Young Chinese are getting paid to be 'full-time children' as jobs become harder to find | CNN Business
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml Posts 4Comments 368Joined 2 yr. ago
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml
Posts
4
Comments
368
Joined
2 yr. ago
It's interesting how you went from "it's not relevant at all" to "it's relevant in general but not in this case" after I gave you a reply.
If you have found a new security or privacy flaw, I would love to hear about it. But pushing your irrelevant opinions on others who are not interested, is unpleasant for us, and a waste of time for you.
My opinions are not irrelevant, as I laid out in my previous comment that you just agreed with. Others are obviously interested, and it's not "unpleasant" for them, as people responded and upvoted (and no downvotes)--indicating it's relevant. It's not a waste of time for me, because not only did it take me negligible time to type literally three sentences (actually, I copy-and-pasted the comment from one I made earlier, I didn't even write it fresh here), but it has value to others and as such is not a waste of time for me.
So whether he agrees with you that guys can become girls or vice versa, or whether he believes the same narrative that you do regarding corona is simply irrelevant.
The strawman construction was a nice little touch. Completely ignoring the part where I laid out that my personal stance and agreement or disagreement with the CEO is irrelevant, you act as if I personally disagree with the CEO and then use that to dismiss me.
You obviously have an agenda. So be it. But this conversation is truly a waste of time: you were obviously wrong and as soon as that was pointed out you shift goalposts.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure about the specifics of how they produce their product from the upstream source.
If you think the two are unrelated you're oblivious to the considerations that must be taken into account when discussing potential privacy concerns in software. It's not ad hominem to acknowledge that the personal convictions and values of the CEO (and indeed other employees) can potentially decrease the sense of privacy of a product.
If the CEO is so adamant in his anti-X stance that he decides it's acceptable to censor access to materials about X, or perhaps worse that he decides to expose anyone using his software that discusses or supports X, would not consider those valid concerns?
Companies are made of people, and software is made by people. Since people are not neutral, companies and software are also not neutral. The stances of a company or software on privacy, freedoms, etc are all influenced by the stances on those exact issues by the constituent people of the company and developers of the software.
Consider Elon Musk and Twitter. Given Elon's personal beliefs and how adamant he is to enact and enforce those beliefs, do you consider him a neutral influence on the privacy of Twitter as a product? There is no way to see him as a neutral influence; he has direct influence by his ideological stance on the software. As such, if you have enough distrust in him or his ideological stance, that can transfer to distrust in Twitter as software.
In fact, it's not even about whether I support the CEO or whether I think his stance is "right" or "wrong" as you imply. It's entirely about how the CEO sees his beliefs in relation to the company and product he's overseeing. I could entirely agree with the CEO and still consider their influence to be a detriment to the product if he puts his ideology ahead of pragmatism, for example.
I see what you're saying. I read it as implying the browser would fake the attestation token. I don't know the answer, but if their (stated) goal is to stop bots and scrapers, I have to assume it wouldn't be so simple. After all, a lot of bots and scrapers are literally running an instance of Chrome.
Search engines like DDG should really begin maintaining their own index, and they should exclude sites that use the tech from the index.
If this gets implemented, it would ruin the ability for competitor search engines (such as DDG) to exist. If Google convinces site operators to require attestation, then suddenly automated crawlers and indexers will not function. Google could say to site operators that if they wish to run ads via Google's ad network they must require attestation; then, any third-party search indexer or crawler would be blocked from those sites. Google's ad network is used on about 98.8% of all sites which have advertising, and about 49.5% of all websites.
Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,
Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but
put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?
This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.
It depends on how Google wants to play this. If they require website operators to use WEI in order to serve ads from Google's ad network (a real possibility), then suddenly 98.8% of websites that have advertising, and 49.5% of all websites would be unusable unless you're using Chrome. It's probably safe to assume they'd also apply this to their own products, which means YouTube, Gmail, Drive/Docs, all of which have large userbases. The spec allows denying attestation if they don't like your browser, but also if they don't like your OS. They could effectively disallow LineageOS and all Android derivatives, not just browser alternatives.
It may be dead to its users anyway depending on how forceful Google is with this. If Brave doesn't work on 98.8% of all websites with advertising or indeed on 49.5% of all websites (approximately Google's ad network's reach), it becomes as niche as lynx.
