I don’t agree with the assessment, but in terms of a great power being very interested in the interests of a small country, consider Serbia and Russia before WWI.
I think you can't directly acknowledge the guidelines because you know you are willfully violating them.
The guidelines are the rules of the road for the community. The moral obligation to follow the guidelines is not conditional on whether you think the community is a mob. Even if you thought you have no obligation to the community, your behavior is still disrespectful to the intentions of the moderators.
The way you write makes it seem like you hold both the community and the guidelines in contempt. What is the purpose for you in participating in this community? Would it not be better for you and the community both if you stop posting like this?
I believe you are being downvoted because your comment violates the guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously... Edit out swipes."); anyway, that's why I downvoted.
Your later comment that enforcement might benefit from latitude to be reasonable and accommodate nuance is not invalid, and you could have just said that rather than call the gp's aspiration "perverted." The expressed norm of guidelines is that your belief that the gp's logic is circular does not justify your derision.
Anyway, you will probably be more convincing to others by being less insulting.
If you don't want to contribute in adherence to the guidelines, what is the point of posting here at all?
Not contradicting your point, but adding tangential interesting information.
Blu-Ray UHD discs can no longer be played on modern computers as Intel has removed the trusted execution environment needed to decrypt them. Blu-Ray UHD players do a handshake that verifies the use of Intel SGX.
One might have always been skeptical of these discs, especially as AMD had never implemented those TEE instructions.
But I believe the interesting takeaway is that even physical media is becoming something you can’t count on using without the continued permission/assistance of some outside party.
Without regulation I would expect that all new media will eventually require players to be always-online.
First, I believe you are right that the CCP believes that "giving Hong Kong the freedom to operate does not work." I believe you are right that the CCP believes that "the same applies to Taiwan." I believe you are right that the CCP does not see the multiparty democratic system in Taiwan as a positive thing.
If Taiwanese people really care about retaining multiparty democracy, then everything you said is a good reason for Taiwan to be wary of PRC attempts to gain more control over Taiwan.
--
Second, I don't know what the average person on the street in mainland China thinks about the HK protest movement or Taiwanese democracy. Today, when the successes of the PRC are more salient to most people than its failures, the average person in mainland China may well look down on the perceived disorder of democracy.
What comes up may come down. Mainland China has had some incredible decades as it industrialized and caught up. That is a typical phenomenon (not a uniquely Chinese one) when an authoritarian country introduces liberalization to their economy. It is harder for authoritarian countries to maintain growth when they are already mostly caught up with peers, because decentralized economic decision making becomes much more effective than centralized decision making. Decentralized economic decision making is a form of decentralized political power, and the authoritarian country is eventually forced to choose between maintaining a monopoly of authority or pursuing further growth.
At least, that's the thesis of economists like Daron Acemoglu. And the PRC is currently trending away from economic decentralization and toward a re-centralization of decision making.
Mainland China now faces some severe economic and geopolitical headwinds; maybe the PRC will navigate them wisely and earn yet more prestige. Or maybe the PRC will fail to respond adequately to new challenges because of the weaknesses of its authoritarian model. And since the PRC's authoritarian system relies almost solely on efficacy as a source of legitimacy, its legitimacy may prove extremely fragile in the face of a downturn in fortune.
Whatever comes to pass, it will not be a result of a Chinese exceptionalism. Perhaps centralized, one-party states without elections and with limited free speech will prove the dominant governmental model in the next era of history. But, historically, states like that seem to have been mostly outlasted by more liberal peers.
> So was everything with Taiwan hunky dory when they were a murderous military dictatorship for all those decades[1]?
It's good to remember that Taiwan's adoption of multiparty democracy is very recent, and that a one-party dictatorship preceded it.
And of course the PRC has always had lots of reasons to want to take back Taiwan, regardless whether it fears that mainland Chinese might see the Taiwanese system as preferable to their own.
But the gp's statement that Taiwan's example today threatens the raison d'être of PRC authoritarianism is also quite valid. PRC's authority does not rest alone on a monopoly of force and surveillance, but also reputation for stability and for organizing economic growth. Now PRC population is aging, growth is slowing and suffering from serious structural problems, economic management is becoming more centralized/ideological/less effective.
A successful, freer counter-example of what a Chinese nation might look like is actually quite dangerous to the PRC. Likewise, I think this is exactly why the PRC has kneecapped democracy in Hong Kong.
May I ask what high school? We did not have a linear algebra course in my New York high school. I would have liked to have been able to take linear algebra then.
I disagree with any suggestion that makes the game easier. There are a lot of websites with name-that-country games. For people who are pretty good at locating and naming countries, they want to improve their ability, and they need a tougher game to do that.
It would be fun if there were some country factoids or images, probably. But for people who are trying to get really good at locating countries, they probably already do know facts about various countries, so there isn't a lot of value there.
Spaced repetition of mistakes would be valuable. Very few alternatives offer this.
Maybe you could also offer to filter on a population cutoff? I frequently cut off countries with less than 200k population, because I am not that interested in the various island countries.
Just joining in with others who report that I haven't had any problems with LED bulb failures. I've used exclusively LED bulbs for at least 5 years now (maybe about 15 bulbs across my home), and none has ever failed on me.
They do sometimes flicker when they're in a traditional dimmer set at an intermediate level, even though the ones I've bought claim to work with a dimmer. That's frustrating.
