duguxu

Another classical, interesting but evil example:

工信处女干事每月经过下属科室都要亲口交代24口交换机等技术性器件的安装工作

Literal translation of each character one by one:

工(industry)信(information)处(place)女(female)干(do)事(thing)每(every)月(month)经(through)过(pass)下(below)属(obey)科(division)室(room)都(always)要(would)亲(oneself)口(mouth)交(deliver/intersect)代(replace)24(24)口(mouth)交(deliver)换(exchange)机(machine)等(etc)技(ability)术(technique)性(nature/gender)器(device/organ)件(piece)的(of)安(install)装(costume)工(work)作(job)

Correct segmentation:

工信处(ministry of industry and information)女(female)干事(secretary)每月(every month)经过(pass by)下属(subordinate)科室(department)都要(would always)亲口(from her own lips)交代(arrange)24口交换机(24-port switch)等(etc)技术性(technological)器件(device)的(of)安装(installation)工作(work)

Every month when the female secretary of the ministry of industry and information passes by the subordinate department, she would always arrange in person the installation work of the 24-port switch and other technological devices.

Vulgar segmentation:

工信 处女(indoor female=virgin) 干事每 月经(month through=menstruation) 过下属科室都要亲 口交(mouth intersect=oral sex) 代24 口交(oral sex) 换机等技术 性器(sex organ=genital) 件的安装工作

Obviously google translation passed the test!

Some prequel of the "initiation" https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%E6%96%B0%E7%96%86%E7...

Why are you confident about Chinese? Do you have any evidence directly from mainland Chinese to support your arguments, or only speculations?

It's definitely worth $100 billion today if it will be "worth" (valued) $200 billion tomorrow.

I couldn't give concrete evidence to support nor oppose your arguments since I'm not a sociologist by any means. For any reasoning I could think up, or just observation I have to say, you might always find much more "another factors". How I wish you could speak a little Chinese so that you can investigate each pro-China account with social engineering and provide more proof on your conjecture.

However, I would like to translate a comment from that Weibo link (feel free to call it propaganda):

多个英文媒体对这次封号问题的报道反映出了西方社会及媒体对中国近几年来民意变化状态不了解的事实，也反映出了他们对中国民间广泛接受反分裂和支持政府价值观这一现象的不理解。依据他们的理论，共产主义国家的平民必然是反共的，当事实与他们深信不疑的理论相左时，他们选择发明事实来修正理论。

The coverage of this blocking issue by several English-language media reflects the fact that Western society and the media do not understand China's public opinion changes in recent years, and it also reflects their failure to understand the widespread acceptance of anti-secession and support for government values. According to their theory, the civilians in the communist countries must be anti-communist. When the facts are contrary to their belief in the theory, they choose to invent the facts to correct the theory.

And another comment:

we know them well, they know nothing about us.

But all in all, I can't make 100% sure they are not bots/brainwashed/part of the operation/mindless repetition... Any help to know the truth better instead of just speculations would be appreciated.

In the comments of the link in my original posts, besides condemning western hypocrisy, there are also a lot of people criticizing the firewall and information control. People express different opinions. I think it's hard to describe how they look in a few words.

Just some personal observations, maybe relevant to recent misinformation topics, or maybe not.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. are all blocked in mainland China. Many people, especially those young and well-educated, use VPN to access them, have an account and follow world news and foreign celebrities sometimes.

There are popular and feature-rich counterparts in mainland, and most people prefer to have their daily sharing and discussion (including domestic politics) there instead of on social media based in US. Therefore most of the time, their accounts on Facebook or Twitter are mainly for reading rather than sharing and posting.

However, they might comment (register a new account if needed) on topics conveying a message related to China they strongly disagree (you could argue they are brainwashed), in a short period and coordinated way (they read repost from the same domestic website), through a few common IP addresses (the same VPN), with bad-written English (seldom practice writing before). But they are not bots and it's inappropriate to label these as the typical state-run misinformation campaign.

If you speak Chinese, you could find many discussions where ordinary people complain their accounts get blocked because of pro-China comments. e.g. https://weibo.com/1401527553/I32ryx2cu

Of course, these observations aren't necessarily contradictory with recent reports blaming China propaganda. I just want to show how some false positivity could happen, since there's some difference of the behaviour of China's users. Maybe a better algorithm is needed to distinguish them from government-backed activities.

Sorry for my bad English! I will try my best to explain everything you don't understand although I can't promise I could make it. First of all, I have been concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda. Whether you like or not, these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted. Please pay attention to tell apart the discussion of tactics of propaganda from my personal political view.

It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

Read the first image of https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

Read the Young plan.

Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I literally don't understand what you're saying.

Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy, abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.

But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour.

I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their heart is good, that's all.

From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and push Britain's policy.

OK, so you accept it but reject it.

I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.

The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.

I still don't

Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.

would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.

My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html

it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.

Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't?

I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.

It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.

Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts. That's my core point.

They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?

I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.

a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability

Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.

Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing

Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.

Some opinions of mine. Any criticism is welcome:

A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".

I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.

Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.

As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s. There were also multiple bloody riots crushed in the colonial history. It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.

