jjcc

Wow, I didn't know that. It reminds me Pompeo who is a better version that has been evolved to adapt to the smarter population already know the danger of Nazis.

You are right. Anything that is not likely cause ideological polarization would be free to make money in China. So it's not really economical motivated policy as the narrative from the White House

's great you mention that. But the biggest reason that why FB, Google were excluded after around 2010 is never mentioned here and even difficult to debate because of political correctness: Is the Chinese government policy from economic reason or something else that has been interpreted as protectionism?

The other theory is uncensored social media is perceived as a big threat to national security threat (I'm not saying CPP security threat). The ground situation in China is beyond the understanding of most population even a large portion of intellectuals inside China. That view was enhanced and many Chinese intellectuals changed their mind after color revolution in Ukraine, middle east chaos, etc.

Don't get me wrong, most educated people inside China are against censorship like westerners and the sentiment was very strong and still somehow strong today. "Animal Farm" and "1984"[1] are sold openly in China. But normal peaceful life without fear of danger and insecurity from conflicts is evaluated more important than economic development let alone freedom of speech inside China but it is not necessary applied to other part of the world especially liberal Western world. With polarization of recent events in US and consequential censorship on YouTube and Twitter that beyond topic of BLM/Identity politics/etc which result in many normal Chinese YouTube and twitter accounts mistakenly banned (This is not well-known in English audience), even more Chinese changed their view against Chinese government censorship.

The real reason is not economical but from a perception of national security. The perception is debatable but it should be at least included as an option of viewpoint as opposed to totally excluded.

[1]http://product.dangdang.com/25215594.html

Is is possible that corrupted politicians have much better chance to win the election than those honest politician who are able to working towards good governance? So theoretically the solution is expecting a good leader but pragmatically there's little probability for those kind of leader to win?

What if there's some good reasons deep underneath the surface of what happened in so many countries but because of political correctness the researches of the reasons are impossible to start so the real solutions if exists are not available in near future?

Not only CIA but US/European governments also have the same problem. Two examples are Iraq war and bombing of Libya.

The big difference is that the Iraq/Libya cases were partially intended to do good things which could get some support from certain voters. That's worse than CIA coups with strategical goals but turned out to have unintended consequences which will be correctly evaluated later to avoid the future mistakes.

The actions with good intentions however are more deceptive because good intentions are often disguised self spiritual satisfactions so the real ground facts were less checked correctly. That's an theory that after tens of thousands deaths of Iraq war , the bombing of Libya could happen AGAIN with little objections because voters are fine with good intention of overthrowing evils, and with values (i.e. quasi religion) people are not likely to measure the magnitude of consequences.

In terms of disaster, next version of Hitler is a human rights promoter.(Tony Blair?) Good intention is a way to circumvent "fool me once/twice" alert because politicians cheated in a such a good way not only themselves are cheated to enhance the deception but talking is so spiritually attractive that even non-religious people don't think about the history of ground truth associated with those beautiful words.

There are a lot of foreign-owned companies long before Tesla. In my home town Changzhou there was a famous US company called METTLER TOLEDO which exists since 1992. I lived there 20+ years ago. I had a lot of friends worked for the company. All the town knew it was a wholly owned(独资）US company. Here's the only source I can find but in Chinese. http://www.bioon.com.cn/show/index.asp?id=11583

It mentioned 独资。There are other companies had Chinese partners called 合资 which means joined-adventure. They are different but 独资 exist as opposed to MSM claimed.

Now I know you don't believe it. There are many people know the other side of story but they have been eventually down-voted out of HN to tell the truth. This one seems not quite offense to many HNer's beliefs so I'd like to provide some information.

http://www.bioon.com.cn/show/index.asp?id=11583

I'm a little surprised the author recommended "The Shallow" but didn't mention "Deep Work" by Cal Newport.

Thanks. That's a good explanation. I like "desugaring"

Wow! That's wonderful!. Forth and Lisp were my favorite languages long long time ago. Python is my current daily use language among others. I even don't know they are connected.

I would think it's the current eco system that makes those who respect for expertise and rationailty happened to have some compettive advantages during the prodedure. They have better odds to be elected over their opponents. There are some observation supporting the hypothesis but too long to discuss here.

I would say the approach should be more economical than political focused. Donation is very socialistic way needs no accountability from donation receptors, while business deals require responsibilities from both side and have risks attached. In fact China doesn't care about the political system. Ethiopia Happened to be a democratic country.

