Live data from Hacker News

An update on YC China

blog.ycombinator.com

351–360 of 403 posts

Re: An update on YC China

#351
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please stop using HN for nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for. We've already had to ask you this, and ban accounts that won't stop, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Understood the first time but am I being singled out here? I see lots of comments spewing unsubstantiated nationalistic hate and I don't see them getting flagged/banned. Those comments are getting left up and leaving the argument totally unbalanced. At least when I comment I make an attempt to link to (legit mainstream) sources and explain in a rational way.

Re: An update on YC China

#352
post #216
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your account has been using HN primarily for nationalistic and political battle. That's not allowed here, because it destroys the curiosity this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that keep doing this, so please don't keep doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

There was a post that sat on the front page for a very long time that was anti-china pro-us nationalistic political battle. It was some programmer's blog post. This post being allowed on the front page /was/ political battle which i was responding to. This thread less so but someone commented on Uyghurs so i responded. There has been an uptick in demonization of China by the Western press and that has been reflected on HN. Westerners did not show anti-china sentiment until recently. The people here do not seem curious about truly understanding China, i am just trying to spark some curiousity. If i post specific examples of why they are wrong is that a problem? The Uyghurs in Xinjiang do overwhelmingly support peaceful deradicalization so i don't understand how that is a problem, that is just information.

Why is it a problem what i "primarily" do? The only posts that really spur me to comment are these nationalistic one-sided pro-us anti-anyone-other posts and comments. The rest of the (computer) posts on HN I just read and study. There is nothing in the guidelines about what you "primarily" do.

Isn't ideological battle good for the curious? I'm confused. Are we allowed to be curious except when it comes to questioning liberal democracy? This seems like censorship of people who question liberal democracy, and i thought we were supposed to be curious here.

Re: An update on YC China

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no, I've read a newspaper in the last year. What exactly does that have to do with YC? They're withdrawing from China.

> Yeah, no, I've read a newspaper in the last year. Did you read one prior to Summer 2018? Because when YC decided to go into China, there were people in internment camps then too. This stuff didn't start last year: https://chinatribunal.com/

Again: this is YC leaving China, not expanding further into it.

Re: An update on YC China

#354
post #352
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your account has been using HN primarily for nationalistic and political battle. That's not allowed here, because it destroys the curiosity this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that keep doing this, so please don't keep doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

There was a post that sat on the front page for a very long time that was anti-china pro-us nationalistic political battle. It was some programmer's blog post. This post being allowed on the front page /was/ political battle which i was responding to. This thread less so but someone commented on Uyghurs so i responded. There has been an uptick in demonization of China by the Western press and that has been reflected…

I think i can probably see some things in my posts that could be much better and offer more supporting information, but i think if you are going to act on what people 'primarily' do it should be based on their reading activity as well, as i am rarely driven to comment on posts that are not political.

Re: An update on YC China

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ~1 million Uighurs the Chinese government has in concentration camps. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/ch...

How is that different from the US having fuck knows how many migrants (and children) in concentration camps, or "terrorists" in concentration camps, or slaves in overcrowded prisons, etc etc etc. I mean not specifically you, but why are people in these comments all moral policing a country halfway across the world while their own is just as bad?

It's not even close to the same.

> fuck knows how many

~38,000 [1]

> migrants (and children) in concentration camps

People who violated immigration law. (Also, many are free to leave, via voluntary departure.)

> "terrorists" in concentration camps

People who violated international law.

> slaves in overcrowded prisons

People who violated federal or state law.

---

In particular, those laws do not prohibit religious faith or speech.

I'd suggest a closer analogy to the Muslim re-education centers would be Japanese internment facilities in the U.S during the 1940s.

--

[1] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration-detention-in-t...

Re: An update on YC China

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does give 50% of the answer How could you possibly know it's only 50%? Please, HN, stop with all of the ridiculous guessing of motives with nothing to back it up.

Don't take it so literal. Point being, the "why" doesn't seem fully covered.

> "why" doesn't seem fully covered

Again, there's no way you can know that and you're making complete assumptions.

Re: An update on YC China

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US did invade Iraq, not that long ago. Hundreds of thousands died.

