yes. Capitalism is the best system. Even in communist china, only after transitioning to market capitalism they got tech companies producing prosperity.
We also allow forming other kinds of companies. You can create worker cooperative tech company that has more diverse goal instead of just making money.
I’m not sure it is the Chinese tech companies that produced prosperity. It is due to their low cost manufacturing base for the last thirty years and consequent rapid urbanization. If anything, their tech companies have been largely laggards on the world stage with most being simple derivatives of western brands capitalizing on their large population base and barrier to foreign entry. They don’t have a very good track record of being issued patents outside their jurisdiction either.
> If anything, their tech companies have been largely laggards on the world stage with most being simple derivatives of western brands capitalizing on their large population base and barrier to foreign entry.
That is because they started out without basically anything 25 years ago as one of the poorest countries in the world. It takes about 25 years to build up your infrastructure by using capitalism, they are there now, today they can start to innovate.
Before they caught up the most productive effort will always be to just build up all the standard infrastructure instead of trying to innovate, so of course they didn't innovate. But today there is no such thing, you will see them transition to an innovative economy just like Japan did 50 years ago.
Edit: Note that tech company includes computer hardware manufacturing, those companies are absolutely a core part to Chinas miracle, being able to produce high end computer parts at scale requires a very developed economy. If not for US bans China would be even more dominating there.
It's complicated. It seems Airbnb was forced by some customer protection agency (UK iirc), to always offer the possibility to submit a review in the case of last minute cancellations. It's standard practice though that Airbnb considers reviews from guests who did not stay as irrelevant and removable when requested. OP should appeal the removal in their particular case. It's not impossible to reanimate removed reviews. However, generally, what Airbnb did here makes sense (else e.g. host's would suffer from retaliatory reviews when guests show up beyond check-in time and feel entitled). What people forget: by participating in reviews customers are more likely to engage with the product/plattform again (source: influence or pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini).
I lost one of my ears in a high fever episode when i was a child. I guess what you wrote means i shouldn't get my hopes up for these kind of treatments :(
The treatment is focused on regrowth of cilia hairs; what we, the high-temped folks, are really waiting for is a cochlear transplant or a regrowth of fibrocyte pathways within the cochlear wall (as well as this treatment).
I lost me left ear hearing capability when I was a child, never remember when, But don't know how. (I remember now that I had some fever) How did you know that your hearing loss was due to fever ?
I seriously think declaring something "far-right dog whistle" is a leftist dog whistle, signaling good progressives should oppose that something. After saying this, usually no serious arguments are given. Because they are not needed after declaring an idea the enemy.
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
Cyclical history as theorized by Spengler and other is a fringe type of historical analysis rejected by historians. And it is actively used as a neo-fascist dog-whistle. That’s not a way to show my moral superiority, it’s what they do.
Cyclical history isn't false. Population boom/bust cycles exist in humans just like they do in every other animal. Humans reach the carrying capacity of their environment and then reach out via war for more resources.
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
"Cyclical history" as theorized by Spengler and others during the 20th century is a whole set of bullshit. That's what my comments are explicitly about, I don't understand how people can miss this.
I agree that it's sort of a fashy dog whistle, but the concept of cyclic history did not originate with Spengler. This was probably the dominant view of the nature of time and history up until at least the last thousand years, maybe later.
I don't think you should be downvoted for saying what you said, but I feel that you missed the point my comment was trying to make.
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
If I make an invention that provides $1000 value to 100 million people, the work i put in is worth $100B. It doesn't matter if i did that in a day or decade.
Sure. The point being that Bezos didn't do that. He did provide value and should be filthy rich, but not $200 billion rich. Much of his wealth is unfairly extracted from others he exploited. If he treated every employee humanely and gave them salaries roughly corresponding to the value they provided, he might only be worth $100 million instead of $200 billion.
What "invention" are we talking about actually? Amazon was simply the first to grab an emerging market. If there was no Bezos, someone else would have made the same thing soon anyway. It was just a matter of being fast to act and having resources to invest, no more no less.
donation page reads:
"Your support will allow us to:
- Provide emergency humanitarian relief for Uyghur refugees
- Interview concentration camp survivors and help tell their story to the world
- Campaign to end "business as usual" while Uyghurs are suffering crimes against humanity"
Why don't you petition the PRC government to open up the area to trustworthy reporters and to cease reprisals against locals who speak to them? You claim you're Chinese, so that's your right per Article 41 of the constitution.
Pretty much anyone out of Xinjiang who criticizes the government has increased credibility because of all the attempts to suppress information. If you think this group has issues, your bitching is going to fall on deaf ears unless the situation on the ground changes.
Based on past records, Chinese government have no reason to trust those journalists (that they are not influenced by CIA).
Your point of view is that the western world represents absolute justice, and you can judge us based on your value system, this is not the case, at least from our viewpoint.
> I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.
You don't understand. We don't have to agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters." You seem to be trying to convince me that I should be more skeptical of these allegations, but that's not going to happen unless reporters I consider trustworthy have sufficient access to investigate, to the point where the people you criticize don't have to be relied on. It really doesn't matter what you think of the reporters, and attaching unnecessary conditions is just a deflection and indication there's something to hide.
I agree your petition can't happen ever, but for different reasons. It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.
> Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.
Don't know why but I can't rely to ardy's comment so I'm gonna write here:
So you agree we(you and us) can't agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters" but we(China) should accept reporters that you deemed trustworthy, and that really sounds alright to you? seriously?
>It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.
You're implying we're oppressed and you're not, if you're American(US), try saying "All Lives Matter" out loud, my point is, both of us are oppressed, just in different ways.
And no, I don't WANT to make a petition to allow unsanctioned western reporters to come here.
> So you agree we(you and us) can't agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters" but we(China) should accept reporters that you deemed trustworthy, and that really sounds alright to you? seriously?
Yes, seriously. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I mean: you're acting like you have something to hide, so I'm going to grant far more credibility to those who make claims you're hiding something. You're basically helping your opponents make their case.
> You're implying we're oppressed and you're not, if you're American(US), try saying "All Lives Matter" out loud, my point is, both of us are oppressed, just in different ways.
That's what we call a "false equivalency." Also, again, I make no claims that America or Western countries are perfect.
You failed to understand that we're not a colony of the US, you simply do not have that kind of jurisdiction over China.
You claim we're hiding something and then we must accept whatever investigation you ALONE deemed appropriate, I really can't tell if you're stupid or expecting us to be that stupid or both.
Free exchange is a positive sum game when it is truly free. But if one party has significantly more leverage (like an employer or a landlord), that is no longer guaranteed.
