All companies in China are required to do whatever the CCP tells them to do.
If you have more than 100 employees, you must have a member of the CCP to provide oversight.
Zhang Zhiming, the CEO of Byte Dance publicly grovels to the CCP. Here is his public statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZa0FGThXak&t=5m4s
I suspect that many genuinely kind hearted people think they are doing the right thing by silencing the speech of those whom they find repulsive but have never stopped to ask themselves “Why are the oligarchs on my side?”
Project Dragonfly is alive and well and unfolding before our very eyes.
This is how democracy dies.
I wish I could upvote this more. Many folks here fancy themselves as intellectual people, yet they do backflips in logic to justify silencing voices they find repugnant or inconvenient. The concept of free speech simply cannot have exceptions, conditions, or predications. It’s only a marketplace of ideas if the loud or powerful voices aren’t silencing and banning voices that might not be as popular. Indeed, this is how democracy dies.
There are plenty of mainstream figures that directly or indirectly support the desires of the far right. They pay not be as explicit as the KKK or Nazis, but definitely have real influence.
Good idea. Psychopaths are apparently 1% of the population. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) apparently have very a different brain anomaly. It might be necessary to have separate tests for each: https://bit.ly/2zMPGqB
If Jeffrey Epstein had preyed upon the children of the coastal elites instead of the children of the poor, I suspect that the subject would be less “tricky”.
It doesn't change the moral argument from my perspective but if that happened, Epstein and many others may actually face punishment. I think I'd prefer that hypothetical.
Really? I'm more scared of the reverse: Sincerely well-meaning people who fail to fully consider their actions and therefore end up pushing terrible ideas with extreme force because they are so convinced that they're right. "Think of the children!" (destroys privacy, institutionalizes censorship) "Save the environment!" (switches to a product that turns out to have higher total impact) "Stop the pedophiles!" (organizes witch hunt and throws out burden of proof)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
---
EDIT: Realized I should point out - the dig at pedophile witch hunts isn't meant as a commentary on this article, it's just a generic example.
It’s a fair point and a genuinely real phenomenon.
However, in my experience, people with low PCL-R scores who make bad decisions when in emotional states are likely to change their position when they realize they have inadvertently harmed the innocent.
Genuine psychopaths, on the other hand, are incurable predators.
> people with low PCL-R scores who make bad decisions when in emotional states are likely to change their position when they realize they have inadvertently harmed the innocent
Mass emotional behavior (arguably well-intentioned, for some definition of good we might not share) can last an extremely long time and do enormous damage- down to persecution, massacres and pogroms. And this is valid for every people, any country and any time, and any degree of damage.
> However, in my experience, people with low PCL-R scores who make bad decisions when in emotional states are likely to change their position when they realize they have inadvertently harmed the innocent. Genuine psychopaths, on the other hand, are incurable predators.
You have no such experience unless you happen to be a researcher on this very specific subject. And if you were, you wouldn't be saying stuff like
> Genuine psychopaths, on the other hand, are incurable predators.
Caveat lector. His empirical findings include the claim that because Google knows its users trend liberal (simple demographics would tell you that, without any intrusive analytics), it is unfair of Google to run universal "go vote" PSAs on its site, because doing so will favor the Democrats.
Here's an article he wrote on The Epoch Times, which I believe is cited in the section about how Google is running GOTV for the Democrats:
Amen. When the first counter-argument is an assassination of the author's character-- we have a problem! The statements in the PDF are in the public interest. Debate them, don't simply make an ad homenim attack against the speaker.
It might be that the truth is in the middle.
Clearly the design was great but hindering repairability is a legitimate criticism.
I recall watching a young child from a poor family in an Apple Store trying to get the iPad that she loved repaired and the family being told that her only option was to purchase a new one which they clearly could not afford. Seeing how distraught it made the little girl really bothered me. That was the day that I started to intensely hate Apple.
In fairness, however, hindering repairability feels like a business decision that Ive may not have been responsible for.
Consider an alternative world: Apple decides to only make highly repairable devices, and a computer like the iPad is never created.
Obviously this is not the only alternative world, but I think it is realistic. Say the design initiatives were inverted: Repairability were king and form & function were subservient to it. In such a world, we would still have giant beige boxes on our desks. That's not to say there is not a balance to be struck that could result in a more repairable iPad, but my point is that Apple's design initiatives have resulted in many new, successful computing form factors (touch, tablet, watch, AirPods even).
I will hitch my wagon to the horse that continues to plow new ground, even if there is some theoretical ideal that is "better."
I personally believe that Apple's resistance to repairability (or, more accurately to repairability outside their dominion) stems from a desire to control a customers experience with their product, not from some business case or greed. This goes all the way back to Steve Jobs and the original Macintosh [0].
I personally can, and have, repaired my Apple devices with 3rd party parts, and the results have been less than sub-optimal. A screen that was deeply blue-shifted (so extreme that even software adjustments didn't help), a home button that became nonfunctional, and a battery that became swollen. I've had some repairs that worked great, but buying quality parts is a bit more expensive, to the point it is worth it (to me) to have Apple repair.
Your false dichotomy is unconvincing, because Apple were so inept in designing the iPad, they can't even repair it themselves.
The non-TouchID button of an iPad broke and my only option would have been to essentially buy a new iPad, because they send the broken one to HQ and give you a refurbished device in exchange.
They can't repair a broken button! That is incredibly lame.
Furthermore, their devices have become less repairable and more failure-prone for no good reason.
For example the MBP screen will die just from opening and closing the lid, because they used too short cables. Major fuck-up, but they will easily fix it by replacing the cable, right? No, they designed it in such a way that the entire screen must be replaced.