But I haven't had any outright failures.
If it helps: I bought mostly SANSI bulbs off Amazon.
You're moving the goalposts. He expresses his judgements about the reliability of CCS charging networks in the video. I suppose that you don't have to credit Technology Connections' assessment if you don't think it's based on his personal experience. But I think you now agree that his assessment (right or wrong) about the state of non-Tesla charging is not positive, and can be (and is) summarized as: "it kinda sucks". And that is what we have been disagreeing about.
I don't accept or trust your pivot to personalize the discussion by focusing on my personal experience. I never said I had vast experience with EV charging (I said it was limited). But for the benefit of anyone reading this thread, I will tell you my experience, and then I'm going to disengage with you.
I have owned a CCS vehicle (Toyota Rav4 Prime) for about 6mo. I live in San Francisco. I have tried to charge it about a dozen times at non-Tesla chargers. I succeeded one or two times. I have also observed friends charge their Tesla vehicles at Tesla chargers about a half dozen times.
In my personal experience, I have had connectivity problems (unable to pay because NFC didn't work, and EA app had no signal in a garage), and chargers labeled as up in the EVgo app were not functional. On the Plug Share app I have seen a non-functional station (https://www.plugshare.com/location/37345), where it has been labeled as up for over 12mo, during which time it has never worked. It happens to be the exact station I have most wanted to use.
Those are some of the exact problems Technology Connections mentions, which is why his video did resonate with me.
It sounds like you've had a good experience with non-Tesla charging, which is great. I wish my experience was as positive as yours, because I am unable to charge at home at my rental unit. I would love to have a great experience with non-Tesla charging, both for myself, and for wide adoption of non-Tesla EVs. It sounds like where you live non-Tesla charging infrastructure works more reliably than it has for me here.
Maybe you're going to tell me I'm a moron and don't know how to charge my car. But I haven't had a great experience at it.
"So now, why are automakers suddenly itching to make this switch? Well, there's a pretty simple answer: the CCS charging networks available here in the US all kinda suck."
Now, is that judgement based on his "personal experience?" I don't know. But that's what he says. He does say about Electrify America that while he's never "been stranded" by it, (18:37), he describes having problems with using the app to use the chargers. He describes more than half the stations having broken NFC readers. He says "It wasn't great and that experience is happening to far too many owners of new EVs." "Meanwhile, the Tesla supercharger network largely just works." He implies that redundancy at EA stations is insufficient (20:42). At 21:07 says that activating the charger is harder than it needs to be...
At 21:30: "The main problems with CCS networks are poor maintenance, horrible up-time, largely terrible apps which are often the only way to start charging, ..." He then says: "Let me go through those one-by-one." And the he does.
Through 26:56 (this section is labeled "The Many Reasons We're Switching"), he describes issues with non-Tesla charging networks. (You're right that he doesn't blame CCS for the problems, and neither do I.)
I didn't watch your video because I conceded your characterization of it. You don't agree with my characterization of this video, but I think you missed this section.
I don't think it's reasonable to characterize his take on non-Tesla CCS charging networks in this video as anything other than quite negative.
I didn't watch the video you linked, but I accept your summary of his experience then (1 year ago). The video I link is from 2 weeks ago. A good half of the video is describing many frictions he has encountered with non-Tesla charging networks. Perhaps his experience/evaluation has changed in the intervening interval.
I personally have experienced those frictions myself, in my limited EV experience. I am glad that you have had a better experience - I absolutely want non-Tesla charging networks to be high reliability and easy to use! For everyone, but also for myself, since I don't want to purchase a Tesla.
In the final analysis, I don't know how Technology Connections feels about the state of non-Tesla charging networks. In fairness, I'm not sure you do either. It sounds like his experience was more positive a year ago. But from his most recent video, it doesn't sound like he feels like non-Tesla charging networks work very well or reliably.
To be clear on one point: I haven't encountered lines or interpersonal conflict at charging points. I have encountered plugs not working, payment not being accepted, and rates lower than advertised capability. Before I had those experiences, I had heard people on HN complain about CCS charging network reliability. After, I saw Technology Connections complain about it. All I can say is that my experience has corresponded with those reports.
My experience is in northern California. Probably no one can speak for the experience across the entire US. FWIW, this guy in Minnesota seems to have had a very similar experience to what I’ve seen:
I would suggest that it's not necessary to speculate too much about why they made a grammatical error. There are many possible reasons. For instance, I suggested that they may simply be less pedantic/careful about grammar. They may simply care about the form of their expression less than you or I do.
I think judging a hypothesis by its form/expression is not a great way to get at the truth. If a heuristic has to be used, then probably tone, coherence, and even-handedness are better than grammatical correctness. Those are at least closer to the substance of the argument.
I suggest that evaluating arguments on the basis of form/expression will not help you get at the truth.
It is your choice whether to be aesthetically dissatisfied by grammatically incorrect English. Many would consider that pedantic, though I might have a modicum of sympathy for you. However, I think the error you've made is to promote aesthetic displeasure into distrust for the OP's reasonableness.
I do not know about others, but I do not think I am losing my mind about anything. I suspect that most direct and unapologetic people have faith in the substance of their arguments, and would be frustrated to be judged using low-signal heuristics like grammatical correctness.