571–580 of 755 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is rather chilling, is it not? That a nation would prevent its citizens from looking around and measuring what they see? I can't help but wonder how the chickens will come home to roost.
Chickens can't find their way home if maps are illegal now can they.
so how is this going to work out for apple? will the CCP start making bigger and bigger demands?
Steve built his company to dissent when Apple started to drift too far from those values it proudly puts on its front page, still. It’s fraud to have those up now, imo
Let’s put down the kool-aid for a sec and agree that enough is enough.
A coward dies a thousand deaths but a valiant man dies once.
Justifying any entity participating in blatant genocide is cowardice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It aches my heart to be a young man in this country and see this be our so-called 'leaders'. I'm confident the tides have already turned against all this nonsense, though, and I look forward to rebuilding industries of the world with good-hearted men & women I just got finished reading a book about the pre-war climate of 1930s Europe and man this comment sounds scary and nationalist. I’m worried that so many people…
> When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions. Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G... ), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves…
I think the author's own response is fitting to the sentiment in your comment:
I was both amazed and amused by how much the Golden Arches Theory had gotten around and how intensely certain people wanted to prove it wrong. They...insisted that politics, and the never-ending struggle between nation-states, were the immutable defining feature of international affairs, and they were professionally and psychologically threatened by the idea that globalization and economic integration might actually influence geopolitics in some very new and fundamental ways.
The link you posted at the end is a great example of what I'm talking about. The NYT has an incentive to scare you into thinking China is going to take over the US and destroy your way of life and imprison you in some dystopian hellscape. And so we must oppose them at all costs to protect our way of life, and subscribe to the NYT to read more about this growing conflict!
Sounds exactly like the scary bedtime stories Hollywood told us about the USSR during the Cold War. Or the stories Newsweek told us of how Japan was going to dominate and overtake American business in the 1980s. Oh no!
Not saying history will necessarily repeat and China will implode in a USSR-like manor, but, could it be that maybe those fears are just a little overblown?
China is an aging, shrinking population with still a long way to go towards industrializing. And a dictatorship isn't usually a great way to organize a government if your goal is stability.
Are you even willing to consider the possibility that maybe this deal was a mutually beneficial fair trade, with upside for both parties?
I wonder- is this true, or is this article trying to do some indirect PR/reputation building for Cook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It aches my heart to be a young man in this country and see this be our so-called 'leaders'. I'm confident the tides have already turned against all this nonsense, though, and I look forward to rebuilding industries of the world with good-hearted men & women I just got finished reading a book about the pre-war climate of 1930s Europe and man this comment sounds scary and nationalist. I’m worried that so many people…
> When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions. Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G... ), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves…
And the US leaders are not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
missiles and artillery can't remote-boom-boom if you can't know where they are
Perfect for those apple-maps guided bombs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When deals like this are made, it makes it less likely China will do things to piss off the US, and vice-versa. The last thing we need are more tensions. Eh, no. That's sounds like a version of the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree#G... ), and it's bunk. China's leaders are nationalists, and it's likely they're looking to strengthen themselves…
"China's leaders are nationalists" And the US leaders are not?
> And the US leaders are not?
Way less so, as displayed in their commitments to free trade and globalization.
The secrecy around it doesn't bode well, but to be frank the list above seems pretty innocuous. If it were the other way around or any other county I doubt many would care.
The recent trend of countries toward isolationism scares me. The type of economic integration described above is healthy for world peace and how you avoid wars.
I think the US had a much stronger effect toward global stability when it did a better job exemplifying the best of democracy and worked to spread its culture through economic and other ties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People outside of China are served a different set of maps. Each country is served maps that conform to their territorial claims. E.g. If you view the map of India while in India, it'll appear different than if you viewed it in China.
One thing about claims (say display Crimea as part of Russia within Russia and as Ukraine elsewhere), but distorting SIZES of the places on maps according to someone's political preference is well... plain out ridiculous, laughable. It displays how messed up China is more than anything else. It's seriously hard to expect the place that does things like that, as a next superpower. You can't build a superpower on silly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"China's leaders are nationalists" And the US leaders are not?
> "China's leaders are nationalists" > And the US leaders are not? Way less so, as displayed in their commitments to free trade and globalization.
But the world kind of remembers your last 2 administration and knows that they can change just back next election.
And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.
Geopolitics is really not that simple.