> China and Taiwan are considered one country, even according to US
Your link does not say what you think it does. My guess is you read the first sentence and saw "one-China police" and stopped. But the US's one-China policy is not the same thing as China's one-China principle.
The US's one-China policy is that (continental) China is a single China governed by the PRC. It's silent on Taiwan. But, considering the laws we have on the books declaring our commitment to ensuring the sovereignty of Taiwan, it's a hard row to hoe to get to "the US considers Taiwan to be territory the PRC has a right to control."
The US has an unofficial relationship with Taiwan simply to shut the CCP up. It's like when your partner is complaining about something you did, silence doesn't mean you agree that you messed up. Sometimes it just means you don't want a fight right now.
>The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the U.S. recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.
>The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence
Doesn't sound like silence to me.
>But, considering the laws we have on the books declaring our commitment to ensuring the sovereignty of Taiwan, it's a hard row to hoe to get to "the US considers Taiwan to be territory the PRC has a right to control."
You're moving the goal posts. Sovereignty isn't the same as being a country. States in the US have some sovereignty and their own governance and international relations too, but it wouldn't be correct to say that the US consists of 50 independent countries.
Also, using the word right sounds a bit like muddying the waters. You could argue the United States government doesn't have the right to control their land, as it has been stolen from the indigenous people. But that doesn't mean United States is not an independent country that controls the area within its borders.
Click on the drawing that you like on the website, then click the download button and choose "Export as SVG". You can then open the SVG file in Inkscape and render as PNG/JPG at any resolution you want. Let me know if you need help.
What's your point? That education only belongs to the "talented"? Talented in what way? What good does it do to society that the "non-talented" are not educated?
We know this is a thing from the Mueller report. The Russians had their hands in everything from LGBT and black advocacy groups to the Tea Party movement.
Indeed. Amplify the most divisive messages. Anyone planning advocacy for anything nowadays has to figure out how to deal with the worst messengers for their cause getting the biggest platforms.
They actually simultaneously were promoting the Bernie Sanders campaign. Seems likely these candidates were chosen as the ostensibly most divisive and disruptive elements in American politics.
I think we're also witnessing influence a meta level deeper, where accelerationists' stochastic terrorism ideologically seeks social rift and chaos, directly. Individual acts won't be explainable by a grand conspiracy, but rather I presume these communities are fed and pushed to birth random acts of terror with ambiguous or misleading messaging.
Quite frankly, I think too many cooks are benefiting from outrage and disarray. Look at the Charlie Kirk case, where "respectable" reports of "transgender ideology" inscribed on bullet casings spread immediately, although that's been a complete fabrication, which was later redacted. How vile a thing to do, for any supposedly journalistic platform. That's not bots, it's people who are to blame. I don't even think, it's much instructed, but rather sociopathic individuals/groups seeing opportunity for a minuscule gain, even if it's destroying the social fabric in the process.
This is what happens in the EU, even more noticeable since 2021. Hell, it's basically the horseshoe theory put into practice. In some subjects similar ideas are supported by both extremes, mostly just for political gain in the moment. You know, populists are like that.
Take a look at France. That's what has been happening since political interests took over the gilets jaunes protest (which didn't really end in 2020, mind you), and continues to this day in one way or another.
In This case, gp should change to 'all extremes'. The extreme center is a thing. Boulanger is the origin, but he has adept, the most known in the Anglo world is probably Blair, but the closest ideologically is Macron (just read 'how democracy dies' if you aren't convinced yet, or read about 'retenue institutionnelle' if you want to dog into the concept of democracy more deeply).
There are no doubt many ways one can define what is and isn't extreme. The definition of extreme I apply is in the context of the comment I made is something like political viewpoints or groups on the outside or on the fringes of the political establishment.
Figures like Macron or Blair may be or have been extreme in some regards, but not in this one.
But let's be honest, if you are hinting at that time Macron used anti-obstruction of parliament measures to combat the stupid high number of ammendements the opposition proposed [1], I don't know what to say. Seemed like the only case where one _should_ use such measures.
Either way, point stands that by fuelling appeasement to both extremes via bots in social networks, a state actor can destabilize a country much more effectively.
No, the time when he took two months to choose a prime minister, because he could, that's legal. That's also against the spirit of democracy. When he chooses a prime minister from the 3rd largest group, that's also legal. Had he chosen from the RN, which I think is worst, I would have been happier, because at least the spirit of the law would have been followed.
But that's not the first time he did away with either the spirit of the law, or with returning on his words.
The CCC: 'i'll propose all your suggestions as laws if they're correctly written, without filters', then later 'except 3 jokers', then he proposed a small part as is, a bigger part modified, and 19, not at all. That's legal, he can go back on his words as he wants, a president words don't mean anything. Usually, a candidate words didn't mean anything, but politics exercising power words used to be believed. But that's only convention, not law.