Lastly, truth is powerful enough. There is no need to exaggerate the numbers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is a political movement aiming at winning more support and allies from people of mainland China, and hence putting more pressure on the government. My comment just points out there are some negative factors for current organizers. They could have done better.

Information freedom is politically correct, but that doesn't mean tactics or investigation isn't important before conveying information to certain group of people to achieve a political goal practically.

Btw, CCP puts great stress on these two peculiar notions. Propaganda appears far more than restriction and misinformation.

Most protesters never try to investigate the real thoughts of ordinary mainland people, who are just regarded as a stereotype of ignorance, impoliteness, nouveau riche, and pathetically waiting to be enlightened. Protesters know mainland people as little as, if not less than, ordinary mainland people know them. This is not a big deal in daily life, but could severely diminish the effect of the propaganda towards mainland visitors.

I am not saying that C++ is the answer for large-scale productivity software, but C++ is the answer for the complicated widgets used there. I would prefer Rust for the main framework of photoshop too, but I am not sure whether there is an elegant way writing the canvas widget.

I agree with you. From my point of view, the advantage of C/C++ for UI is not about high level logic, but complicated custom widget with lots of low level functions and good performance. C/C++ is not good for a weather app, but almost the only choice for the canvas of Photoshop or the waveform of Audition, and it seems like no one else considers seriously challenging this. I am confident that given enough time, Rust will be adopted for social app or game GUI. But I don’t know if this would prevent Rust from writing practical large productivity software.

I feel like that CAAC had the least to lose and the most to gain by grounding the 737 MAX.

China has 96 737MAX8 then, more than any other country. They have both the most to lose and gain.

Them being proactive is really only because of politics.

Do you think perhaps them being proactive could have a small little tiny bit chance of caring about safety, or only because of politics?

Totally. That would mean CAAC is even more independent than FAA.

Maybe.

Notice at the same time, not only the manufacturer, but also the authority CAAC, the China counterpart of FAA, is behaving more and more independently, as the first regulatory agency to ground 737MAX.

I have kept an eye on this for a long time. Is there any design pattern with Rust style (no unsafe and not ugly from Rust community's perspective) that proved in prototype to be able to achieve the same scaling of performance and memory usage as native C/C++ GUI framework with more complicated interface (e.g. Office)? Could this be an inherent limit of Rust because of the memory safety principle?

Russia and China have few influence in the global commercial jet market, although they are much more competitive in military aircraft.

I am not a native English speaker. I know the insulting meaning of "cunt" but not "gimp". I think this is the case for most people around me. That's the difference. You are trying to mix two different levels. I am not defending "GIMP is a fine name" since my English is not good enough. My reply just provides an evidence that your example might not be very appropriate here.

I agree that statistics can help a lot in experiments and should be a part of standard education. My point here is, when physicists encounter uncertainty, they are encouraged more by the current culture to design a better experiment with deterministic theory to reduce the error, compared to analysing the results statistically. It would be better to have both, but it's not as bad as you might think for focusing more on the former one, at least for some fields I'm familiar with.

I agree with you but IMO, this could be a good thing sometimes. Avoiding statistics to some extent requires more deterministic experiments, where statistics are limited to quantum uncertainty or gaussian distribution. Otherwise there is probably some unknown mechanism to be revealed, and that’s exactly what the community expects physicists to do.

Uniting China has been the core political ideology for all major China dynasties across history, the same for CPC too. Let alone overthrowing the colonialism and getting independence is widely regarded as one of the greatest achievement and gives the legality of its governance.The resource deployed is chicken feed compared to the political crisis losing SARs.

Your argument is not falsifiable then: If a citizen says something bad about the totalitarian government—he is true and the government is that evil; if something not that bad—he is oppressed and fearful so this is untrue and the government is that evil. I don’t mean totalitarian government isn’t evil at all, but this way of thinking would keep leading you to confusing opinions like “why hasn’t this government collapsed” or “we would be appreciated by most people if we overthrow their government” etc.

I don’t know if i’m correct on this. but i think members of the libra have the power to manipulate exchange rate more or less, although they might choose not to use it. Also, upgrading cryptocurrency with improper algorithm or parameters could influence the market, targeting certain countries for instance.

There are decisions in cryptocurrency. and they are “democratically” made in the computing power sense, which means, as a less computationally powerful country, it might lose policy independence in the global voting.

For gold, there would be much less space for policies, both good and bad, and hence less benefits and problems at the same time. I think that’s one of the reasons why it’s not widely adopted anymore.

People living in these country here. Thank you for pointing out these concerns. Besides currency manipulation, another issue with cryptocurrency is about responsibility and accountability. For traditional central bank, before a greedy bad policy made, local governors must carefully think about the aftermath like unrest and they might be held for account and get punished. In the worst scenario, people keep the choice to overthrow old bureaucracy to change the policy by force. But this is not the case for cryptocurrency. There might be no one punished for terribly wrong decision, just because the public have no idea who the decision maker is, or he/she is in another country and escapes the rule of law. Just like 1997 financial crisis for southeast asian people.