There is some historical context that a lot of people outside of China don`t know. China is a big country with a huge diversity in development as well as Chinese people( You believe Chinese are diligent? You are wrong. Not all of them. Even Han Chinese). Many places used to be historically poor areas for very long time. China used to have a very socialist policy for long time before late 70`s which resulted in the associated mentality. The policy of "helping poor" was mostly donations. This was a failure policy that resulted in the poor area stayed in poor. There were many stories such as the people kill the donated plowing ox for meat because they know next year donation will come again. The people in developed areas often feel upset about the wasted donation. The "helping poor" policy changed later towards encouraging entrepreneurship, vocational training (Sounds familiar?), etc. In other words: The policy of giving fishing tool instead of giving bread works better.

That's why most of today's "Chinese Influence" are bound with conditions like business deals. It's a better way to help others in addition to capitalist selfish greediness described in many media. It's mutual beneficial. The approach was from hard lessons that donation can not stimulate sustainable growth.

Harming US troops is part of equation. The local people in the countries suffered more which is usually less concerned than US troops. Not only the chemicals , but also killing each other because of destabilization of the regions.

I think both Bush and Obama administration had the intention to destroy terrorists. Otherwise why they kill Bean Ladden? The real problem is they along with all Western society make the situation worse by misunderstanding the human nature just like most doctors treat cancer by cutting a tumor without knowing more cancer will grow faster.

Western countries collectively do the same thing again and again in Iraq, Libya, Syria (these are obvious list) and ....

edit:fix typo

The international community as HNers know is just part of whole international community, all western countries. There is another part ignored by English media audience. I would speculate that most HNers see the other part as naive , bribed by China , or evil while Western countries are the owner of final truth and stand on the high moral ground. Totally exclude other possibilities.

My speculation about YC is that there are always something beyond our understanding so they choose not to make judgement for time being. If that's the case I applaud their altitude. Modern human have serious cognitive defects in my view.

ref: https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/which-countries-are-for-or-a...

Quote "... Those that signed the first letter, criticizing China, include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

Signing the second letter, in defense of China’s policies, were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Kuwait, Laos, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

..."

It's not censorship. Dang did great job and the rules of HN is quite good if not perfect.

The downvote really suppressed free speech. I agree with you on that part. But that's the reality everybody need to accept.

I would say many mainlanders are reluctant say anything in this topic so you don't know.

BTW, I'm Canadian but was from mainland. There are also a lot of debate inside WeChat groups which include oversea Chinese who have access to all information.

It was also a big surprise that there's a significant change of the altitude towards Tiananmen Square incident. It's less obvious in the comments on Youtube but more on Chinese social media that are invisible to English readers.

No body support killing innocent people but many people think differently than before.

Killing civilians is unfortunate and mistake. However it's controversial because the views of the leaders of a nation is quite different from average people that there are costs and risks you cannot avoid to protect more civilian death. Logically that's a legitimate claim. In statistics majority of killed were terrorists. i.e. the killing is quite effective and accurate.

The real flaw of the strategy is fundamental misunderstanding of root cause and how human society works. Killing didn’t reduce the capability of the terrorists. The growth of terrorists out paste target drone killing numbers. Killing cause more growth. That’s why US eventually talk to Taliban. The failure is on another level not accuracy of drone target killing.

Thanks. I strongly suggest constructive competition which will benefit all of us. In addition to that, I also suggest that somebody can have a high order review of how the dispute evolved so a better protocol can eventually developed to make an eco-system healthier. Or even more, study the weakness of human nature so a more efficient cooperative system can be created by promoting awareness of troublesome behaviors/features.

There are two different groups of anti-war people: 1. People love peace and don't want war, but also they don't understand sometime war might be necessary 2. People who knew that specific war (Iraq war) would have very severe calculable and incalculable consequences that eventually hurt US.

Which group did you belong to?

As contrast let me tell you that they're also 2 groups of people outside of the US who supported the war: 1. Those shares the "values/belief" with US and saw the war would spread democracy and more importantly would deter dictator countries like China, and 2. Those who already knew the action would fail to prove democracy can be applied to any country, would weaken US so the world would be more balanced. History proved the 2nd group are correct.

