generalpass

Some random comment I read somewhere stated something like, "for U.S. facing networks, we use Huawei, and for China facing networks, we use Cisco."

The article discusses a system where it is often difficult determine cause of death due to the harvesting of parts and preservation processes employed for harvesting activities. With this being the case, there are many instances where unscrupulous actors can have a reduced chance of being discovered.

Depending on who is paying the bills, it may not be very profitable, if at all, to provide services. Especially after cost of money considerations are factored in due to how long it can take to actually receive payment.

What stops a medical provider right now from letting someone die because they stand to profit more than if care is given to keep the patient alive?

Why does it seem like there are popularly presented the following two options:

1. A single government-mandated monopoly provider everywhere with no competition.

2. Government provider.

Because PG&E funds campaigns so politicians who get elected will craft legislation that makes it impossible to start a competitor to PG&E.

Since PG&E has no competitors, and new competitors cannot form, PG&E has no reason to invest further in its infrastructure.

It seems you may be misreading my comment or I am misreading yours. It is the regulation that PG&E is paying for. That is how they keep the competition out.

> Medical examiners say among their hardest decisions is whether to allow companies to recover organs or tissues from bodies of children...

Why are medical examiners the ones making these decisions?

If PG&E were not heavily regulated, why wouldn't they have even just one private competitor? I mean, how hard of a sell is it: knock on door and say, "We're not PG&E." I'm pretty sure 60% of prospects would sign up right away. I've lived 30+ years in California and everybody hates PG&E. I've never talked to someone who had a different opinion.

If I were 15 nowadays, I'd be getting so many people banned, lol.

I can't comprehend how SE can be so ignorant.

I stopped for other reasons.

Facebook doesn't respect the user.

I had a routine that every time I logged in I would go carefully through all of the privacy settings. I observed that: these were revised on a very regular basis; would always be default no privacy; every revision would reset everything to default.

Facebook would reset the feed to popular from chronological even in the middle of a session. When I read articles claiming facebook is spending billions on developers and highly sophisticated analytics, I'm certain they see that I'm manually resetting my feed to chronological several times during the same session. My experience is that my behavior is indicative of some subset of users.

Facebook would completely not show me posts from friends who rarely posted. Who are they to decide whose posts I want to see? It was often that these posts were more interesting than the food and puppy spam mindlessly upvoted.

I sandboxed facebook into IE because I'm not interested in having them track me everywhere and I never used IE for anything.

Facebook assumes people don't manage relationships independently or in some sort of grouping, e.g. college friends, motorcycle gang, co-workers from last employer, etc. Not everyone actually wants to see all of my posts, and I don't desire to see all of everyone's posts.

As soon as facebook started publicly embracing ideologies (of any sort), I knew it was time to leave completely and I log in maybe once every few years to grab a phone number, although I find LinkedIn is actually better for that, so it's really been a long time since I last logged in. An organization pretending to be a place for fostering relationships cannot also support ideologies.

I am just wondering if it is possible to link to the myriad calls for Stallman's resignation prior to the recent events?

I somehow missed all of them, but it seems every recent comment section on Stallman contains a great many people saying it was time for him to go anyway.

The actual function of China's special economic zones is control, not freedom.

Passing into one is identical to passing through an international checkpoint, with minor differences. When driving, the guards basically ignore white people and party members while non-party members have to pull over and go through full scanning and scrutiny to prove they are allowed to enter.

Once in the zone, setting up any kind of business that requires actual capital equipment is completely impossible for anyone who is not a party member.

Even for party members it is close to impossible. China is actually highly regional with provinces having a lot of power. You have to get permission from the province to do anything, and the local powerful elite will only permit those they can control to establish industry.

With this in place, they do not have to care about anyone outside of these zones, so they are free to enact whatever brutal policies they desire.

Special economic zones are only for powerful, rich, and well-connected. Everyone else loses.