majia

In low end manufacturing sector it's really hard to know your end customers. The products are highly standardized and can go though multiple middlemen. Also the sheer volume, most of which are legitimate, makes it very difficult for governments to track.

Roads, bridges, forests, power grids, water pipelines, solar farms, as well as indoctrination camps and mass surveillance network.

What if Moray says something to support Palestine freedom and human rights? Would NBA support Moray or Israel?

What seized were not fentanyl, but some chemicals could be used in the fentanyl manufacturing process, as well as many other legitimate use.

If you want to stop fentanyl, the best thing to do is to figure out what chemicals are used exclusively in fentayl production and build an international coalition to ban those. Unfortunately many people just don't appreciate this kind of sophistication and prefer an easier blame game.

> Wouldn't be surprised if they were overstated, so as to keep citizens in check.

This is a little stretching. Most Chinese audience can’t or won’t watch BBC.

Gov is more likely to be schemed than VC because those who make investment decision don’t get as much reward/punishment. However, for the same reason, gov can also invest in projects with long term benefits. So gov is not intrinsically good or bad; it’s really about good governance.

What you said about Huawei is more applicable to Boeing, which sells weapon systems instead of telecom gears. You may want to look at how US companies are involved in arm sales to Saudi.

It’s fair that US wants to contain China’s leverage in Africa and maintain its own, but this is a national security priority for US , not “everyone”.

I know we all have an impulse to take the easy path. But please think about what if you happen to be wrong, how a person would feel if he’s labeled a liar/paid troll for having an account that looks suspicious to some, and what meaningful discussion we can have if we just call each other liars?

If you think OP is smearing, you can refute his argument with facts and flag his comment. It’s a human bias to think someone whom we disagree with has a malicious agenda. Democracy can survive the worst oppression, but will perish if we fail to conduct civilized discussion and start accusing and labeling each other when we disagree.

It is Trump who called it a riot.

We have to assume good faith precisely because it's impossible to tell the difference you mentioned. If a real propagandist tells a lie, we can refute it with facts and flag the comment. But if a honest user is labelled as 'paid troll', it's almost impossible for the honest user to prove himself. And that severely poisons the discussion.

Being substantive means replying to the actual argument instead of questioning the credibility of the person who makes an argument.

Please follow HN guidelines and refrain from personal attack. Assume good faith and be substantive.

SCMP still publishes a lot of anti CCP articles and is banned in China.

It's more likely that the protest causes huge damage to HK economy, and HK people start to get tired of it. At some point people may decide to take economic incentives from Beijing and become another city in China with some superficial autonomy status.

Why is Guantanamo camp still open?

Can Snowden speak openly about NSA hacking?

In China there are some checks and balances, but they are just ineffective and often ignored too. In the USA there are stronger due processes, but there are also more subtle ways to abuse them.

There is a difference, but it’s not really as material as it sounds.

If Crimea was unwillingly annexed by Russia, then the sanction is punishing the victim instead of the criminal. If Crimea people genuinely supported the unification with Russia and received sanction for that, then it is a blatant attack on Crimean people's freedom.

China oppresses its own people, while US oppresses people in Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. US being perceived as a lesser evil doesn't make its chips more secure than Chinese chips.

Security comes from rigorous research and evidence, not paranoia or prejudice.

If this happens in HK, everything is on the table for Beijing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots

This is mostly rhetoric and political posturing. Chinese government has so far refrained from taking any action. Beijing is not an benevolent actor, but is smart enough to leave Hong Kong people alone and let Hong Kong people see for themselves what a HK version of Arab Spring/Orange Revolution can deliver. If the protests lead HK to a state of chaos and recession, Beijing will gain more leverage.

Please don’t assume US companies are stupid. They know what they are selling and whether they are paid enough. In most cases it’s just about giving away some about-to-be-obsolete tech for some big money.

The report says that Huawei devices have unsafe functions like “memcpy” and "strcpy". Is this a coding preference or dangerous practice? To what extent can these examples reflect on code quality?

what’s after CCP could be worse.

“I have to kill you in order to save you” logic.

No. Chinese people overthrew many kings and dictators far more oppressive than CCP in its long history. China is stable because CCP delivered economic results, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. So a stable but oppressive CCP gov has been tolerated so far.

Americans always have someone to dislike. It was Soviet from 50s to 70s, Japan in 80s and early 90s, terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in 2000s, and now it's China.

I'm not sure if it is a coincidence that Americans always come across some bad guys, or finding an enemy is a necessity to justify US military industrial complex.

No. Fedex is not saying it can violate the law; it's saying as a private company it should not bear the responsibility to interpret or enforce the law. The ban was originally designed to target a small groups of well identified 'bad guys', such as terrorists and human traffickers. Now Trump administration used it to cover a large number of Chinese companies, most of which may be against US national interest but do not conduct any criminal activities. So the hastily imposed ban made it unclear what is covered and what is not. It's not hard to imagine how confused Fedex is: is it legal to send a Huawei phone? Is it legal to send a document to a lawyer hired by Huawei? What about a personal order by someone works at Huawei?

I don't want to make a moral judgement whether Fedex should win the case, but bringing the case to a court has great legal merits. It can force the administration to clarify the ban, and help many other companies which are as confused as Fedex.

> you want to protest it without going to jail you can do so legally by telling people it's a stupid law - while complying with it.

Isn't this what Fedex is doing? Complying with a stupid law but challenging its legality in a court. Not sure where you get the idea that Fedex is breaking the law.

I’m pretty sure Facebook backend is a lot more sophisticated than Magic Leap. I’m using Facebook as an example so that our judgements won’t be biased by the current sino-US tech climate.

Lessons learned from Magic Leap: don’t sign a non-compete agreement with your employee; you have to pay and it’s legally not enforceable in California. Ask your employee to sign a board confidentiality agreement and sue him if he works for a competitor.

Also, I wonder if people would think differently if this case is about a Facebook employee left to work on a social media App like google+.