and in Indonesia ...

We urgently needed transparent supply chains ...

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Sure, but like, they sound rare. It's right in the name. That's why dumbass Trumpo behaves like China is hoarding rare jewels from him and cries for Mommy to do something.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Can’t we just do tariffs that cripple our already dwindling industrial capacity and give tax cuts to rich people who don’t need them?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Invest in local processing plants.

Do you want environmental degradation and pollution with processing rare earths? Because that's the main reason why many countries avoid doing it because it will be met with opposition from their electorates.

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

That's only because we want cheap rare earths. If we wanted rare earth's without the environmental fallout, it would be expensive even if done in China. We're simply offloading our environmental waste to others.

[–] Bluebonnetstreet@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The reality is that China is about the only country willing to process the rare earth minerals because of how incredibly toxic it is to the local populace. Many countries could choose to invest in processing plants but are unwilling to subject their citizens to the cancers they invariably cause.

Maybe that's too generous. The wealthy don't want them around, and it's bad business to get your labor force unable to work.

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

I don't know if environmental protection is high on trump's list, along with the welfare of 'illegal migrants'.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 66 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Wasn't very hard to find. Trump hasn't shut up about it since he got elected.

I’ll be honest, I missed it purely because of his verbal diarrhoea.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Not hard to find, but hard to properly leverage.

This is the result of a multi-year effort by China to insulate themselves from very specific retaliatory measures i.e. leverage the USA had over them, but not any longer.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 days ago

Wild that China is the only one that learned from Trump in 2016, and prepare for what was coming.

Of course, most of that is what China's been doing anyway for a couple decades, so that may be more coincidental.

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

it was patently obvious from the beginning of his "I want Canada and Greenland RIGHT NOW!" phase.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Donald Trump is a goddamn fucking moron

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

True. IIRC during his first administration he backed the U.S. out of the international treaty that governed minig ocean floor rare earth deposits because the U.S. didn't have a dispropotionate amount of power compared to other treaty signatories.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's just China's goto for any international being, as they're literally the only ones capable/willing of processing them.

[–] Talaraine@fedia.io 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If only we knew how to... I dunno... invest in something other than Lithium. Something ubiquitous and cheap... like sodium.

Nahhhh

[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 days ago

Nahhhh

I see what you did there

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

Nahhhh

*angry upvote

[–] aldhissla@piefed.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your point is valid but less relevant. Lithium is an alkali metal found in different sources than rare earths, with Australia and South America producing the most.

Rare earths are expensive to refine which is why western mines and refineries have been outcompeted by China. If we were to subsidise local production we'd have an abundance, e.g. from Scandinavia.

Expensive to process safely and in an ecologically-conscious manner. Aka expensive in money but it's important to note the environmental damage these processing plants can do when unregulated.

[–] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

They could've asked him about his buddy pedo Jeff as well. He gets real pissy about that

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sounds extremely rational in the context of US trade policies.