Re:BYD doubles its Brazil market share to 9.7% a year after ...
by maxglute on Saturday November 07, 2026 @12:48AM
(#50402003)
Seligsohn the one that proposed, I was being loose with words, she doesn't need to literally turn screwdriver to initiate. Propose predate installation hence 2007 timeline matches. She has interview on Sinica specifically talking about BJ embassy AQI story.
I didn't say official presented PM2.5 prior. I said they had accurate sensors... which they've had for 1996 standard. There's no qualitive difference between old standard telling people living under yellow skies the air quality is bad via good/mid/bad (and it was basically mostly bad) vs US presenting it via AQI#? Hence the stunt, a successful stunt, nvm patchy sensors over a few rooftops is manifestly not accurate way to extrapolate broader AQI. Regardless point is not how successful stunt was, but 2007 and before, PRC had accurate air sensors.
I've seen all these exaggerated bullet points from FLG rag before, yeah a few local govs stuck cotton in filters (and got punished), recall of defective sensors when there's already 10s of millions of residential air purifies with AQI meters around. There's 100-1000s of sensors in broad urban/regional coverage for a reason. Instead US embassy/consulate readings that only provided patchy coverage, central gov gets to process 100s of data points (which btw mitigates local gov tomfoolery)... aka a statistically better method. Of course some iphone owning PRC baizuo shitlibs who always thinks US standards better with eat muh embassy AQI slop, but that has no baring on claim that US embassy AQI being more accurate because it technically couldn't due to lack of coverage. Even if PRC fudged their numbers - US embassy setup itself inherently cannot provide more accuracy outside a few kms, ever, hence stunt. Also c'mon popular weatherkit modding is so vanishingly niche on PRC scale it statistically doesn't exist.
I didn't say official presented PM2.5 prior. I said they had accurate sensors... which they've had for 1996 standard. There's no qualitive difference between old standard telling people living under yellow skies the air quality is bad via good/mid/bad (and it was basically mostly bad) vs US presenting it via AQI#? Hence the stunt, a successful stunt, nvm patchy sensors over a few rooftops is manifestly not accurate way to extrapolate broader AQI. Regardless point is not how successful stunt was, but 2007 and before, PRC had accurate air sensors.
> FLG conspiracy rant diversion ... fudge... subjective index... aggregate index
I've seen all these exaggerated bullet points from FLG rag before, yeah a few local govs stuck cotton in filters (and got punished), recall of defective sensors when there's already 10s of millions of residential air purifies with AQI meters around. There's 100-1000s of sensors in broad urban/regional coverage for a reason. Instead US embassy/consulate readings that only provided patchy coverage, central gov gets to process 100s of data points (which btw mitigates local gov tomfoolery)... aka a statistically better method. Of course some iphone owning PRC baizuo shitlibs who always thinks US standards better with eat muh embassy AQI slop, but that has no baring on claim that US embassy AQI being more accurate because it technically couldn't due to lack of coverage. Even if PRC fudged their numbers - US embassy setup itself inherently cannot provide more accuracy outside a few kms, ever, hence stunt. Also c'mon popular weatherkit modding is so vanishingly niche on PRC scale it statistically doesn't exist.