China having an export surplus precedes Trump's presidency by a few decades.
> globalization is just westernization?
I think the idea is that countries need similar regulations to complete fairly in a shared market. I.E. The US can really only trade with other western countries if they want to avoid a lot of the present pitfalls with global trade.
I think aside from the universal "China is bad" theme, the other theme closely related in Asian political discussion in HN, is that "Japan already did her part for their WWII and imperialism war crimes"...
Unfortunately, no.
Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII. Literally, each and every suffered from Japanese imperialism invasion still have deep and broad hostility towards Japan whenever the topic start to divert to WWII and the era.
I have no idea was it Japan government intentionally doing this inadequate job, or are they simply incompetent on this matter.
But to call this website "heavily biased"... Bravo, this is borderline racism towards the people living in the nations suffered from Japanese invasions.
Yeah, and you wonder why paying money to the descendent people raped/killed/mutilated/{and many other horrendous anti-human barbarism brutality} [0] is not enough to get peace.
Turns out, people are not stupid.
If the wrongdoers are not sincere, money never suffices.
For example, you'll need a court to uphold an apology [1], then what is the substance of the apology anyway?
> and the reason the govt doesn't do anything about it despite flooding being a major political issue is corruption
Could you provide evidences of governmental corruption that actually result into this?
Something like:
* A given amount of budget were allocated to hire public sector workers to do necessary management work (coordinating, communication, planning of non-flood-hazard residential zones etc.)
* A proof that the above budget meets the required efforts
* Evidences that the people are cooperating with the government, if the government actually carried out such campaingh.
Corruption is everywhere. In the sense that individuals not doing what they suppose because of selfish motivations.
But to blame a government on systematic corruption, there has to be evidences that resources are available, but the government choose to neglect.
The liberal fantasy that "eliminating corruption, then your imagination will become reality" does not exist in reality at all.
I think the parent comment is referring to how corruption seems to be a given for everything the government is involved in.
There are a lot of reasons we can come up with to explain this, but it does seem to be a fact that the more control the government has over something, the more inefficient and corrupt the process.
However, this inherent corruption seems to be ignored when (typically liberal) people argue for more government control.
Most "liberals" are aware that government structures tend to be inefficient in the best case. This is unavoidable simply because even the most "liberal" people want their government to stick to the rule of Law. Thus, stringent procedures, bureaucracy or political deliberations, and auditing are required.
However, this inherent inefficiency and risk for corruption is seen as a lesser evil compared to leaving a matter completely unattended, or in the hands of market structures that have evidenced that they are utterly uncaring about their impact on society at large. Entrenched market structures often exhibit the same behaviors that "conservatives" dislike in governments.
If you watch old movie, you start to understand the modern CGI produced movies are having a problem of the movie makers cannot decide what they want to tell the audience, and they start to throwing as much staff on screen and hope they can appeal to most of the people.
In addition to the splash of pixels and colors, the dialogue is hard to follow in modern films, google "modern film voice is hard to hear" you'll see that's a common complaint.
The last batch of movies that do not suffer these are LOTR trilogy, and the matrix (not the sequels). Then from then, I cannot recall any film that has a clear idea and is keen to focus on the idea and develop the film accordingly.
I have noticed re: the speaking that they no longer allow space to happen between lines of dialog. For example Char A speaks and B replies in like... what 100 milliseconds? Then back to A then C then B in rapid succession. Enough time to hear, but not enough time to understand with my slow processor.
As a result, I've started watching everything with English subtitles on so I can fully understand what is happening. Not just Trainspotting any longer, but run-of-the-mill Hollywood schlock that should be in my wheelhouse. :-D
This is something that drives me crazy. A B and C are talking with no single hesitation, then D who come from nowhere and didn't follow the conversation already know what to reply to everyone.
I watched Twin Peaks for the first time only 2 years ago during covid lock down. It was refreshing to watch something at much lower pace.
Prior to this work, eBPF is mostly used for networking and kernel tracing.
Networking has a very rigid framework, and eBPF is mainly doing things that can be done in old techs (DPDK etc), but is supposedly better. But that might be always clear-cut superiority, a recent discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31982026 shows the claimed superiority of DPDK comes with a lot of caveats.
Kernel tracing with eBPF is mainly for observability purpose. It's very useful. But has not been able to bring business value directly to software users.
Now with XRP, eBPF offered, for the first time, unprecedented and novel capability for accelerating IOs circumvent the existing Kernel + userspace separation.
EV boom will propel the battery manufacturer to be the next manufacturing Behemoth. It's so much a core of any EV that the industry capital has to be consolidated to be able to produce sufficiently good product and iterate rapidly to match the market demand.
> I remain convinced that "real" self driving (as in: go ahead and sleep in the backseat) will never happen without changes to road infrastructure and possibly some sort of segregation between robot-driven cars and people-driven cars.
