considering only ~15% of the population are immigrants this isn't looking good for them, there has also been documented a constant bias from the government to undercount immigrant related crimes.
It honestly escapes me why you would judge the juxtaposition between everyday life of everyday people and a very specialised minority as snarky or curmudgeonly. Was there too much emotional impact?
There are so many comments on HN that would justify your attention with regard to this specific rule. This is not one of them.
The point of that legislation was to give him more ability to strong arm other countries in trade negotiations. It was never about Russia, just about his own power.
As an Indian the hypocrisy is mind-bending, and didn’t begin with Trump. This is just the latest, most transparent example.
India is pressured constantly for making inconvenient decisions in our national interest, when that is the only way the US has ever operated historically.
It's someone who isn't culturally Chinese commenting on Chinese culture to a non-Chinese audience with the framing of solving the problem of proselytizing "Rationalism" to Chinese culture.
This.
A person raised in the US since age 4 and citing internet sites like the Chinese equivalent to
RoyalRoad and Twitter as generalised examples of Chinese culture, nationalism and rejection of empathy should not in any way be taken seriously. Proselytising only enhances the disqualification, as does his endorsement of a complete misinterpretation of the Three Body Problem. There was a lot of xenophobia going on in that book and the positive characters were all Chinese.
Because Iran is a member of BRICS and BRICS establishes its own payment system as an alternative to SWIFT: https://observerdiplomat.com/brics-officially-announces-fina... on top of which they have digital payment systems with globally the most users - all of that bypassing US banks, so that the US no longer has a means to control/sanction trade and payments.
TL;DR the world is leaving the premises where the US unilaterally decides which population should starve.
You say that, but then when you look around in reality it's not true. Nobody is using an alternative payment system, nor does it have the most users. Even if it did, having the most users isn't the same as having the most money.
> TL;DR the world is leaving the premises where the US unilaterally decides which population should starve.
They're not. The US doesn't unilaterally decide to starve a population. Dream on.
The Chinese government does not concern itself with American AI, they have just reached an agreement with the BRICS members:
the BRICS countries have been developing initiatives focused on the ethical governance of this technology, joint industrial development, and the formation of independent technological alliances.
you will face criminal and financial penalties for damages caused.
No you won't. The US president, yesterday:
U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday likened critics of artificial intelligence to "very negative forces" bringing up scenarios that will not happen, and said he wanted to make sure that the U.S. remains the industry leader.
"We're leading China in AI. We're the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins," Trump told reporters at his Ireland golf course, when asked if the AI industry should slow down or be more regulated.
reply