Residents should have voted better. If you've got a politician who isnt making DCs pay for their utilities thats on your poor choice of politician. Its a basic thing that has been solved almost everywhere already. I dont want to go on another 'i hate farmers rant' but seriously these people kick themselves in the nuts repeatedly and then have the gall to blame people in the city who were trying to get these policies implemented.
He is liberal on a few social issues but he is ideologically opposed to liberalism. He cannot be progressive unless you're on of those people who think progressive is progressing towards an authoritarian "utopia"
China hit maximum tech dystopia a long time ago. Now they can enjoy tech because they know its already maximally invasive and there is nothing they can do.
Last time I went to China, a friend left her phone in a taxi (I guess a "didi") near a train station. She ran to the train station's police station, pestered them into looking at the recordings, got them to tell her the license plate of the car, and figure out how to call the driver. Her phone was back 20 minutes later.
If you're going to be surveilled 24/7, at least you gotta make it work for you.
> If you're going to be surveilled 24/7, at least you gotta make it work for you.
I don't get it.
There was CCTV at the station, your friend arrived in a taxi. And we're supposed to be amazed you can call up the taxi company and quote a numberplate off CCTV ?
Can be done anywhere in the world.
Would have been far more impressive story if she had arrived in a private car, dropped off by a work colleague or something.
> And we're supposed to be amazed you can call up the taxi company and quote a numberplate off CCTV
No. It was just a thing that happened to me that I thought was funny and interesting, because running to the train police station and asking them to track the didi was not something I'd ever have thought to do.
> I'm sorry my little anecdote didn't satisfy you.
It wasn't that. Its that you made a reference to the Chinese surveillance state in the same post. Your example didn't fit the evil-bogeyman narrative you were aiming for.
> Your example didn't fit the evil-bogeyman narrative you were aiming for
What in the world are you talking about. If anything, I wasn't sure if recollecting that anecdote was minimizing the harm of being surveilled constantly. The last thing I expected was being accused of an "evil-bogeyman narrative."
> Sorry if I was unclear there.
Yes, thanks for clarifying. Now I understand that this has nothing to do with me or what I wrote and is 100% projection on your part.
I don't quite understand the question. If she had had her phone, she could have called the driver using the information from the didi app, but she had no phone, so she didn't know who to call.
They can enjoy tech because people see tech improving every aspect of their lives. Nowhere in the the world have people ever seen the rate of technological progress that people in China have. Imagine going from having practically no electronics, to everyone having a cellphone, self driving cars, high speed rail across the whole country, drone delivery, and so on. Naturally, people who've seen technology dramatically improve every aspect of their lives would be optimistic that further technological progress will bring even better life.
Meanwhile, in the west, the standard of living has been eroding for the majority of the population. Technological progress is associated with layoffs, loss of agency at the workplace, and diminishing life prospects. So, it's no surprise that there is growing opposition to AI.
I can imagine it because the same thing has happened in my life time. The difference for me is that the tech isnt used to suffocate any of my human rights.
Tech in China isn't used to suffocate anybody's human rights either. In fact, more people in China see their country as being democratic than in America according to the latest Democracy Perception Index from the Alliance of Democracies Foundation.
What makes this report interesting is that the organization publishing it was started by an ex-NATO chief and claims to unite democracies, meaning Western liberal style democracies. So it can’t be accused of having some sort of anti-Western bias. Their methodology is also straightforward, where they simply ask people if they feel their government works in their interest and whether they can hold it accountable. That’s the whole ballgame, because if people don’t believe the system is democratic then it inherently lacks legitimacy no matter what the constitution says. While people will surely attack this methodology, the sheer fact that a NATO-connected group published such a report gives its claims a certain credence given how dire these results are for the Western model of democracy. France now ranks alongside Kazakhstan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe in its own citizens’ eyes while the U.S. is split down the middle with about half of Americans saying they don’t think they live in a democracy anymore. China, on the other hand, sits up there with the Scandinavians and Switzerland, and Chinese people overwhelmingly say the system works for them. Notably, we can also see that perceptions of transparency, rule of law, and free speech are on the rise across the board in China.
And before you start trying to claim that people in China are simply afraid to speak their mind, the same report shows Russia at -21 points and Belarus at -9, so that whole excuse falls apart. Turns out that people living in states the West labels as being authoritarian do, in fact, complain when they’re unhappy.
Various other western publications have reported the same thing for many years.
> Tech in China isn't used to suffocate anybody's human rights either
Explain the mass uploading of secret screen recordings in more than ten phone brands sold in China in a component called SystemHelper, disclosed in the past few days, including but not limited to Xiaomi, Samsung, OPPO.
Screeching whataboutism is what low intellect individuals do to justify applying a double standard. What Chinese companies do in China is basically the same thing that Americans do in the US and everywhere else. Yet, people claim America is a free country. So, apply the same logic to China?
If you need to be explained why companies like to harvest customer data, then what else is there to say about you.
First, work on your English before embarrassing yourself in public.
Second, work on your logic skills before embarrassing yourself in public.
Third, you still have not explained why recording phone screens and uploading the recording without telling the phone owners is not 'suffocating anybody's human rights'.
They really arent. The people capable of starting wars are invested in industry a lot bigger than military. "Wars are for profit" is something people blindly repeat but has no basis in reality.
> U.S. Oil Industry Earned over $130B in Profit During Iran War (nytimes.com)
> Trump aims to increase US military spending to $1.5 trillion by 2027
> EU member states' defence expenditure sharply increased between 2021 and 2026. In 2025, member states' defence expenditure reached €418 billion, rising for the 11th consecutive year. In 2026, it is expected to reach an estimated €454 billion. This means that defence expenditure has increased by 75.3% compared with 2021.
This is cool. Its part of an ideal version of my home setup. But god the marketing feels so off, its like its made by people who have never used a monitor or done work on a computer. The marketing makes it out to be a phone screen for your face which is such a sad vision for genuinely cool technology. Also horrible demonstration of AI do these people even use AI?
The part where he asked AI to organise his windows was almost as painful as the part where he was in a generic chase sequence of a Ubisoft slop game and asked whats the best way to catch the assassin.
Maybe you're thinking of B Corp? That's just a certification from some group. Public Benefit Corporation, on the other hand, changes directors' fiduciary responsibilities. For example, earlier this year, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that PBC directors are not obligated to maximize shareholder value when selling control of their company.
I highly recommend Eric Ries' new book Incorruptible if you want to learn more about this stuff. In there he tells the story of the Vectura Group, a pharma company that was developing treatments for asthma and other respiratory diseases. It was looking at a sale, and it had a couple offers, the one from Phillip Morris slightly edged out the other, and because of fiduciary duty, even though many involved viscerally hated the idea of going to Phillip Morris, as the cause of many of the ailments they sought to cure, they sold to them.
Of course Delaware ruled that. The same applies to all corporations. No corporation _has_ to maximize shareholder value. That Doug v ford case is not gospel.
Could you elaborate on your feelings on that? I was reading about BlueSky's PBC status literally yesterday, and am rather interested in what people's perception of such an entity is, vs a hybrid such as Wikipedia/Enterprise Wikimedia.
A public benefit corp is a 'greenwashing' term based on the meme that people think a corporation 'must maximize shareholder profits' from the Dodge v. Ford case. But its not true a corportation doesnt have to maximize shareholder profits and a PBC does have to provide any public benefit at all. There is no tangible difference between the two other than the public perception that these are different.
reply