821–830 of 888 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can confirm, China watches its citizens abroad, closely, and in person sometimes. Their families can be affected, and if they go back home to visit, there can be problems.
Can confirm your confirm is fabricated from thin air. The difference would be: you might not know you are lying while I do. We are doing the same thing, confirm something not conformable. Theoretically that's lying
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be. And where's the actual research showing that Google in China would do such a thing? By all calculations, it would bring more knowledge and access to Chinese citizen that they already have. This make it sound like Google is the reason why the citizen don't have access to information.
By building and delivering such a system they'd be condoning the actions of the Chinese government.
Google has agreed to remove plenty of stuff from the search engine that many Europeans see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
Sounds like double standards to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that software engineers are paid enough already, then on the other hand you're saying you think the compensation given to the software engineers that founded the company - which is much MUCH higher than that of the average company engineer is appropriate. It feels like what you're saying is that the risk of failing in a startup is massive enough for a founder that they des…
> On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that software engineers are paid enough already, then on the other hand you're saying you think the compensation given to the software engineers that founded the company - which is much MUCH higher than that of the average company engineer is appropriate. Of course, because the level of risk is different. $100,000 guaranteed is worth more than a > Could you let me know e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position. Opposing sexism is not a partisan position. Attempting to reframe these sorts of things as “lefty silliness” and paint them with the same brush as being sad and disappointed that a rapist won the election is simply subterfuge.
> Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position. Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing. What else do you propose? Someone has to do the dirty work to keep the citizens safe. > Opposing sexism is not a partisan position. Are you talking about harassment cases. Have you been to Google or talked about it to a Googler? It generally is swift and works without any proof. What the…
Support your claim, unless you think that using objectively true statements marks one as a non-conservative, which is blatantly silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.
However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. Frenc…
So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure the Chinese would say exactly the same thing that the EU does about their system; it "protects" individuals from what they don't need to know. Comments like this make me glad I live in the USA. We don't discriminate on what types of censorship are acceptable or not. Less extraordinary exceptions (Child pornography, Libel), any censorship is in violation of our constitution and most closely held core values.
> I'm sure the Chinese would say exactly the same thing that the EU does about their system; it "protects" individuals from what they don't need to know. It doesn't matter what the Chinese government says, because if they say something like that they're lying. Their censorship is meant to protect the power and privilege of the already powerful and privileged, and keep everyone else complaint to them. The only way Chi…
Nazism is despicable, but censoring the Nazi voice is effectively the same as preventing citizens from having those "dissident thoughts" that contradict modern western government, and you actually can receive prison time for expressing Nazi sentiments in Germany so the government absolutely does "oppress them" for having those thoughts.
China views western influence the same way. In China's history, rule by the west has seen terrorism, imperialism, and corruption, which have lasted far longer (since the 1800s when the First Opium Wars were fought), and I would argue have led to greater suffering (certainly the numbers are in favor of this being the case).
Accepting government censorship in the EU is, in principle, no different from censorship in China. The only difference is the flavor.
For the record, I support neither.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the one hand it sounds like you're saying that software engineers are paid enough already, then on the other hand you're saying you think the compensation given to the software engineers that founded the company - which is much MUCH higher than that of the average company engineer is appropriate. Of course, because the level of risk is different. $100,000 guaranteed is worth more than a > Could you let me know e…
I'm assuming that you don't think risking making no money is enough to entitle a founder to their entire employees wage. How much does it entitle them to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't expect that all (or even most ) shareholders think that only money matters.
There are better places to play the virtue game, than on the stock market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can confirm, China watches its citizens abroad, closely, and in person sometimes. Their families can be affected, and if they go back home to visit, there can be problems.
Can confirm your confirm is fabricated from thin air. The difference would be: you might not know you are lying while I do. We are doing the same thing, confirm something not conformable. Theoretically that's lying
1989, downtown Cleveland, soon after Tiananmen Square. We'd all seen the "tank man" and people were talking about all the dead witnessed by those present (~10k?) versus the official cover story of 300 and denial.
So there were protests across the US, including downtown Cleveland, mostly visiting Chinese students from CSU and CWRU, and plenty of horrified locals there to support them. There were a couple of Chinese guys not marching but watching from the edges while people walked past. They both had the same sunglasses, trench coats, and SLR cameras with long lenses, and they were taking pictures of the marchers. If you've ever been in Cleveland in June, this is not appropriate attire for cloudy and windy, so they stood out from the locals. The Chinese on student visas told me they were government, often seen at such events, and they were cataloging Chinese there for later study and reprisals to family or when they returned home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying his moral position is invalid because he doesn't apply it consistently, and that is not true, and also possibly harmful.
I said the moral position is disingenuous because it is both inconsistent and opposite to what he is describing, when considering all things related.