I generally think that the way in Iraq was a mistake; however, even then: The motivation appears to have been different, fighting terrorism and finding WMDs versus societal control and religious intolerance. The majority, though certainly not all, of the people killed were combatants rather than civilians.

No, the majority were ~innocent people. Although, as in any invasion, the distinction was blurry.

While the invasion was sold on the basis of terrorism and WMD, that was mostly bullshit. I mean, the US originally supported Saddam Hussein because he opposed communists supported by Russia. And it used Iraq in a proxy war against Iran, is also supported by Russia.

Basically, the US invaded Iraq because it had to invade somewhere after the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was the obvious suspect, given their funding of fundamentalist Islam generally, and Al-Qaeda specifically. Plus the fact that most of the attackers were Saudi.

But that was unworkable, for many reasons. Afghanistan was the other obvious target, but everyone knew that it would be a morass. Given Russia's experience, for example. Or Britain's, back in the day. Plus the fact that most of it had already been pounded into sand.

So Iraq was the perfect target. With lots of juicy stuff to destroy. And an ineffectual military.

Another goal was demonstrating US military hardware. Advertising, to increase sales.

Re: An update on YC China

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying that, but I don't really buy it. Scanning barcodes isn't really necessary when you have everybody with a credit card and every local merchant accepts NFC payment. Everybody using crappy unencrypted JS-based WeChat mini-programs instead of an app ecosystem is not an innovation but rather a way to lock and monitor the entire population with no privacy. Same goes for police-state facial recognition.

> Scanning barcodes isn't really necessary when you have everybody with a credit card and every local merchant accepts NFC payment. The QR codes are quite cool in that anyone with a printer can print them out. I can't pay my friends with my contactless credit card in the same way I can pay a merchant. Its a different approach with different pros and cons.

You can just venmo your friends.

Re: An update on YC China

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are ownership restrictions in this economic sector, and the Chinese government hasn't seized Alibaba, Tencent or Huawei. It sounds like you're talking more out of preconceived biases than actual knowledge of how business works in China.

They haven't seized them outright maybe, but they are owned by Chinese citizens and carefully managed by the government, The CEO and founder of Huawei is a member of the communist party, the government also requires a large staff of military intelligence workers. Do not assume the strong distinction in the west between private entities and the government exists in China. In China if you are of any real size whatsoeve…

Of course they're owned by Chinese citizens. That's why I chose them as examples, rather than other big companies with a large presence in China, such as Volkswagen or Apple.

> carefully managed by the government

That's not true. They make business decisions based on the profit motive.

> The CEO and founder of Huawei is a member of the communist party

That's not very meaningful. There are a lot of people who are members of the party.

> Do not assume the strong distinction in the west between private entities and the government exists in China.

I think that a lot of people in this forum (and other fora in the West) do not understand the basic economic reforms that China has gone through. There is a huge difference between how a private company like Tencent operates and how a state-owned enterprise operates. It has been government policy over the past few decades to allow the private economy to grow, and to allow it to operate according to profit considerations.

Companies and people in China do not have the same sorts of protections should the government decide to go after them, but it's not as if the government controls the decision-making of private companies.

> In China if you are of any real size whatsoever as a company, the government is either taking a role in things directly, or you are going to be forced out.

This simply isn't true. The Chinese government does not run Alibaba, and doing so would actually go against the direction of Chinese economic reforms over the past few decades.

Re: An update on YC China

#360

@YC Leadership: The Chinese Article [1] reads synonymously to: YC China was RENAMED, not aborted. That's highly different from your English statement. LOL: even the website ycchina.com redirects to MiraclePlus. http://www.ycchina.com/ They even have the YC logo on their website and claim to have funded Airbnb, Dropbox etc. Be careful to read their whole website. This whole website of MiracleMinus is extremely dishone…

These are just leftovers from the first batch Qi ran, which was under the YC name. We're still in the middle of the transition. As we noted, Qi is taking over and will run under the MiraclePlus brand. We'll both make that clear on our websites. Other than that first batch, there is no commercial relationship between YC and MiraclePlus.

Your personal comments don't match my experience at all. I have known Qi for many years and have always found him to be extremely high integrity and trustworthy.

Post reply on HN