Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#161

Post by ksec »

arcticbull wrote: post #45
johnzim wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the early 90s many countries started opening up pathways for HK citizens fearing this - there was a lot of talk of "Brain Drain" in HK. Canada in particular did a great job of encouraging emigration. These days it's a little harder. The classic "HK passport" is the BNO - British Nationality Overseas which doesn't give you right of abode in the UK because racism. Asylum is also extremely difficult to achieve - you'…

45% of Vancouver is of Asian descent, and 30% of Vancouver is Chinese, many of whom are HK expats. 500,000 folks of HK descent live in Canada (1.5% of Canada). There's another 300,000 Canadian passport holders living in HK. It'll be very interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.

I will need to fact check on this, I knew a lot of HK people went to Vancouver in pre 97, and that number you posted is quite staggering.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#162

Post by groundlogic »

wendyshu wrote: post #159
metaphorical wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "some"?

The first hit on Google for "Rupert Hogg" gives a HK journalist claiming the story is a canard.

Jack Ma's and SCMP's neutrality is a bit up in the air at the moment, I feel. Last time I looked at that story it was just trying to sow doubt, without any evidence to the contrary. I'm sure you'd inform us in great detail if that had changed.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#163

Post by generatorguy »

hello_moto wrote: post #128
AFascistWorld wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax from luxury cars they bought is the best thing they could do for Canada.

Canadian govt (or BC) are not smart cats. Unfortunately. I'd personally make tons of policies to extract as much money possible from these type of immigrants tbh.

luxury vehicle tax, empty property tax, the governments are starting to catch on

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#164

Post by arcticbull »

ksec wrote: post #161
arcticbull wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

45% of Vancouver is of Asian descent, and 30% of Vancouver is Chinese, many of whom are HK expats. 500,000 folks of HK descent live in Canada (1.5% of Canada). There's another 300,000 Canadian passport holders living in HK. It'll be very interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.

I will need to fact check on this, I knew a lot of HK people went to Vancouver in pre 97, and that number you posted is quite staggering.

Sorry, I should have posted the reference material.

- 500K Canadian Citizens in HK [1]

- 300K of Hong Kong descent in Canada [2]

(I may have reversed this in one of the two posts).

- Ethnic breakdown of Vancouver [3] although I used the 2011 census data not the 2016 data reflected there, which explains the slight drift.

[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/unrest-in-hong-kong-fue...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Canadians

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Metro_Vancouve...

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#165

Post by [deleted] »

jeremysalwen wrote: post #160
llIIlIlIllIIlIl wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to bury every single thought that doesn't perfectly conform with the common narrative is unscalable and will only serve to amplify the counter-narrative. I see this happening everywhere in relation to the unrest in HK. Ideally, ideas should be discussed on their merit and in the light of day. When faced with what is perceived as dissent, strong counter arguments should be made instead of shutting down discours…

If the 50 cent army ever came to HN, it would look like the above two comments.

[deleted]

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#166

Post by raquo »

theseadroid wrote: post #158
raquo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking over the intercom about protestors is not a safety issue. You don't need the obviously politically motivated CCP "experts" to judge that. This has nothing to do with aviation safety and everything to do with (lack of) freedom of speech. You have some anonymous user in this thread fantasizing about crazy scenarios that didn't happen, and you're propping them up with your own judgement, and then you're telling…

>and you're propping them up with your own judgement. What judgement has I made? I said I'm surprised the Economist used the word absurdly. Is surprised a judgement? >alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you. What's my position in this matter? Did I say it's a safety concern in any comment? Again is surprised == I agree with the demand? Or please remind me if I said something else that made you think I agree w…

Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said makes sense.

This is the Economist sentence that you're commenting on:

> When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests

If you didn't believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern, you wouldn't disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, and then wouldn't double down on that by giving an example of an incident which you think imperiled safety.

Otherwise, if you didn't agree with those fake safety concerns, there is nothing surprising about the usage of "absurd" by the Economist.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#167

Post by generatorguy »

rhegart wrote: post #106
chrischen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple still has a large market share in China. Maybe Samsung just sucks and couldn’t compete against Huawei? Only reason Huawei hasn’t beat out Samsung in the US is because of anti-Huawei sentiment in the US.

That’s not true...Huawei stole from Nortel and it’s just that tech initially. Samsung was doing great before the forced anti Samsung protests (Huawei was already 1 at the time).

i'm a former nortel employee. so sad to see people lose their houses and pensions due to chinese theft. The hacking wasn't even publicized as a warning that other companies could heed - get your security in order, be careful with your IP, or you will go from 140,000 employees to a small cadre of lawyers and accountants managing the pittance that is left over. But at least none of the management at Nortel was embarrassed by the bad publicity of getting owned by the chinese and their inability to do anything about it.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#168

Post by eli_gottlieb »

devoply wrote: post #77
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolute bullshit. If Western countries had refused to trade with China for human-rights reasons, we'd be hearing accusations of economic imperialism! Now we're responsible for their ultra-nationalist authoritarian capitalism because we don't impose our imperial authority on them?

See anyone saying anything against Western countries for not trading with Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea?

As noted below, the political Left worldwide has decried the sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, North Korea (and Syria too!) as imperialism aimed at advancing American companies' economic interests.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#169

Post by theseadroid »

raquo wrote: post #166
theseadroid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and you're propping them up with your own judgement. What judgement has I made? I said I'm surprised the Economist used the word absurdly. Is surprised a judgement? >alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you. What's my position in this matter? Did I say it's a safety concern in any comment? Again is surprised == I agree with the demand? Or please remind me if I said something else that made you think I agree w…

Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said makes sense. This is the Economist sentence that you're commenting on: > When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests If you didn't believe that pilot protests / speech is a…

I said in the later comment that the Economist is in no position to judge. Can I be surprised that they made the judgement? Or my surprise has to be only about whether the safety concern is real or not?

Let me make it crystal clear: I didn't necessarily believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern but I disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, because personally I think the Economist has no expertise to judge.

Re: China’s assault on Cathay Pacific

#170

Post by [deleted] »

jeremysalwen wrote: post #160
llIIlIlIllIIlIl wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to bury every single thought that doesn't perfectly conform with the common narrative is unscalable and will only serve to amplify the counter-narrative. I see this happening everywhere in relation to the unrest in HK. Ideally, ideas should be discussed on their merit and in the light of day. When faced with what is perceived as dissent, strong counter arguments should be made instead of shutting down discours…

If the 50 cent army ever came to HN, it would look like the above two comments.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN