wangii

> Propaganda is not about what's true and not true, but about what's amplified and not amplified.

could you show a single article that is not propaganda, according to this standard?

don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you. however, I would refrain from jumping to assertion too early.

as far as I know, cases of 're-positive' have been reported in Chinese websphere for a while, and there had been doubts and official clarifications:

re-positive report: http://www.bjnews.com.cn/feature/2020/03/05/699575.html (2020/03/05)

expert stance: http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2020/03/12/702870.html (2020/03/12)

it's about lives and I don't think anyone believe in govt. lightly. so do you.

Help the poor. Really. When each penny counts, the incentive can only go that far. It's not exactly what capitalism good at.

I could list plenty done by US govt deem not acceptable, from meddling with our Civil War.

But what's the point? By claiming moral high ground the argument goes nowhere. the question really is, do we fear/hate each other more than we need each other?

Yes, it's just like that and it's ugly. There is also plenty has been done on the other side of Pacific Ocean. And now, reading through the thread it's clear how much we hate each other. Or fear?

At the beginning of the trade war, one of my fav NYT columnist remarked Trump was the opponent Chinese deserved, despite being pretty anti-Trump in all other regards, and had being promoted globalization for decades.

Last week, there has been a surge of articles on the Chinese websphere, describing how impotent the western authorities were when dealing with COVID-19, implied superiority of the system/culture. However, in spite of the height of nationalism, there were articles in Chinese mainstream called for respect and understanding, and they would probably never be reported anywhere in the west, after all, not news-worthy.

I thought COVID-19 would have brought us closer to deal with the unknown in front of all of us. We blew it. welcome to the era of 2nd cold war, if we are lucky enough.

It is a good model not b/c it's politically correct, nor adopted by an authoritarian state, it's good simply because it worked: brought over 3000 new cases everyday in Wuhan down to single digit in recent days.

Any government or organization is problematic if it puts 'principles' over human lives.

thanks! I honestly believe it's a waste of time to 'follow' anyone online. social media is a mistake, has almost 0 positive influence.

does every group supports any math operator? does every word have meaning in every domain? I don't think so.

don't worry, if American hadn't done these, it will. for starters, how about make Chinese govt. the evil force and every Chinese a potential threat?

seriously, I'm not even going to blame America. it's the tragedy of great power politics. to maintain its hegemony, it will and has done whatever takes. any illusion of moral superiority, is just illusion.

nearly 20 years ago, George Bush talked about 'evil' countries, sent troops, and...

unless you are under 25 or deeply religious, I'd suggest to think twice before using 'evil' on subjects of international politics.

moral high grounds are luxury decorations even google couldn't afford any more.

no, I didn't.

there is really no need to make your point by attacking Mr. Xi, which I'm not a big fan of. However, according to his resume, he had been in pretty hard condition when he was young. in this sense, there is a chance he 'feels' the pains of people he rules more than his counterparts in the west.

you are absolutely right about "Politics isn't a suffering competition", but I'd argue it's a reasonable(even good) starting point: only when you want no one no more people suffering the same as you, you are motivated to play the game of politics.

on the example of Mao, I have no problem with your opinion. however I'd like to point out you simply couldn't use it as 'fact' to support your argument. it only weakens your position.

Bernie Sanders was one of my favorite politician, along with Ron Paul(apart from his monetarily policy). They seems to be 'relatable'.

my questions are really about you, as voters, not campaign strategist. your analytical response reminds me the episode of West Wing, about 'presidential'.

understand. it turns out to be a marketing problem.

that's my issue. I don't think most of people here no longer need to worry about money, yet the leaders from either sides never worked a day in their lives. how could you vote for them?

correct me if I was wrong: the turn out ratio in local elections is very low, to the degree i feel meaningless.

barrack Obama was super popular in UK. the day he was elected, his speech was played everywhere in Manchester, over and over again.

my questions were for US voters as well.

as Chinese lives in uk, they had been my questions for a long time: why did you guys voted for david cameron, barack obama, (any politician, really) at all? had they ever struggled to pay their bills? do they really feel your pain?

does it mean instead of spending time on defining functions, we need to spend time on defining modules? what's the difference between modules in this context and functions in the `traditional` context?

it's a very interesting research topic but I'm disappointed by the paper (after a very quick look).

one immediate question I had, after read the abstract, is how are they going to measure learning result. without looking into the testing material, I'd argue if the tests were not carefully designed, it could produce whatever result anyone likes, by adjust depth/width ratio of the given subject. maybe the testing materials are so well regarded in the field so there would be no justification necessary, but by ignoring the possibility to readers, it feels not trustworthy to me.

back to the explanation of the result, it's entirely possible that learners (and the authors) not able to draw distinctions between information and performance. I'd assume the traditional teaching would expose much more information to students (anecdotes, connections to other fields), but 'active' learning could give better result in performance building in a narrowed domain.

I'll read carefully into the paper sometime later, but for now, it's not a paper I'd recommend. (feel free to downvote if I get anything wrong)

Neat!

however, as a C guy, I really don't want to give up the control of my data structures.

It's the worst part of the Internet: there is really no real listening to the other side. Everybody gets an opinion and the most important thing for him on something not really in his field(s) is, get his opinion out!

I think the HN's algorithm also contribute to the problem: the fastest and most upvoted response leads the discussion, and normally not the most valuable.

Intelligence, wealthy, and righteousness: pick 2. Any counter example?

define IP, please.

any power corrupts, political figure, govt. union, business, wives in marriages, even kids in schools. it's a builtin side effect of evolution.

I don't think Isaac Newton lived in a free society, and so did many truly ground breaking folks. I'd argue the odd of producing these figuers is more to do with the population. I'm a fan of Steve Jobs but he is not in that league.

you really don't have to like the author in order to have fun or appreciate his works.

inside.

yes, CCP was funded by Soviets and it's not a secret. ideas always come from somewhere. according to your logic, USA would be impossible b/c all the funding fathers were brits, at the time. or, you were suggesting CCP is still under Russian influence? well, it's possible. besides, I don't support every move of CCP.

I'm pride not to use 'we' here precisely b/c I know I can't represent all Chinese. whom am I to claim to have that authority? I know whom I am, and I know I have blind spot in my view, and I happily to admit the fact. and I'll be even happier to know if there is any wrong with my logic. the question is, are you?

or, maybe you want to shield the light on the tactic about 'Red herring'?