beaunative

> public housing, .. If you own one, you cannot own a second one.

How is this a downside? That's the only way a subsidizied public housing system could work.

It's ludicrous you are describing the negatives from the perspective of a investor instead of a resident, that was precisely the point of the whole scheme, to make it easier for a regular resident to live, who pays tax and contributes to the local economy.

more like undereducated people often submit to peer pressure and thus less likely to identify as gay, while educated folks often found themselves in a much more supportive environment that they feel comfortable identifying as gay.

I'm not surprised. Woman who behave like man are often praised, considered better. Man who behave like woman are often moked at, considered less. (I meant like man and like woman as our society expects them not as that those beliefs are justified)

I'm not surprised. Gender discrimination hurts us all, this should go without saying. Man are expected to be certain things, woman are expected to be certain things. Those social expectations, implicit or explicit, effect our actual behavior, and are the root and cause of the discriminiation.

that's capitalism.

Marriot executives arrested for "corruption" Marriot hotels closed for "environmental damage"

The Chinese government don't actually do these things, they don't really need to, this sounds more like options for the American government.

Taiwan is actually an state, but China don't recognize it the way we didn't recognize the IS. Of course, Taiwan is in much better situation than the IS, but the underlying logic is the same. A state government don't recognize other states just because they are a state.

well, i'm talking about recognition as the Chinese state understand it, of course no private organization can "recognize" a state in an official, diplomatic capacity, that's hardly the focal point of my statement. let me know if you have a better word for it. alright.

I don't think China has grudge against Wikimedia specifically, the official policy of theirs has always been that if you recognize Taiwan, you are no friend of them. I don't think the Chinese delegate there cares about free knowledge, further it's their job literally to say no to Taiwan recongition anywhere on earth.

So why should we be surprised that China does this when the United States federal government don't call their Taiwan ambassador ambassador, but rather director of the American Institute in Taiwan, out of respect of the same policy.

It's never whataboutism to replace US with China. People often love the whataboutism argument, but logically it only applies when it's a digression of the original issue. A citizen applies for FOIA request shouldn't be answered 'see what China is doing'. In terms of global politics, comparing the major players is definitely valid.

This is quite a stretch. People commenting "in part", of course in part it is, but is also being ango-centric and ignoring real reasons, banning Australia' import is quite an superficial and insiginicant contributor. The global coal price has been on the rise, that's irrespective if China has the ban or not. Even it does, it's still a quite small percentage in terms of total energy supply. I'd rather not argue on this. Find some significant or likely significant reasons, otherwise we are just focusing on logically indefensible but insignificant aspects of things (80% sure there is a term for it)

Torture is a strong word. You better back it up, there is no logical reason for the Chinese government to `torture` them.

Joke's on me then! Though I doubt anyone shorting can hold that position for this long.

Evergrande has been in trouble for the past half year at least, it's astounding someone's only making a report now, everyone, I mean, EVERYONE, knows the chance of Evergrande would go insolvent is high.

It doesn't. To clarify, you can compile dart to javascript, albeit more commonly to machine code.

Yeah. All public websites need to be registered with the the government and are assigned a BeiAn code. It's a link to the registry where you can find who owns and operate the website with the code listed.

Take it as concrete examples if you want, but the sentence was meant to demonstrate the scale of things and how they might impact governmental decisions, which gives heavy weight to a lot of things, but not as much as you might expect to human rights issues and national values.

You are reading a lot on the 'conflicts' between China and the United States because China is potentially challenging US' dominance, and having competing interests in more areas than any would want.

You wouldn't read this thirty years ago, not when the Soviet Union still have its influence. When the US is trying to have China on its side. Shared and competiing interest is, and will always the core of any diplomatic relationship. China isn't any less commie or more worker-friendly back then, but that wasn't the focus of the conversation isn't it.

Vietnam isn't less commie than China is. India doesn't have better working conditions than China is. We aren't reading them because they are not as significant. Vietnam is simply too small, and India is still struggling to find its own way.

It will never happen. The talk will keep going, but it will never happen. In the case it does, it would be over Taiwan, not over a writer. I know people want to think human rights' are important (to their governments), but the governments would never place too much value on human rights in their calculation. (Taliban being the example)

Cutting business ties is a playable card, but not over this. China knew. If you were the president of a country, you wouldn't either. There is too much on the table already to just give it away.

Time can't be increased or decreased. You have 24 hours in a day, no more, no less. Adding something to the schedule is only more stringent than having a blocklist of activities where you'd at least have a choice.

I don't want to start an argument on the effect and difference of fiction books / tv to games. You point is effectively that those choices may be arbitrary, however games are much more addictive than those that you've mentioned. Realistically, I've seen kids play too much games whose grades dropped like hell, but few watching too much TV, much less reading too much novel. Games can be addictive and difficult to maintain, while the same can hardly be said to TV and novels.

I agree that government-mandated limit would be too much, and less preferrable than a government-mandated system that allows parent to set the limit. You would effectively be requiring game companies to acquire and collect information on the parents of the child playing the game.

I expect a government-mandated default unless with explicit written approval from parents which would seems still rather easy to circumvent for the lack of better ways.

"(who isn't affected by this)"

LMAO. Even if you didn't mention it. Likely no one would think you married an underaged girl.

"are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests."

Come on. That's just false. You can't operate a country successfully at China's size by making law just to benefit the cadre / personal interests.

Don't get started by advocating that benefiting the people is just a way to benefit to cadre. It's infalsifiable and just pointless.

The government is not dicating parents/kids.

The government IS dictating game developers not to provide service to children who want to play outside of the said periods.

What you said is impossible to enforce.

Well. I don't think you need research to know that gaming consumes time, and for those addicted a lot of them. Cigarettes and alcohol on the other hand, is not about the time you put in doing it, it's about the time afterwards. So there is a subtle difference.

I think he's pointing out in this specific case, a democratic process of elected representatives is not better than that of appointed officials since it's still a group of people making decision for another totally unrelated group of people, teenagers, who didn't get to vote for those making the decisions/votes.

I doubt dessert is comparable to video games, I will eventually get full with desserts, but potentially unlimited time with video games.

The timeframe when a parents have a say in children's activity is already limited by compulsory k-12 schooling. What's the difference?

I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.

In the past, there is also no internet, wifi, air-conditioning, railways, airplane and people lived.

The regulation, technically not a law, is meant for companies in the video game industry. If you went length to circumvent the online game definition, no one cares, but if a corporate does that, it would sure trigger investigation.

* Hell, you don't even need to circumvent the defintion if you can get around it technically.

A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can.

That's the issue.

And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.