321–330 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh come on, lets not blatantly lie like this. China's "Cultural Revolution" was a mass extermination of the educated people in the country. There's zero comparison between the two.
A 10 year event encompassing a country’s worth of people leads to many secondary and tertiary effects can mean something different for every person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
There are two aspects to this: 1. There is a massive amount of propaganda around the situation in Xinjiang. While the Chinese government is extremely harsh in going after separatism and what it views as religious extremism, there is also a huge amount of lying, exaggeration and misrepresentation from Western governments and media on the issue. The Trump administration tried to spin Xinjiang as some sort of modern-day…
To at least attempt to think about this critically, and to try to ignore the amount of frankly shocking things people are saying here, can I ask, maybe from people in the field, is this level of industrial/scientific espionage even a critical factor in our current world? We live in a global world where scientists in various institutions are constantly trading papers, findings. Why are we so worried that the U.S. migh…
I've personally witnessed Chinese national students attempting to acquire access to sensitive lab equipment and documentation their research wouldn't require (this is physics, here, not CS). I've been on the defensive end of attacks by employees (all Chinese citizens, living in China) in our Chinese organization attempting to breach data and infrastructure firewalls. Once upon a time my work touched some sensitive, c…
Well, I've personally witnessed american students attempting to acquire access to sensitive lab equipment and documentation their research wouldn't require, too. That included me! Thank goodness the attitude of my leaders was "smart people should have access to more tools than their job requires". that included chinese nationals who were in my program.
Certainly, my goal was the capture the hearts and minds of chinese people who were in my PhD program, so that they would move here, become US citizens, and contibute to our economy. It never even occurred to me that people could have a "dual scientific citizenship" and sort of hold positions in china and the us at the same time, and exploit that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can certainly sue the US government for accusing him publicly without enough evidence to prosecute, and the resulting loss of compensation. Now, it's not exactly affordable for him to do so. But that's a separate problem we should solve.
For a successful academic, making a bunch of money in a lawsuit is the polar opposite of what they want to do with their life. If you value doing science and inventing things and mentoring students and the prestige that comes along with it, simply getting a payday isn't anything like justice. Of course, such lawsuits serve more than simply attempting to actually get justice (which is usually impossible) but to dissua…
Now I just view not having money as a waste of time, its literally so time consuming and expensive
When in the opposite scenario nobody cares. you’re either in the club or you’re not, on a pool or in a yacht, at the villa or not, on the shareholder list or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like being accused, exonerated, and then taking a victory lap over all the major publications to the sympathetic audience. Damn you America! Just like China, no? Also: "The FBI documents alleged that Chen received $19 million from China's Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech).[9] [23] On January 22, 2021, MIT's President released a second statement pointing out that these funds went to not Chen, but…
I think the "accused" part is the problem. Interacting with the court system is expensive both financially and emotionally. We need to be very careful where we apply it, and that means being careful about who we accuse and for what reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deaths Hundreds of thousands to millions of civilian, Red Guards and military deaths Still not obvious.
You posted that response literally three minutes after my comment. That's barely enough time to read the introduction section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution . I suggest you spend more than three minutes learning about a thing before complaining that things are not obvious to you about it. Three hours would be reasonable. You could spend the first hour or two just reading that article, or start w…
> Not to be confused with Cultural Revolution.
apparently it's a comon problem.
Understand my a$$. They do not give a fuck about what they do to people. If they were directly responsible and punished in cases where they've improperly ruined people's lives then they might understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you didn't take money from the federal government, I would be inclined to agree with you, that export controls are an abridgement of the freedom of speech, but if your work is taxpayer-funded, then the government absolutely has the authority to restrict how you use the fruits of those funds; if you cannot abide by them then perhaps consider stop taking federal funds?
I think you are 100% backwards in your thinking here. If the US taxpayer funds research then public funders actually have a very high bar in their ability to restrict the publication of that research. For the simple reason that the taxpayer funds it and government restrictions on speech face a very high Constitutional bar. By contrast if I take funding from Amazon or Apple it’s much easier for them to demand NDAs and…
> government restrictions on speech
Well this obviously should not generally be the case. If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, so arguably way more "protected" by the constitution than a subcontractor awardee of a grant, which could be considered to "create a legal veil", then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose that's a practical argument for it. Philosophically it still doesn't seem right, though.
What's philosophically right about no-false-positives? There should be a debate about whether it's not more right to balance the different injustices (innocent people in jail vs guilty people going free), rather than install a very high bar for conviction as the desired outcome. Perhaps I just haven't come across the argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a paranoia induced reaction that is being fostered by the media and the war industry, who are interested in creating a new cold war scenario.
Incorrect. It is a MORAL issue. Technology stolen from the US companies is advancing the national security agendas of countries with no regard for human rights and the rule of law. It is immoral to turn a blind eye to this very real threat.