>Who gets to decide what is or is not allowed to be spoken?
In America we have helpful groups like Southern Poverty Law Center which direct us to which ideas are bad speech that shouldn't be allowed. Maybe China should follow our example and privatize their speech curatorship police, then they would be more free.
I've said the same thing many many times, I can't remember the numbers but the monetization of facebook data per person (If I remember correctly from something I read a year back, I'll try to look and add it to this comment) is less than 20$!
I would be very very willing to pay for Facebook to simply not be tracked, especially at such a reasonable price. I know that won't happen, but I'd really love such a thing.
It's only so low, because those are averages. The people willing to pay the twenty bucks might be exactly the ones that drive up the average, so they don't want to lose them.
I came here to post this, too little to late. I don't know what they could realistically do to alter their public image at this point besides change their name possibly?
I am going to continue to hate them until they stop existing, and I don't think anyone or anything they do could convince me otherwise.
Honestly if they could transition to even a China-like level of openness that would be light years of improvement in my opinion. Incremental change that doesn't involve some sort of bloody revolution with lots of loss of life seems like a great option. If they were able to build themselves up to be a functioning country it would probably help in a move toward disarmament, or less war-hawking in the highest positions of government.
I was about to post this same thing. I would say I look at lainchan more than I look at HN. It is my favorite Chan board, if you are a fan of chans and functional programming it is definitely worth checking out. The functional programming threads have very distinct and regular communities that are really great to participate in. A lot of beginners and people with expertise intermixing.
The zine itself is ok, there is really not much editing of content, just whatever people submit for the most part gets placed into it to fill the space. The quality varies wildly from page to page, but recent issues have been getting better.
I switched to DDG for the privacy selling point, but once I learned about !bangs I stayed. It is so much better done than any other site. Even if I had zero concerns about privacy I would still choose it over google or bing simply because of the wealth of query features that are so easy to use! I hate how google does queries and Bing is beyond useless.
Interesting side note that is rarely mentioned, a surprisingly large amount of defectors actually defect back to DPRK. When you are enclosed in something like DPRK a lot of the time people can't handle the stress of not being in that sort of system anymore.
One thing to note, there was a study that showed that even when they are in countries with an abundance of food, their eating habits remained the same. They ate the same sized small portions that they used to in NK.
As a comment on the article, I think it would be very easy for China to transition them into a sucessful Chinese model with capitalist reforms whilst still being totalitarian. The people don't necessarily want 'freedom' as long as they are adequately taken care of, transposing western mindsets onto them and assuming that they consider things like 'freedom of speech' as necessary isn't generally helpful.
> a surprisingly large amount of defectors actually defect back to DPRK.
Do you have source for this?
A typical north korean escaping to china usually has the option of becoming a slave/wife to a chinese farmer. I would assume that was still a better option during 'arduous march' days but have things imporved that much since then ?
There are loads of sources for it, it isn't as odd as you would think, it is even listed on wikipedia with lots of nice sources. Apparently "their number is thought to be increasing." and "In one case, a double defector re-entered North Korea four times." [0]
Edit: I added the link to the nutrition study below also. [1]
I was questioning your claim of "surprisingly large" double defectors not that there are defectors. 13 out of ~1600 is not a significant number. Your second source is not relevant.
>"In one case, a double defector re-entered North Korea four times."
Constantly sneaking in back forth is a common thing from the documentaries I've watched. 1. People stealing goods and selling them back home 2. People stealing supplies to feed their family back home .
Thirteen publicly acknowledged by South Korea, and 700 missing. Most of which, if you read the cited article are thought to have defected back or attempted to.
I am a midwest Obama voter who voted for Trump. I don't like anything about him in all honestly. I voted quite literally because of Assange. I followed each leak that was dropped religiously and had a lot of fun bonding with others who searched through them on various reddit boards uncovering information.
All this is to say that generalizations like the one you made are almost never correct, and never tell the whole story. I voted for Bernie in the primary.
Acting like the subcategory I'm in doesn't exist and only furthers misunderstanding of the various complex social systems that were at play in this election creating the outcome.
This is how I see it: Post-primaries, I think Hillary was a much better candidate. However a large number of liberals chose to campaign for her by just straight up calling the other side racists, while ignoring her flaws / blaming them on Russians. (We are all flawed, just accept it and don't blame it on others, otherwise you might just come across as narcissistic). In the case this was done in a false-flag fashion, then the democrats didn't catch it / didn't do the obvious thing to combat it. I mean come on guys.
