Sorry if other languages aren’t permissible. I can delete it if I need to.
I don't think it's against the rules at all; we had a thread a couple weeks ago which ended up being mostly in German. We native speakers enjoy the privilege of reading English nearly every where we go online, it should be no skin off our back to pop open Google Translate every once in a while.
An occasional comment in another language is fine but HN is an English-language site, so people shouldn't be having entire conversations in other languages.
Of course not. Every government is going to look out for themselves. Following your reasoning, look at China. They have their own playbook for operating within China, and it is quite restrictive. They make it harder for foreign entities to do business within China. From a geopolitical viewpoint this makes complete sense. You don't want your rival to have a backdoor into influencing/manipulating/discovering how people…
Not really sure what your point is. I did read the article. I didn't comment on TikTok, which would be legally required (and I am sure compliant, although they deny that in the article) to hand data over to the Chinese government. I commented on Twitter, which was hacked by amateurs, and absolutely could have been considerably harder as a target.
My point is, you only need a rogue CTO (most of which have no actual idea of how technology works, i.e. an amateur) and it's over; or you know, any of the 10,000s of engineers currently employed on your favorite FAANG company.
One of the first, most important rules Chinese companies have to follow in order to access this Chinese market is "be a Chinese company". I'm not exaggerating here, and if I remember rightly this is even an actual official, stated rule controlling who can offer information services like TikTok in China (rather then one of the many unstated rules their government also uses to screw with Western companies) and includes…
There was a rule when foreign companies have to partner with a local one. This rule was recently relaxed; for example there was some Tesla factory a while ago that had 100% foreign ownership.
I probably ought to have mentioned this in my original comment - China allowed companies to set up certain kinds of Chinese operations, such as manufacturing, by partnering with a local company and setting up a joint operation but they're a lot more restrictive about online information services. Operating those really is limited to wholely Chinese-owned and Chinese-operated companies as I understand it, joint partnerships with foreign companies are not permitted to run them. This includes things like the Chinese versions of AWS and iCloud, which are entirely operated by existing Chinese companies.
But the law acts sometimes a deter factor. Because you know you will lose your eye if you damage someone else (at least on purpose).
It leads to escalation because people (or nations) disagree about when the balance is restored, due to loss aversion (subjectively feeling more intensity from a loss than from an objectively equivalent win), among other things. That leads to perpetual eye for an eye for an eye for an eye, and to a tendency to increase rather than decrease the reciprocity.
Maybe in some situations its better to risk escalation than be complacent and submissive? There are millions of examples in life where this is the case.
Your argument is so general as to be almost meaningless. It can be used to justify not responding to almost anything.
Conversely, if you're an American in America who doesn't travel abroad what is the threat TikTok poses when compared to the FAANGs? Given the cozy relationship between the US and FAANGs I think it's possible to argue that unfettered government access to FAANG data is more of a threat (to the average US citizen) when compared to the Chinese government having access to your user data via TikTok. But I'm not set on any…
>if you're an American in America who doesn't travel abroad what is the threat TikTok poses when compared to the FAANGs? They could intentionally influence the public opinion about anything, e.g., elections.
Replying here since reply to your last post is not available. >"Do you think the world would rather have China in charge?" I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone. >"I believe some wars can be just and as such enforcing things through the military can be just." Like bombing the country that refuses to trade in certain currency?
>Replying here since reply to your last post is not available. Typically when that happens I have to click the time posted on a post and then I have the option to reply. Not sure what causes that. >I prefer the world "ruled" by few major entities / blocks. No need to be either US or China alone. I don't think that is possible. Do you have any historical examples where this has happened? Please don't bring up a time w…
>"The US is better for the world and the people under its control than China"
Once again you are pushing a choice that should not be there in a first place. I do not want to choose between either. Period. If you let any country run free and control the others it will devolve to a dictator. So I prefer to have the US, Europe, China, BRICS and whatever else is coming.
Russia specifically developed their "de-escalation" policy of tactical nuclear weapons use under MAD assumptions. Basically, betting that there were scenarios where the US wouldn't risk escalation to nuclear war in response to a calibrated Russian tactical nuclear strike in a third party country, thus allowing Russian nuclear effects to nullify superior western precision weapons without consequence. https://thebullet…
> superior western precision weapons At this point there is no support for the idea that US weapons have superior precision. The Russian campaign is showing the opposite.
O_o
A) NATO's air campaign in the Kosovo War (1999) certainly scared the shit out of Russia.
B) That Russia is currently bombarding Ukrainian cities with repurposed surface to air missiles doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to produce sufficient quantities of precision missiles for even a moderate scale conflict.
C) The majority of Ukrainian platforms at this point still aren't Western, and thus incapable of firing NATO precision ordinance.
But of course you don’t have any data to support it, how surprising.
The United States Census Bureau's official population counts, as I've said, use very broad groups to categorize ethnicities which is not reflective of just how many groups of people live in the United States. Korea has an idea of how many Koreans are living in the United States currently [1] and you can probably type just about any sort of ethnicity, nationality, or race, and find some estimates or information about…
>We have the largest population of immigrants in the world
Until you realize that metric would only be meaningful per capita, which again proves you’re talking rubbish: