I believe the logic is simple, the same as with advertising illegal drugs: lies can be seductive and do harm. HK officials make people consider any outer information as lies-filled propaganda, and thus justify the prohibition.
Not about to defend NK regime, but to make it fair, and not to play "they are bad guys, thus we're good guys".
First, doubts of people not right away believing any news about NK are justified, given how many lies about NK, like executing by feeding to dogs, were spread. So don't take them as NK defenders, it may be just a healthy skepticism.
Second, note that NK kills their citizens for what is illegal in their country, which is gross, but in 2019 Americans killed North Koreans for what was pretty legal, and got away with it [1].
Third, it looks hypocritic to read how horrible is that people got prosecuted for just watching videos. We all know that in so called civilized democracies, people's life can be ruined (luckily not taken) for possessing illegal video materials, it's just legality differs by jurisdictions.
West's true advantage is that we're much more shy in capital punishments, however we're still far from humanistic ideals, and I believe concentrating only on NK regime crimes lets the mindset "they being so bad, then we're not so bad after all".
> I would indeed expect an upright 'd'. It's an operator, not a variable. I don't recognize the tradition you're mentioning.
That's strange. I've never seen a math article in English with upright 'd' differential, only have seen it in German and Spanich articles. It's also
math italic in TeX (you can check Knuth's TeXbook).
Typst authors being germans, one can hardly accuse them in the "everyone uses English" attitude.
Typst `dif` math operator (as in dx/dt) produces upright 'd', quite unexpected to ones used to slanted 'd' tradition.
And they were right imho. Having a clear notion of a subject is good for both physics and mathematics, but what's good for physics or engineering, is not enough for math, in math, you also need rigorous reasoning, or you'll fall into subtle mistakes.
Note though, that nonstandard analysis isn't compatible with more "intuitionistic"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_determinacy (in place of axiom on choice), which free you from Banach–Tarski paradox and have some other appealing properties.
https://github.com/mullvad/mullvad-browser/