231–240 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont know why this is being downvoted. Sounds like a reasonable argument
Asking people to cite their sources without presuming good faith is not very welcome here.
But the comment made an inaccurate claim regarding the Taliban (which is not relevant in any way related to Covid infections in India) and neglected to provide any sources for their own claim while demanding sources from their parent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking people to cite their sources without presuming good faith is not very welcome here.
No, it's totally welcome AFAIK. But the comment made an inaccurate claim regarding the Taliban (which is not relevant in any way related to Covid infections in India) and neglected to provide any sources for their own claim while demanding sources from their parent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's totally welcome AFAIK. But the comment made an inaccurate claim regarding the Taliban (which is not relevant in any way related to Covid infections in India) and neglected to provide any sources for their own claim while demanding sources from their parent.
Asking people to cite their sources in good faith is very welcome. Asking people to cite their sources in bad faith is not welcome because commenting in bad faith is not welcome. It says so in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What I wish India would do is this: force Chinese phone companies to ship stock Android and full source code. They sell hundreds of millions of phones in India and will have to find middle ground, and the outcome will be good for everyone.
Okay, source code, then what about chip schematics and everything on the hardware layer you can't audit for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking people to cite their sources in good faith is very welcome. Asking people to cite their sources in bad faith is not welcome because commenting in bad faith is not welcome. It says so in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My comment was about asking for sources, which is not mentioned in the guidelines specifically. "Assume good faith" is about how comments are to be interpreted, presumably when there is ambiguity. I don't see that it applies in this case.
This isn't a polite way to ask someone to provide evidence for their claim, it's a demand dressed up as a courteous request with the implication that the comment it was replying to was not "exactly and to the point" and that the author has some sort of onus to improve the quality of their conversation. But in fact it's really just a lazy comment because it costs almost nothing to post and yet puts significantly higher burden on the other side, especially because it is picky. Doing this is a classic example of engaging in bad faith.
(Good ways of asking for a citation might include "I don't agree with that, in fact I don't really think that I can find any examples of this occurring the way you have laid out. Would you mind giving some examples to show this actually happening?" This allows the author to provide sources without being left open to an immediate response that those sources are not "exactly and to the point" and is actually a deferential want rather than an imposition.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
India's economy won't be affected by the loss of PUBG. But it will without certain critical parts of the manufacturing supply chain. I don't know what those parts are, but the Chinese govt will know. A good example of this in action is banning exports of rare earth metals to Japan in 2010, affecting Japan's electronics industry.
> India's economy won't be affected by the loss of PUBG. It maybe be improved by the loss of PUBG due to the gain in productivity /s
More than 1.25 Cr have lost jobs this quarter.
One thing I find amusing in this saga that's been playing out since the last few months is TikTok's reaction to being banned. When it was banned in India a couple of months ago, it didn't file any lawsuits claiming that it's not a threat to national security (though it has rejected such claims in the past). But when the U.S. announced a ban last month, TikTok sued the U.S. government "on the grounds that it was enact…
China isn't dumb, Indian justice system doesn't result in any justice for businsines unless ruling party's hand are greased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook Messenger also "wasn't even started till 2011". Before 2011 China had very mature local messaging (QQ, from the company behind WeChat) and less mature but burgeoning social networking (loads of them I believe, including part of QQ). Cherry-picking the date of one next-gen product that later took over is meaningless.
Hmm...per Wikipedia the original Facebook chat was started in 2008. Facebook Messenger for mobile was 2011. QQ didn't have their mobile version till 2013. Facebook cannibalized social networks in the US and homegrown networks abroad. Though we'd never know, I'd believe they would have done the same in China.
I'm hearing that China might impose secondary sanctions on Reliance Jio in retaliation - no Chinese manufacturer can sell them phones or help buildout/maintain their NW infrastructure; tech companies that operate in China would have to divest out of China entirely to do business with Jio, etc.
I as an Indian whole heartedly would welcome such moves by China. Even more opportunity for domestic manufacturers to UP the game. Jio already proudly claims, No Chinese Equipment on their network.
80% tool and machinery market is owned by China.
We simply can't afford German, US or Taiwan tools/machineries.
And if it's gone, big players will not affected by small players will have major problem. Getting manufacturing permission in India is not easy and very resource intensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment was about asking for sources, which is not mentioned in the guidelines specifically. "Assume good faith" is about how comments are to be interpreted, presumably when there is ambiguity. I don't see that it applies in this case.
> Please cite your sources, exactly and to the point. This isn't a polite way to ask someone to provide evidence for their claim, it's a demand dressed up as a courteous request with the implication that the comment it was replying to was not "exactly and to the point" and that the author has some sort of onus to improve the quality of their conversation. But in fact it's really just a lazy comment because it costs a…