As a native Chinese, the recent years of US politics definitely made me more unsympathetic for people like Jimmy Lai and the (for lack of better words) campaigns related to them, and, at least from my personal experience, my sentiment (that such people and campaigns are inconsequential at best) is shared amongst a significant portion of Chinese.
I have to emphasise that this is all my personal feeling and experience: I used to think these people and their actions actually mean something, and could lead to a different future. I was uncertain of this future, but willing to try.
Seeing recent US politics makes me reconsider: if this is democracy, or at least what it could very well turn out to be, is it really something I would want in my own country? I know my answer would be no.
Honestly, nowadays, if given the choice of "one person one vote" for the head of state tomorrow, I would strongly oppose such an idea and prefer the status quo.
Given such sentiment, I really don't care about these people and their campaigns anymore.
I mean, we went after Assange and Snowden who are in a gray area. Jimmy Lai actually went to top US officials and advocated military assistance to coup the government. No nation would ever go easy on that and it's scary to see all these comments on HN are mindlessly chanting without actually more research
Hong Kongers would very much like to choose their own leadership. I understand that you're arguing from a mainland Chinese perspective, but in so doing you're ignoring the people who ought to have the most to say.
I used to have your viewpoint, but after reading Lee Kuan Yew, and after several hours of cross referencing various interviews with the pro-rioters/hk democracy, and pro-engagement/neutral hongkongers, I conclude that most of the pro-rioters like Joshua Wong/Jimmy Lai at large fail to articulate anything of value other than "I want to turn the system upside-down" , while pro-engagement/neutral people know they want upward social mobility and more government involvement in fixing the housing and employment crisis.
Good for you. But I didn't refer to any specific pro-democracy figure. I am advocating for free and open elections where everyone, pro-mainland or localist, can choose the direction of the city.
America doesn't speak for Hong Kong and many people don't want America sticking its nose deep into their business especially through someone breaking the law by acting as a pseudo-foreign agent.
The irony is that Trump getting involved in pressuring for the release of Jimmy Lai just makes him look even more like an American asset.
I live in China, and even I am surprised to see completely electric heavy trucks that are eerily quiet compared to diesel ones and carrying building materials, just cruising by on public roads. No idea how well or expensive they run, though.
Not sure about the true/false of your premise, but a potential conflict between US and China will adversely affect all risk assets, which include US equity and crypto (unless you are one of those who equate crypto to gold). However, I don't think you could reverse the thinking and try to associate US-China conflict with a market disturbance solely based on the previous observation.
TLDR: I repeatedly mention that crypto doesn't make sense but the tech behind it could enable things like stablecoins but they won't make anyone 100x money but that is the point of them and I love them for it
Here is the last paragraph which I wrote which might be apt right now
> The tech is cool, but it is doomed to fall and if it doesn't, then I am fine too, I don't care. I am happy with my index funds and gold and even basic stablecoins. I am content. I don't want 100x returns.
Also fun fact: This article That I wrote repeatedly urged stripe to create a stable cryptocurrency themselves and few months after this article stripe released a collaborated stable cryptocurrency or something which was super nice to me as that's what I wanted. Not sure what the progress is on it but I saw it on HN and it looked super dope and exactly what I wanted if they integrate it into stripe nicely.
Agreed. Its just that sometimes these regulations would've made damn hard for me to get money without having something like paypal and that had its bunch of issues as well
I think that even in the article I had wrote that 99% don't need stablecoins as well but for people for whom USD or gold access could be hard, I can maybe see some usecase but then again as I said 99% don't need it but for the 1% like me who did, that's all there is to worry about. Maybe monero can have some usecase too since people use it as an actual currency but even then I would only buy monero in low quantity and still keep most money in stablecoins or most preferably banks as you said.
I wonder if there's a comparison between level of (a) pollution from satellites burning, and (b) pollution from other sources. If (a) is only a tiny amount compared to (b), I think this is not a significant issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this feels like a long-winded way of saying: if an adversary could control a significant portion of relays without being found out and for a not-insignificant period of time, it could defeat Tor.
Is it correct? Probably.
Does it justify the "Not secure at all" indictment? No.
The calculator also misleads in another direction, in that it could underestimate the probability of failure by only considering the "takeover" scenario, while I think it is much more likely to be defeated via other OpSec failures.
reply