Yep, I talk to people working in traffic engineering, and their mindset is always building new road tech and road-side and cloud infra to support autonomous driving. They have no expectation of fully autonomous vehicle without road and infrastructure assistance.
And from historical perspective, the coming of automotive and the replacement of horse and other animal carts, are exactly facilitated by the road transformation; which has been the single largest scale infrastructure in human history.
It makes no sense that an even bigger transformation of the vehicle would require less drastic road transformation.
Yes. You bring up a great point: With some infrastructure improvements we could have "virtual" trains. Vehicles would talk to each other on the highway and organize into closely-spaced convoys. Only the lead vehicle would need an active human driver; the rest could follow at extremely close distances--drafting off each other--and would not need a human driver (or their human drivers could go off-duty). The point of using asphalt rather than rails is that it makes it easy to switch between individual car mode and automated virtual train mode.
This idea is not new and it mostly applies to freight convoys but I think it also has merit for ad hoc passenger car convoys on long highway trips.
> With some infrastructure improvements we could have "virtual" trains. Vehicles would talk to each other on the highway
I think the idea is to get rid of the roads and have the robo vehicles travel instead on tracks. That increases fuel efficiency and bypasses a lot of AI challenges.
Not only that. Overhead electrical solves a lot of the mining/environmental impact of batteries.
It’s the low-key case that Elon will be remembered poorly (like Robert Moses’ rapidly degrading legacy) for
1) Having the wrong vision for EVs (but successfully executing non it anyway)
2) Making space travel cheap (thereby increasing the amount of carbon energy dedicated to it) without really improving an average human’s quality of life
Can someone put into succinct evidences of this statement?
To the typical talking point:
* IP infringement: there is not much unusual rate of IP stealing from China. Considering the size of Chinese economy and foreign trade ties between China and the rest of world, absolute number of IP infringement cases are not a good indicator of the government's policy.
* Coercion of South East Asian nations: This one is a natural demand of a rising super power. Putting it in the perspective of any historical rising of superpower, China has been relatively much more peaceful. Again, the sheer size of China make the absolute number terrifying, but please stay rationale, and don't try to paint China as some sort of arch evil of the west Civilization. After all, the West has been nourished by the Oriental civilization, among them China particularly contributed to the advancement of knowledge and inventions (gun powder, magnet etc.).
* Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it.
PS: I am Chinese living in US. And I support the peaceful cooperation between China and US. The 2 nations are the most refined examples of the oriental and western civilizations. It's indeed a tragedy that the finest human civilizations cannot work together. We Chinese living in US, as well as the US people having good exposure in China, are in a good position to amplify the cooperative ties between China and US.
> * Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it.
I'm sad that you don't realize Taiwan is already functionally autonomous, and wants to remain that way.
It's also telling how you imagine that a typical American wouldn't "let" Texas leave the union.
As far as I (or anyone else I know) cares, if Puerto Rico or Guam or Texas wanted to leave the U.S. (which they don't), and they held a vote, and a supermajority voted to leave, why wouldn't we let them leave? It isn't the 1860s anymore. The world is much more democratic now, imperialism is over, and if a group of people want to go it alone, we should let them.
Scotland had a vote to leave the U.K., and they decided to stay, so they stayed. If they had voted to leave, they would have left.
The U.K. had a vote to leave the E.U., and they decided to leave, so they did.
Would China recognize Taiwan's independence if Taiwan held a vote? Of course not. The reason for this is not merely because China doesn't sympathize with the desires of the Taiwanese people, but because China doesn't even believe in democracy in the first place.
> if Puerto Rico or Guam or Texas wanted to leave the U.S. (which they don't), and they held a vote, and a supermajority voted to leave, why wouldn't we let them leave?
Texas has a 2 trillion dollar economy with shipping, electronics, manufacturing, oil, electronics, etc, 28 million taxpayers, a lot of military bases and assets and miles of coastline and ports. You don't just let that leave.
We're not the UK or EU - if Texas tried to secede they would just learn what it's like to be on the business end of an American military "liberation."
No, they really couldn't, it isn't the nineteenth century anymore. And no, there isn't a special provision allowing Texas to secede from the union, this is a popular myth[0]. And as much as Texas likes to believe in its fierce independence, the state is politically, culturally and economically enmeshed in the rest of the Union and without the resources, finances and status of the US (much less the USD,) Texas would be better off rejoining Mexico than trying to survive on its own[1].
I really have no skin in this game, but there are a lot of perfectly functional countries with fewer than 28 million people, and it seems kind of silly to assert that an energy-exporting rich country of 28 million could not survive on its own.
> If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan independence.
Are these similar? Texas is part of the union and WANTS to stay in the union. Taiwan is independent does NOT want to be part of China. They don't seem similar to me.