A fork like Vivaldi, Brave or Opera could opt not to implement these changes
It doesn't quite work like that. They wouldn't choose to not implement the change, because the change comes from upstream via Chromium. They would have to choose to remove the feature which, depending on how it's integrated, could be just as much work as implementing it (or more, if Google wants to be difficult on purpose). Not implementing the change is zero effort; removing the upstream code is a lot of effort.
Brave is built on Chromium. So, by default, no they are not safe from this. Without extra effort, Brave will have this feature. I don't know if its feasible but there's a chance the Brave devs can remove the code from their distribution, but that's the best case scenario and just puts them in the same position as Firefox: they get locked out because they refuse to implement the spec.
Within the context of Chrome and other Chromium based web browsers, this means that Google will be able to monitor your web browsing in a new way any time you’re using a browser based on Chrome/Chromium.
With only slight hyperbole, we can say that Google can do this monitoring already.
What's worse, is now they can:
- Refuse you access to information by refusing to attest your environment.
- Restrict your browser, extensions, and operating system setup by refusing attestation.
- Potentially bring litigation against you for attempting to circumvent DRM (in the USA it's illegal to bypass DRM).
- Leverage their ad network to require web site operators to use attestation if they wish to serve ads via Google. AKA force you to use Chrome to use big websites.
- Derank search results for sites that are not using attestation.
In my opinion, the least harmful part of this is the ability to monitor page access, because they can more or less do this for Chrome users anyway. What's really harmful here is the potential to restrict access to and destroy practically the entirety of the internet.
So far, the USA alone has spent more on this war than Russia has. And the USA is not the only one sending money and resources to Ukraine.
I don’t have to read into it because it is bs anyway.
"Thankfully, I'm prescient, so I know something is bs without having read it."
In case there was any doubt that you weren't actually willing to have a reasonable discussion, you cleared it up.
Why did I expect anything different?
Instead of reading the points made and perhaps agreeing or disagreeing, you get to shortcut the whole thing by just saying "I didn't read it, and yet I disagree!". Why even pretend to participate?
You'll notice I actually wrote a comment and made points of my own, and linked to a secondary comment going into more detail. You didn't bother to address either. Must be nice to be proud of being ignorant.
"When the facts are against me, shut the whole thing down with namecalling and dismissiveness!". Again, I guess I really shouldn't expect any different. Only one side is even trying to have a conversation; the other is just playing a game of yelling loudly with no substance and shutting down anyone with contrary views.
You're a blight on society.
I just looked at the mod log for that community and it doesn't show anything removed with your name, nor anything related to the CPC or China at all. In fact, there's almost nothing in the mod log for that community; it seems to remove hardly anything.
Thankfully the Geneva Convention doesn't agree with your faulty logic. Your personal value judgements on the quality of journalism being produced has absolutely zero bearing on whether killing a journalist is acceptable.
A good write-up here.
Just to check if you're applying your "logic" evenly or just cherry-picking where and how you apply it: should targeting of Russian medics be allowed, since they're only saving the lives of Russian soldiers? If not, how is targeting a journalist (for Russia) different than targeting a medic (for Russia)?
And remember: the Geneva Convention disagrees with you. Maybe that should be motivation to check if what you're saying is actually reasonable or not.
ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.
You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.
I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.
If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there's nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.
Seems entirely unrelated.
The issue with .ml domains was only its free offerings, not its paid ones. And you can thank Meta for that. They sued the registrar managing several ccTLDs, including .ml, .ga, .gq, .cf, and .tk. Meta even goes so far to fabricate a conspiracy theory about the registrar being part of a cybercriminal ring.
Colloquial use of that word is not related to its technical use to describe a female dog in dog breeding. Colloquial use of the word is precisely driven by misogyny. Don't try to play that game, it's dishonest. Do you think the homophobic f-slur is acceptable because, after all, it is a technical term relating to bound wood fuel? If not, why is that not acceptable, but the one you're using is? Historical linguistic justification for a word whose colloquial use has not been related to its historical meaning for a very long time is dishonest.
By "otherwise discriminatory" I meant discriminatory in ways other than the two (sexism, ableism) that I explicitly mentioned; can you not think of other ways to discriminate? "Otherwise discriminatory" can include words that are specificaly xenophobic or racist, or homophobic. I didn't bother doing a full inventory when I was illustrating a point.