I'd like to see you try to explain away this idiocy please. Tell us how we couldn't have had MBPs and iPads if Apple would have been able to fix their own devices instead of force-recycling them.
Nowhere in my comment did I present a dichotomy. Actually, I went out of my way to avoid a dichotomy.
Beyond that, my argument, more simply, is the following:
1. Apple has a set of philosophies and priorities in design. Within these, repairability is a lower priority than Vice and some customers would prefer.
2. From those priorities comes expertise and processes that result in the creation of new products and entirely new product categories.
3. Apple has seen success unlike any other company from those resultant products. Not just successful, but the most successful ever. No other company has replicated some of those products.
4. Given the above, Apple sees no reason to make any changes to their design priorities. Even if those priorities have resulted in missteps, they have been overwhelmingly rewarded by their decisions. Indeed, it is plainly obvious that it would be foolish to change those priorities based on the voices of Vice and Louis Rossman who look at a part of the design but not the whole. This is akin to fans asking LeBron James to take fewer shots because he missed a single game-winner.
That is to say, even if the "thin and light" priority has resulted in missteps (I think this is objectively true, re: keyboards, MBP screen cable, etc), Apple would not have been able to create a product like the Apple Watch without the expertise and processes that flow out of those priorities.
I think Apple can, and most likely will, make adjustments to the processes that come from those priorities to correct and prevent those missteps, without changing the priorities themselves.
When I was a child we mainly played with non-electronic toys like dolls. This was mainly because my family already had a lot of older toys from the previous generation, not because electronic toys were unavailable to us. Children grow especially attached to dolls, of course, and in many cases they cannot be easily replaced when they break. I remember that sometimes we would take damaged dolls to the "doll doctor", a skilled woman that ran a doll repair business at her home. She could repair doll clothing, fix scratches or broken limbs, replace missing eyes, and more. The doll's return was like a dear friend coming home from the hospital.
Some commentators here miss that the iPad may be today's equivalent of a child's doll. Not being able to replace the iPad is like telling the child their playtime friend is dead and never coming back. This strikes me as good reason to have your children bond to something easily replaceable... and consider buying a backup!
People do forget about the used market. Apple products are well-built and tend to last. If you can't afford a new one, get a second-hand one instead of a top-price new one.
> Seeing how distraught it made the little girl really bothered me. That was the day that I started to intensely hate Apple.
Some things you could have done:
1) Offer to buy the parents a replacement.
2) Offer to take the iPad to a third party to repair. Like Louis Rossman and offer to pay for the repair.
3) Offer to setup a GoFundMe for the replacement or to cover the cost of the repair.
4) Educate the parents that Android is a cheaper better option and determine the best action to recover the data (can be done) and move over to Android.
5) Educate the parents that companies like Louis Rossman exist and can repair Apple devices and to research on the internet for more information.
I've tried talking to friends and family (who all make much less money than me, and some are struggling financially) about switching to Android, and they just smile and ignore me. Face it: Americans are usually broke because they refuse to live within their means, and they insist on believing they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires. You can try educating them about cheaper, better options but they'll insist on buying the full-priced expensive shiny thing that all their friends have.
As for #1 (and #3), why would he want to help fund Apple and their high prices and anti-consumer practices?
More generally, will you please (a) not post unsubstantive comments to HN, and (b) edit the nasty swipes out of the comments you do post? We're hoping for a bit better than that here.
New York Times
The Missing Men in Your Family Tree, 2007
You might be right. My partner got herself pregnant by another man and tried to convince me that I was the father. If the woman who you thought loved you did this to you, it might bother you slightly.
I feel like there might be a significant difference in emotional response for false paternity ten generations up your family tree versus instances that affect you personally.
Fair. My understanding is that in each generation HALF of the males have their genes exterminated. In "12 Rules for Life", Jordan Peterson says that human female choosiness is the reason why humans evolved faster than chimpanzees, so I guess this is for the best.
I suspect this is why rates of male suicide are so much higher than female suicide. Why bother to live if you are genetically unfit?
Women know this. I suspect this is why the rates of postpartum depression in women is nearly twice as high when the baby is a boy. They know there is a high probability that their baby is destined for a life of suffering.
your statement about suicide is incorrect. Females actually attempt suicide more often than males, but males tend to use methods which are more likely to succeed.
I don't mean in any way to downplay the genuinely deep suffering experienced by many women, but everyone knows that many such attempts are cries for help rather than genuine attempts.
The fact is that men successfully kill themselves at much higher rates across all cultures.
Of course they do. Females are hypergamous. Through no fault of their own they have been genetically programmed by evolution to desire the highest status males. Studies have shown that women rank 80% of the men on dating sites as "below average".
It is understandable why people would downvote an emotionally sensitive issue like this, but suppressing the truth is not a good long term strategy.
> (females) have been genetically programmed by evolution to desire the highest status males.
You do know that this is not a good reason to declare most males to be beyond hope, I assume? Status signals and impressions are highly pliable. And the more self-aware "females" (...Why not just say 'women', I wonder?) are about what drives their attraction from that POV, the more you can actively play with and subvert that dynamic. It's loads of fun, actually!
Yeah. Personally, I think Peterson is in the business of offering false hope to the condemned. A useful service to the elites.
But the evidence is the evidence. Suppressing the truth is not a good long term strategy in the age of the internet.
Have you experienced having a woman you loved and who genuinely seemed to be in love with you get pregnant by another man and try to convince you that you that you are father?
There is nothing "false" about the hopelessness that you feel when this happens to you.
Since men can father more children than women can bear, the numerical ratio of fathers to mothers is skewed in favor of mothers. Another way of looking at it is that people are more likely to share a father than a mother.
All men combined have the same number of children as all women combined. A man can have more than a woman, but only if some other man has fewer. E.g., dies young.