The 49-3 for the retirement reform. Waiting for the parliamentary discussions to happen, at least a month or two, would have been a lot less brutal. Even for those who agreed with the idea, the way it was done was authoritarian.
And the recent 'motion de rejet' against the law Duplomb they wanted to pass, to prevent _any_ discussion in the parliament, that's was the chef kiss imho. That has to be the most illegitimate legal thing they did. Totally against the spirit of the law. Classic. Hindenburg and Bruning then Von Papen used similar tactics for almost 5 years.
Bruning is also a perfect example of the extreme center by the way, even if less well-known.
>How "ugly" a trivial "Hello, World!" does not really matter much and isn't a good indication of anything about the language's ability to handle more than "Hello, World!"
Sure, but for beginner programmers who don't have the discipline down yet, it's unnecessarily hard. I bought a Java programming book as a kid and got stuck because of a typo that produced an error message I couldn't understand. This was the time before StackOverflow and Reddit. In retrospect, this delayed my programming journey by at least a year.
Longer Hello Worlds make frustration and getting stuck like this more likely.
This is the result of differing storage implementations in the app between platforms and has nothing to do with the platform itself. Painless cross-platform migration is possible but simply wasn’t factored into the original design. IIRC WhatsApp also has this problem.
Huh? American and European CEOs voluntarily move manufacturing to China, now everything gets made in China. And that's somehow China discriminating western countries?
I believe the reference here is that there are fairly protective trade policies in China, and they are similarly mercurial about what passes. See cases of IP theft, if you’re partial to IP as a concept (I’m not). They’re certainly not a laissez-faire paradise. Granted, merely terking our jerbs isn’t a good argument for slapping massive tariffs on them.
There’s probably a different thread on this but, TACO and the damage of having your own courts nullify the tariffs are a huge strategic L for the orange man.
You'd think, by this point, they'd realize if you don't want your IP stolen, don't send it to China. At least make them work for it, like everyone else.
It’s hard right? If you want market access, you fork over the designs so they can verify it’s not American spyware, then boom it’s stolen (message to be read by an AI made to sound exactly like a certain USA president)
What does this has to do with the topic of trying to be clever with the border police with some tricks to conceal information? (as opposed to not having it in the first place)
It has to do with your argument of "if you don't like it, don't go there". Also, you specifically asked "who came for you" so it's direct answer to your question.
Well, considering that the US considers some political beliefs and journalism crimes, "don't go there with incriminating devices" implies restrictions on free speech and journalistic freedom. Also, privacy is not only for hiding crimes. Equating privacy with criminality is a great way to get undermine people's rights further. It's perfectly ok to think that some random TSA agent shouldn't be seeing my family photos etc. when I have done nothing wrong.
If you believe these rights are not important, that's your own opinion. But I think it's perfectly valid to criticize attacks on human rights.
Exactly. If I plan to visit a country where green shirts are illegal, I'm not going to pack my green shirts into a secret hidden luggage compartment, smug in the knowledge that I'm so clever. I'm going to either not visit or not bring my green shirts.
Same for this. Whether we like it or not, some stuff on your phone are now considered contraband at the US border. Either don't bring them or don't visit.
I'm pretty sure he'd have fell in line to the fascist insanity just like all other billionaires. He lived at the time of the height of neoliberal ideology, when most people believed in the conjured public images that the tech bro CEOs gave out in PR. Behind the scenes, things were quite different. Jobs has been reported to be petty, insulting and belittling of his employees
Probably. Given the known history of Apple it's just as likely that they'd have been successful if Jobs got hit by a bus after the Apple II shipped. His legacy of irrational and unexplained digression is pretty suitably punctuated by his own unwillingness to part with his pancreas.
A timeline where Woz led product design at Apple under a less recalcitrant leader might be one where Apple Computers is still relevant for making computers. The pivot to a lifestyle brand hasn't proven to be the strongest option, in the long term.
He didn't get hit by a bus, though. He led the company for decades.
Surely you've heard how opinionated and domineering Jobs was? Every strategic decision and major product decision was either from him or went through him.
Most of the world doesn't put fluoride in tap water. I appreciate that you've been raised to believe it's a "no-brainer and only idiots would oppose it", but there are actual tangible downsides to doing it and now that fluoride toothpaste is widespread there might not even be any upside to fluoride in water anymore.
You don’t need it in the water when you can get it from many other sources. I find it strange that there would be additives to something basic like water. And as I recall there are studies that show too much can be bad too. It’s hard to know your dosage if random things incorporate it as an additive unexpectedly.
If 'hippies' here refers to the original hippies back in the 1960s, they ran the whole range from far pipebombs-in-the-name-of-communism left, to centrist.
Papen wasn’t even remotely left wing or even “moderate”. Hindenburg also hated democracy and wanted to destroy it.