I find casual use of opaque blocklists without any second thought to their impact disturbing.
It's not opaque. The entire block list regex is publicly visible for every single instance. In fact, it's in the page source of every single page you load. You're simply uninformed. Moreover, if you think there was no second thought to it's impact, you're yet again uninformed. There was (and has been) discussion about it amongst developers and (early) users, and discussion continues; in fact, there was a post about it with large engagement maybe three days ago.
I am not sure how I feel about enforcing a block list (and I said that in my previous comment), but one thing it does do, repeatedly, is illuminate how little people think about offensive things they say. Interestingly, more often than not, people would rather defend their use of misogynist language than consider using literally any other word in English or another language.
China is socialist. Socialism is serving as the stepping stone on the path from the previous system to full Communism. Socialism serves as an important developmental stage as antagonisms from within (counter-revolutionary forces) and without (imperialist powers) are resolved.
First, China does have wealth inequality, but its middling in its severity.
(The key is on the linked Wikipedia page, but darker has higher income inequality).
China has a Gini index of 38.2% in 2019, putting them at 71 out of 168 in national rankings. The USA has a Gini index of 39.4% in 2020, putting them at 107 out of 168. (Lower Gini index, and lower ranking are better). The worst nation, South Africa, has a Gini index of 63.0% as of 2014; the best nation, the Faroe Islands, has a Gini index of 22.71% as of 2018^1.
Moreover, wealth inequality has been decreasing in China for about a decade^2, whereas our point of reference, the USA, has seen its inequality steadily increase over the same time span^3. Wealth inequality is also not unexpected in a rapidly developing economy such as China: initially, as the economy grows, certain people financially benefit more than others and wealth inequality increases; over time as the economic growth stabilizes, and with a concerted effort to combat it, wealth inequality levels out and then decreases, as we see happening. Income inequality is not automatically horrible: careful attention needs to be paid to the bottom of the income rankings; comparatively, high wealth inequality is less of a problem if the bottom is not in poverty than if they are. This ties in to my next point,
This is not true at all. Wealth does not buy political power or influence within the CPC (or indeed in the Chinese government overall); nor does having power or influence in the CPC enable one to amass more wealth. Those who are wealthy work with the party, as members, to further the goals of the Party to improve everyone's lives, rather than working selfishly against the party to further their own personal goals. To paraphrase Boer[^4], "The private entrepreneurs have not become a class in itself with associated class consciousness, but many have become CPC members or non-party supporters. The social and cultural assumption is that those that have benefited from wider support must contribute to the well-being of others". That is, those who are wealthy do not get to exert outsized influence by way of being wealthy, and do not sit back and glorify their wealth, but instead work by giving back and improving the well-being of others.
The CPC is extremely developed and works for the people; large companies have branches of the party that help steer them. All enterprises (state-owned, private, or foreign) produce annual "socialist responsibility reports" which guarantee that their actions are not putting profit before the goals of the society as a whole: poverty alleviation, environmental improvement, education, and more.
Socialism (and indeed communism) is a structural form that dictates a government's (and economy's) purpose and its relation to society and its members. The goal of a socialist government is to improve the material and cultural lives of its people. To a Westerner, it seems foreign or fantastical that a country could genuinely operate with this goal in mind, and so people would rather say "it's not real socialism", or say that "because it has some problems, it's all bad", than to acknowledge that no system is perfect and as long as the system works to fix its issues and help its people, it is on the right track.
The OP has a non-nuanced and seemingly uninformed opinion on China as well,
They are not capitalist. Infrastructure spending is also not what determines whether they are capitalist, socialist, or something else. Moreover, nobody is arguing that a strong central government determines whether they are communist or not. To say that China is capitalist is a category error and falls into the trap that dictates that using aspects of a market economy automatically negates socialism and makes a system capitalist. I've written a bit more in depth on it elsewhere, but plenty of sources dive in to why China is indeed socialist and why it is faulty to see them as capitalist. Chapter 5 ("China's Socialist Market Economy and Planned Economy") from Richard Boer's book I've cited above serves as a good overview of why it is a category error to call China capitalist.
[^4]: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Boer, Roland.