Still responding 3 days later, my comments must have cut deep lol. I replied to PyroNeurosis cause I actually cared for their reply, and then moved on to other discussions on this platform more meaningful than your retorts.
Fair point that it hasn't been rescinded, but I'm struggling to find any convictions based on this law or citations of this law ever being used in court, so it really does not seem relevant nowadays. If anyone can dig up any and reference them here, I'll gladly edit this comment to reflect that information.
There are laws from 1700s that haven't been rescinded but also bear no relevance to the modern day. California just changed old legal language stating that marriage was defined as being between a man and woman, but gay marriage has been legal for a long time now.
It probably won't make a difference for you, but if you worked in a government facility and they're spying on you, obtaining credentials, obtaining information on infrastructure in the energy sector, government facilities, etc., getting network credentials, getting floorplans, getting times where a changing of the guard occurs, etc. - any foreign entity can use that info to tear a country down from the inside and kick off a full scale war.
Local government isn't going to self-saborage with that information. Yeah, spying on the citizens is awful and we should avoid any apps/devices that do that too, but that's not as bad as war unless it gets so bad that it gets to a point of civil war which seems unlikely.
I remember some guys in high school altered the wikipedia page for the high school or principal or something and it was up in its altered hilarious state for a few days before it got reverted. I always think about that when reading Wikipedia pages. I might be reading a Wikipedia page during a window where the information is maybe disingenuous. Always good to be on your toes.
I've heard from a few people that there are people that edit a lot of articles with a lot of bias and have been getting away with it. It'd be interesting for a journalist to really go into it.
Didn't make a claim, just expressed my doubts of the data. Data gets parroted from one "source" to another without proper investigation into the original source of data. I don't have all the time in the world like all those on here to dive into all the articles discussing it, I'm not an investigative journalist, but how's this for confirming my doubts:
"However, the people of China can afford to buy these extremely expensive properties. In fact, 90% of families in the country own their home, giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. On top of this, north of 20% of urban households own more than one home, according to Nomura." Source
Does having money owed on a house mean that they own the home? No. 80% of families own their homes. The rest of the articles bring up data point after data point that makes the claim hard to believe and goes into explaining why the home ownership is so high.
I'm allowed to express opinions based on gut feelings without having to waste my lunch hour digging up sources to back it up, and no, it's not based on any "western-supremacist biases", just seeing how the numbers don't seem to add up. It still feels high honestly with other data points brought up in that article, like how high the average house costs versus the wages in that area, but whatever, I'm out of time before I have to go back to work.
I thoroughly enjoyed your in-depth analysis and learned a few things. I think we need to understand how to spot if something was written by AI or not, and this is very helpful for that.
I'll have to check that out. Looks like it got moved to lemm.ee