There were barely any liberals left in the Reichstag when it voted for the enabling act (progressive liberalism as we’d understand it hardly existed in Germany back then anyway). Closest would be the moderate-conservative Catholic “Center” party who usually were historically part of the Socialist-Liberal coalition.
Anyway you cut it far-right parties had the majority of seats in 1933. Of course everyone else could have actually tried doing something instead fighting with each other or just tagging along with the nazis “since it can’t be that bad”.
I'm pretty sure he'd have fell in line to the fascist insanity just like all other billionaires.
That's a take that seems based on some kind of ideology more than thinking about the actual person. The actual person was a man with a massive ego, and pretensions of being an artist and intellectual. It's a real stretch to envision Jobs being deferential to Musk or Trump, both of whom, without a doubt, still fantasize about being Steve Jobs.
Musk is easily on the level of Jobs and arguably beyond him, not just financially, but on the scale of what they've done for Humanity as a whole.
SpaceX and Starlink just by themselves are enough to catapult him beyond Jobs, but you add on Tesla, which pretty much single-handedly pushed electric cars into mainstream culture, and he's easily there.
This isn't even really a subjective perspective, you could objectively argue it.
The personal computer revolution (kicked off in 1977 by the Apple II), and the smart phone era (kicked off in 2007 by iPhone), have done at least as much for humanity.
> The personal computer revolution (kicked off in 1977 by the Apple II),
This is an oversimplification. Apple II was a huge part of it, but didn't kick it off. The real revolution was the IBM PC in 1981. It definitely did not kick it off single-handedly though, since you had the TRS-80, Commodore PET, and Altair 8800 before, or alongside the Apple II. You could argue the IBM 5100 I guess, but it was too expensive for most people.
And like I said above, the iPhone did not "kick off" the smartphone era. It was transformative, sure, but didn't kick it off.
IBM Simon, BlackBerry, Palm Treo, Symbian Phones, Windows Mobile, all came before it, and everyone could clearly see where the entire market was headed even in the early 2000s.
Most of the prevailing narratives about pivotal moments in technology leave out nuance. Still, to say the Apple II and iPhone kicked off new eras is closer to the truth than to credit those eras to the Altair and BlackBerry.
If a person is nitpicky, they could use the same kind of objections to minimize Musk's accomplishments - and the accomplishments of many, many others (Edison, Marconi, Watson & Crick, etc)
Musk has massive ego too, and he's drinking the fascist kool aid, perhaps even more than Trump himself. Massive ego is more susceptible to fascist thinking, not less.
I'm not even a Jobs fanboy but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He at least believed in things, which is more than I can say for the tech giants that are bending the knee right now.
His own health choices are a private matter as far as I'm concerned. He held off too long on modern medicine and paid the price for it. Bringing it up here is irrelevant and distracting.
Are you suggesting Apple was not innovative, or that he did not have a role in Apple's innovation?
We can pretend all day that the Apple II, the Mac, iMac, macbook, iPod, iPhone, and iPad would have been exactly the same without Jobs. But in the reality we currently inhabit, he was the person overseeing them all.
> "A pure function which transforms the entire input into the entire output" is obviously the simplest possible architecture for many programs, but people hesitate to use that architecture because of performance concerns. In practice, the baseline performance is often faster than they expect, and it can be made much, much faster using strategies like memoisation and fine-grained reactivity.
But before React came along, you just couldn't do this without major UX breaking bugs, because of how the DOM worked.
Say you have a form that you want to change depending on the state of the app. If the user is typing in a form field while an update to the app state comes, and a pure function that transforms (app state -> DOM/HTML output) resets the form (meaning removing the old out of state DOM and replacing it with the new DOM), the user loses focus on the form. So you have to add some kind of logic where the app remembers what form input the user was focused on, where in the field the focus was, etc. The more complex your app is, the more complex the DOM reset logic became, and you cannot abstract your way out of it with pure functions, because the DOM that relies on mutation slowly creeps into your pure functions anyway.
React changed this, because it gives you a pure function interface, but resets the DOM using mutation functions i.e. native DOM methods, surgically. This is achieved with the VDOM (Virtual DOM), by diffing VDOM states and then reflecting that to the actual DOM. This means when the DOM resets, there's no problem with elements getting removed and added back in, and the focus states etc. don't get thrown away with the DOM. Before React, nothing like this existed.
The problem described by antris is that, if a developer were to naively tear down and rebuild the entire DOM tree on each state change, the browser would discard some important state which belongs to the old DOM nodes. This state includes the text selection, keyboard focus, mouse capture, scroll position, and the progress of CSS transitions and animations.
React solves this problem by building a virtual DOM, and then conservatively updating the actual DOM (sometimes just mutating individual HTML attributes!) so that this state is preserved.
How do you make one country into one country? It's already one country and is treated as such by even countries that consider China an adversary