China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war • Hacker News Board

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#261

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #230

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how does imply American incompetence? 1 million dead people kind of makes it seem an “a priori”

Way to skirt around the fact that nothing points to it having come from America or being due to it. Even if incompetence allowed it to spread it was already global when it reached the US.

Just different branches of the fault tree.

Some analyst will someday pull together a fault tree weighted by deaths and economic harm, and America’s share will (based on current trends) certainly weigh heavier than most.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#262

Post by ashwagary » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

throwawaycities wrote: post #255

ksec wrote: post #161

>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…

> And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham ) I was actually surprised China didn’t vote against the UN Resolution by the Generally Assembly condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter by the use of force and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact th…

>However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both sides of the fence until push came to shove.

These arent the only two choices, this binary approach is more reflective of your limited thinking than reality.

Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. Why take a position when not taking one is just as effective?

There is a reason people don't always show their folded hands in poker.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#263

Post by ksec » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #245

valevk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace twitter.com with nitter.net for a more pleasant experience, i.e. https://nitter.net/neilcybart/status/1500825861242724352

Thanks, I wish we didn't need to do this and could use Reddit and Twitter like they used to exist a decade back.

Yeah sorry I am still trying to get into the habit or replacing twitter with nitter. Or could HN have the option to automatically replace it with nitter would be even better.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#264

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #231

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there is. Following Go rules, since I no longer have the energy to dig up references for you, let’s just call ko.

No there isn’t, you’re spreading misinformation in a laughably obvious way.

Nervously laughable dis-misinformation, perhaps.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#265

Post by sudosysgen » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #250

qiskit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same…

>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start g…

I agree that you can run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons. However, investment in nuclear reactors and in nuclear research reduces the cost of nuclear weapons, so they are indeed dual-use.

Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc...

So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#266

Post by dahdum » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #227

ksec wrote: post #161

>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…

Those cancerous Twitter login modals are not letting me read the whole thread but I don't agree that China has much to lose here. They get a far weaker Russia much more dependent on them now economically. Russia is rich in fossil fuels which China lacks and has some advantages in defence and space tech which China can easily get their hands on. CCP might not be that confident about taking Taiwan now but they get a ma…

China is ascendant on the international stage, with trade and diplomatic relations growing rapidly. Russia is near inconsequential compared to their existing economy, trade, and clout. China is at risk of becoming, as someone else put it, the leader of the gang of international misfits. Meanwhile the West is pulling rapidly together while neutral countries are skewing towards their way.

I can’t claim to be an expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that China’s action or inaction on Russia will have huge implications on their next decade and beyond.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#267

Post by mardifoufs » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

lottin wrote: post #260

waffleiron wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CGTN article doesn't claim bioweapons. It's Newsweek who said they did and build that strawman. edit: removed snark

So why would they mention a "biolab" in Ukraine unless to imply that it somehow poses a threat to Russia? Or did they also mention that there are post offices in Ukraine?

If the US had USPS offices around ukraine delivering mail it would probably have been news worthy, yes.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#268

Post by ashwagary » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

ivanbakel wrote: post #250

qiskit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same…

>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start g…

Nuclear is a bad example because of enrichement differences.

Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#269

Post by bewaretheirs » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #221

qiskit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same…

Researching viruses in general is not a dual-use activity. Most viruses spread everywhere when they get out. Pathogens like anthrax can't spread from human to human, making them plausible weapons and proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them. (The labs may have been researching anthrax but the odds are fair that none of their research involved anything that could be a weapon.) Edited to replace virus…

Anthrax is a disease caused by a bacterium, not a virus.

Production of Bacillus anthracis spores for weapons use in the Soviet Union was in progress when an accident resulted in a release of spores that killed at least 66 people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#270

Post by retrac » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

throwawaycities wrote: post #255

ksec wrote: post #161

>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…

> And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham ) I was actually surprised China didn’t vote against the UN Resolution by the Generally Assembly condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter by the use of force and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact th…

> the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution with Russia

China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders. This is for obvious reasons over Xinjiang and Taiwan and Tibet and etc.

Abstention was their only realistic option. And quite in character. China abstains a great deal at the Security Council, if you look at the record.