They are similar in that there are laws reconigized domestically and internationally to block Texas and Taiwan from becoming independent from their home country.
Confrontation with US over Taiwan: If you are OK with Texas leaving the union, then you are entitled to support Taiwan independence. Enough said. Pick your side, and stick with it.
1. Those are not even close to equivalent. For so many reasons.
2. Sure, Texas can leave if they want. Florida and California too. Definitely Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
You dismiss the theft of trillions in IP over decades as "some online hacking". You bring up NSA domestic surveillance as a straw man to distract from what the Chinese Gov does to other countries.
Fine, I'll take a second to engage your straw man: The NSA didn't feed their surveillance data to DHS to round up undesirable ethnicities into concentration camps.
This is just pure propaganda.
If one can accurately count for the IP theft and come up with a value number. And argue that it's trillions theft from the US business man, without those business man not refarining from doing business in China, then the basic profit-seeking behavior is not working in the US China bilateral business dealing.
You can claim that US businesses lost trilliones which are larger than the profit they collected, and assume that the business men are stupid and not knowing the value of their IP.
That's just senseless argument.
> the theft of trillions in IP over decades as "some online hacking".
Online hacking is very small part from China. And they are usually backed be global hackers from compromised hosts located in Chinese territory.
Every power is an adversary of each other on the world stage. It's not something special that exists between China and the US, each and every power is in a similar relationship. Since there's no higher power to govern it all, the only thing that keeps the adversarial relationships somewhat peaceful is the balance of the power. Otherwise one would assimilate the other. The rest, like the particulars you listed, are just details.
Absolutely not. It's just people in large, complex groups, with history. Also, it's not about war at all - rather, it's about power. Which can be, and is, achieved in a good many not-war ways.
- the IP infringement is very real (see Nortel vs Huawei), but it's more the actions of individual companies than industrial policy.
- Taiwan is technically the legitimate government of China, so it's really more appropriate to say that the mainland broke away from China instead of the other way around. Realistically though, they've been defacto independent for decades during which there has been peace. The KMT is no longer the dominant party in Taiwan and the CCP has moved on from Mao, the two sides should drop the charade and normalize relations, but it's unlikely to happen with Xi at the helm stoking Chinese nationalism.
That said, I don't think any of this should automatically make the US and China adversaries. The US has a number of allies that are worse on the human rights front, and has historically propped up dictatorships as long as they were aligned against communism.
imo the real reason for the conflict is that there is a resurgence of nationalism in every major country. Both the US and China has become more fascist compared to 20 years ago, and this trend is likely to continue.
Add constantly being belligerent to US and other nations ships on international waters, claiming they can build artifical islands and lay claim to all of the waters of South China Sea and control who travels there.
Despite areas of friction, China and US are each other's #1 trading partners. We are literally allies. I suggest we try to build upon that already productive relationship.
Trading is of a mutual benefit. Sea creatures do this as well with hygiene.
In case it wasn't obvious, Western influence (individualism and democracy) is an existential threat to the CCP -- This is why see western media censored and/or outright banned in China. Tiananmen Square Massacre is another example of CCP's response to western influence in China.
Trading partners is not the same as "literally allies". Germany was trading partners with the rest of Europe before both world wars, that doesn't mean Germany was allied with France and the UK. There is no mutual defense pact between America and China, nor will there be in any foreseeable future. America and China are not allies.
Nobody is obliged to tailor their beliefs to your whims. It doesn't matter how logical you think you are. It doesn't matter if you think other people are being hypocritical or illogical. The simple fact of the matter is that I support American interests and oppose Chinese interests, and I don't care if you think that makes me hypocritical.
None of these are banned. They simply choose to not operate in China, because the laws require them hand over user data. So they choose to monopolize those data themselves, which is allowed in US and so called "free" nations. Go figure how ridiculous that is.
Yes, some of those are banned. Banned means to prohibit, especially by legal means. These websites are not reachable from mainland China, so they are banned in mainland China.
Their operation wasn't suspended for a compliance reason. This article lists some of those, and their (suspected) reason for the ban:
Banned in china:
Google
Gmail
Google Play
Google Maps
Google Drive
Google News
Facebook
Facebook Messenger
Instagram
Twitter
Reddit
Tumblr
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Snapchat
Slack
Viber
Line
Discord
Telegram
Signal
Wikipedia
Dropbox
OneDrive
Blogger
WordPress
Medium
Quora
BBC
The New York Times
The Guardian
The Washington Post
Daily Mail
CBC (Canada)
ABC (Australia)
Spotify
SoundCloud
Amazon Music
Pandora
Tinder
Pornhub
XVideos
Chaturbate
Twitch
PlayStation
Coinbase
Binance
You should edit your comment, it comes across as being in poor taste. There's this idea that people of one race have a very hard time seeing differences in other races:
How to lead even when you don't know where you are going: The fine line between fear and courage