It is likely true that there 'are' lots of racist / deplorable voters however it is analogous to this: If I were fat, I would probably not like people yelling "hey fattie! / run forrest run" at me while I am out jogging trying to improve myself. In the end, although I did not vote for Trump, (and am not fat), it did kind of seem to me that Democrats / liberals during this election, came across (regardless of whether they actually are, which I strongly doubt) as the gang from globo-gym, and I can just picture an image of a White Goodman (Ben Stiller's character) calling the other side 'deplorable.'
(To Hillary's credit she seemed very apologetic during the second of the three debates)
Add to this exchanges like the one between Podesta / Assange [1] which just served to reinforce this image, and you have a recipe for the election upset which happened.
I am sure at the end of the day there will be some voters you cannot reach, but I imagine, if you just use basic human empathy, it will reach a whole lot of people.
The moral of this story, for either side, should be:
1. Don't treat the other side poorly / call them names. Instead, use reasoning about policies, compassion, and acceptance of your own flaws to win voters.
2. Be wary of possible false-flag tactics- no one has brought up evidence that this happened, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.
humans are not machines to feed variables and get out votes- use actual compassion / empathy/ and talk to people. Or maybe, smarter, don't rely solely on your super algorithm sauce - obviously data analysis will help, but it shouldn't be the whole picture.
Apparently cannot edit comments after they are made anymore within two hours (it used to be three I believe), but I was going to add a point to the analogy in the second paragraph, since I know things are easily taken incorrectly: I am not trying to make equivalent fat <-> racist (there is nothing wrong with being fat, and yes there are things wrong with being racist), the equivalence I am trying to point out is that if we attack / look down on people, for whatever reason, we are not being helpful.
I evangelically bring this up constantly in day to day life, and people just outright refuse to accept that psychology isn't rigorous. This cannot be reiterated enough, if anyone reading this is unfamiliar with the current replication crisis, please stop whatever you are doing and read up on it. It changed the way I view all social sciences.
It should have changed the way you view all sciences, period, because the replication crisis concerns biology, medicine, physics, computer science etc equally.
In fact some of the most powerful studies on the subject have been on the topic of biology.
It's so striking how people who view the "soft sciences" this way really have no understanding of science at all. It's a very American thing and it really reveals the extent to which science has been socially constructed in America to be some kind of infallible truth machine. The hard-on for infallibility is so striking -- there's something about sociality, uncertainty, nuance, luck, and fallibility that really terrifies these people on a foundational level.
>there's something about sociality, uncertainty, nuance, luck, and fallibility that really terrifies these people on a foundational level.
It's the old protestant/puritan spirit, just moved from the certainty of God to another certainty (for all the lip service to the "scientific process", it's the certainty that's valued most in science).
This is only tangentially related but I hope it provokes discussion. One thing that I don't understand is why Platonism remains extremely popular throughout Mathematics departments the world over and Finitism/Ultra-finitism is so unpopular with them. Combinatorics and Discrete topics are often very unpopular topics to work on in my experience.
Finitism in an analogous way to functional programming seems like the best way to move the field forward, but it is rarely used by Mathematicians in practice. Why on earth is this? (My understanding of mathematics is lacking, so I hope this doesn't come off as a silly comment)
I'm having a hard time understanding this comment. Are you talking about mathematics or philosophy?
I don't understand why finitism would ever be expected to lead to new mathematical insights, since it basically amounts to closing off research directions because they don't have some nebulous quality of "real-ness". I also don't see how finitism has any connection to functional programming.
Ultra-finitist logic is a perfectly rigorous field of study in its own right. I think OP is making a point that this logic and us related branches are quite understudied.
It's encouraging to note that with things like Homotopty Type Theory, we're finally starting to come to grips with Fundamentals that aren't tied to the ZFC implementation.
But ultrafinitism isn't actually interesting as a mathematical theory. As the previous poster said, its appeal lies in its "realness". Intuitionistic and linear logic are substantially more interesting.
But this was why I posed it as a question, everyone says this is somehow 'more interesting' but is that because it is actually qualitatively more interesting or are more interesting things coming out of it simply due to the fact that it is more popular quantitatively with researchers? If it is qualitatively more interesting, what about it makes it so?
I likened it to functional programming because finitism makes things interesting via its purity and restriction in an analogous way.
In America we have helpful groups like Southern Poverty Law Center which direct us to which ideas are bad speech that shouldn't be allowed. Maybe China should follow our example and privatize their speech curatorship police, then they would be more free.