Great insight although some information is missing like why the MingZu policy changed. At least you mentioned the old MingZu policy which most western journalists hide intentionally or unintentionally to match their narrative based on their beliefs. The real issue is quite complicated and might not be clear after decades.

Uncontrolled immigration will cause the dispute between 2 parties like you and Larry, and polarization of the society which neither party can convince the the other one.

I'm not making a judgement about which party is correct or wrong. I'm just saying that there's an high order problem being ignored by a lot of people.

I don't know ME but China has a policy of not meddling other's internal fare. It didn't bomb Libya while Europa did.

But it's more than that: Even China didn't cause the refugee disaster of ME but since the disaster was caused by good intention of Europeans with the naive human rights view,and it's already happened, China still should share some responsibility from humanity point of view. However there's another reason at the opposite side that is always misunderstood as selfishness by westerners : Accept a lot of refugee will definitely cause the internal turmoil because of the collision between bastards and non-bastards. That would be a bigger concern by government. Direct cost of settling refugee should be trivial given the size and wealth of China.

The same situation is applicable in Europa. The direct social cost of settling refugees is a relatively smaller problem. The internal conflicts and political polarization is a high-order problem.

The initial goal was set by the policy makers who understand "unknown unknown" very well, along with most mainstream media journalists who share the same ideology/beliefs/cult. However knowing "unknown unknown" prohibit them from knowing "unknown unknown unknown". So the the final result doesn't align with initial intentions.

The same mistake is repeated again and again, even today.

I guess many beginner developers haven't realize this feature of Python yet. There are a couple of lib to enhance the FP feature of Python. Like itertool, functool, maybe more. In PySpark there are many functions take other function as parameters.

Another language is JavaScript. It uses function as parameter all the time but often just one time but not in a general way. Seems no JavaScript developer really seriously care about the term FP or OO.

Agree. In my previous project due to very tight schedule I had to find a better way to generalize the models which ended up using a lot of FP way in addition to OO way. In the project I was using Groovy which I didn't explore its FP potential before. Then recently I began to read Scala(A similar language but might be better) books and take course. I've used Scala but not very much. Because of pressure of the previous project now I understand how useful that abstraction can deal with so many problem beautifully by generalization of common patterns.

FP Makes Everybody Think Hard. Go METH! (Andrew Yang want to Make American Think Hard)

Legally I'm not Chinese but it's not relevant in this context. You have a wrong assumption about the cause. Another wrong assumption is I'm offended which I’m not. Here's the subtle difference: A person's behaviour is insulting meanings he/she could offend some (not all) people who follow some rules, which might be: reasoning process should base on relative facts/axioms within the same axiomatic system.

Let me explain a little more about where the insulting comes from. During daily conversation people usually omit many relevant consensus details: context and premises. Otherwise communication would be extremely redundant.

One thing is important is: anything put into premise that other conclusions can drawn from, should be relative facts which all the parties agree. By providing personal belief as premise to draw other conclusion without explicitly stating that’s just personal belief means the “evidence” provider cannot tell the difference , unintentionally and implicitly force others reasoning within “evidence” provider’s own axioms system, without knowing there’s totally different axioms system with other premises exist.

In short: There's no problem at all to express personal opinions. However put personal opinion into a premise to draw other conclusions during reasoning without explicit emphasise is not good.

About Godel theorem, strictly it’s only about Math. You are right on that. I’m half joking but it’ an analogy. In sports field there’s a referee because if one team can act as authoritative way to claim they own truth implicitly gives the other team the same authority which will lead to chaos. There’s a parallel relation here.

EDIT: typo and grammar fix

Give you some hint: According to Godel theorem, a system in higher order is necessary to judge the truth in current system. So self claim the story is true implied the story teller (i.e. the author of the news) is not quite intellegent and maybe very naive to mix fact and belief.

I totally respect your strong belief about the story. But don't enforce others accept your personal opion by imply your personal belief is truth. It's quite insulting.

I would say "love" might not be accurate word. A lot of things CPP did are quite controversial and it's well known to most educated people. However alternatives are much worse which is not very well known outside of Chinese speaking community. In addtion, western media constantly brain wash their wesern audiance by distorting news coverage so that quite some Westerners believe CPP defenders are the brain washed groups added fuel to nationalist sentiment by insulting those CPP defenders.

So to consider lot of mainland Chinese defending CPP as "they love CPP" is a simplified interpretation. Does'nt reflect reality