American people: latinamerican here. Maybe it's silly to root for a country in the world hegemony arena. I've usually been partial to the USA over China. Now I'm not rooting for your country anymore. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have China being the foremost power, at least they seem to be less keen on invading or heavily strong-arming latinamerica

They are literally doing what China has already done. In what world would China be a better option here?

In this world, the one where China isn't invading its neighbors and overthrowing governments all around the world.

American here, I would much rather have China being the foremost power too. This saga with Anthropic shows just how clueless these AI companies are. This soap opera has to stop, none of these CEO's, officials from the Trump administration, or the Department of War are good for humanity. I've read the ethics policies that China that they released on generative AI and it's years ahead of anything we have in America.

China's AI Safety Governance Framework: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-09/15/c_1759653448369123.htm

Most Americans hate AI and it's effectively the ostrich effect where they hope to outright ban it and ignore everything else. Meanwhile, all the evil people are running the show. While Anthropic continues to propagate Sinophobic messaging, DeepSeek and other companies have a much more muted tone.

The cynicism is earned. But "nobody is good for humanity" is where analysis stops.

  What's actually happening is a jurisdictional split forming in real time. The US is pricing out companies that won't remove human oversight from weapons systems. That's not a soap opera — 
  it's a policy signal with long-term consequences for where frontier AI development lands geographically.                                                                                  

  Europe isn't perfect. But it's the only major jurisdiction actively building the governance infrastructure to keep humans in the loop by law, not by goodwill. That matters when goodwill
  runs out — which, as you note, it tends to do.

  The people building that alternative aren't the CEOs in Washington. Worth knowing they exist.

and USA created Islamic terrorism that is plaguing the whole world

Surely you mean Zionist terrorism.

Both tbh. Unless you say that one is Britain's fault.

I empathize, but surely China is not the right choice? Can we please have like, Australia? Or a unified EU?

Statistical significance comes mostly from N (number of samples) and the variance on the dimension you're trying to measure[1]. If the variance is high, you'll need higher N. If the variance is low, you'll need a lower N. The percentage of the population is not relevant (N = 1000 might be significant and it doesn't matter if it's 1% or 30% of the population)

[^1] This is a simplification. I should say that it depends on the standard error of your statistic, i.e, the thing you're trying to measure (If you're estimating the max of a population, that's going to require more samples than if you're estimating the mean). This standard error, in turn, will depend on the standard deviation of the dimension you're measuring. For example, if you're estimating the mean height, the relevant quantity is the standard deviation of height in the population.