I mean every country has their epstein. western media likes to pick the chinese ones cause they make a good china bad story.
Hundreds of chinese like myself travel from and to china each year, I'm surprised it's hard for you to imagine regular chinese people can enjoy life in china.
Thats also fine, especially if priced drop more. But even in a sane economy I would expect most would get raises as they work faster and better, even as prices fall.
i disagree, there's absolute nothing preventing an ordinary Chinese from taking a exam and become someone that actually has influence over domestic policies. Elections aren't the only ways a legitimate government can be formed.
The world has only gone downhill ever since medieval, centralised power structures disintegrated right? Are you following what you preach, and living in a non-democratic country?
You wouldn't be able to make any real policy changes unless you made it all the way up into to the 25-member Politburu (or maybe even its 7-member Standing Committee) [1]. All the other ~90 million CCP members are tasked with implementing the policies made there.
You might be able to become a social policy research professor or something, or where you study Communist/Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Jinpingist/etc thought and try to develop new applications of it to the modern world. But you won't get to change anything from the Politburu, and could lose your career or worse if you try.
Correct that you have to climb up. But isn't it fine that the Chinese have a different philosophy on governance? They don't want just anyone to be able to make nationwide changes on a whim. They want leaders to prove themselves first by working for 30 years. This is meritocracy. They see the possibility of someone like Trump getting elected, as a huge risk. I think we should allow earth to have diversity in governance systems.
Have you read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I mean Sherlock Holmes.
I become fan of these books unfortunately after phenomenal Russian series (unfortunately, because Vasily Livanov, who played Holmes, in last years become involved in Russian politics, and was supporter of Putin course, even when all respectable intelligent people began to criticize).
So, Sir Arthur, said by mouth of his heroes - if you see something, which could not explain by common sense, that is - you just have opportunity, to see another or NEW reality.
In this new reality, Russia is small country, which have not enough resources to compete with big players, but Russia have huge ambitions.
So what it have to do? - It switches to espionage, to propaganda, to support terrorists.
What it got with such activities? - It make active interference for Western policies, and like child, happy that so small, but have success breaking activities of adults.
Sure, my version is not accurate, but reality is cruel - just cup days after US left Afghanistan, Russian authorities said on official channels, that they will try to find common language to speak with Taliban leaders.
You may ask, where is China in this equation?
Ok, are you really sure, that Russian have not speak about this with Chinese authorities before such statement?
- Look on map, where is China, where is Afghanistan.
- Look in wikipedia, compare sizes of economy and military of Russia and China.
- Look for Russia-China economy relations in news, look who pay and how much.
Are you still sure, Russia could make independent from China statements in such circumstances?
Before Russian annexation, Crimea where part of Ukraine, but they have large level of autonomy, they could make their regulations on languages, on culture.
Sure, Crimea authorities have to consider, that unlike Nazi Russia, Ukraine is really multinational country, so Crimea have to build Ukrainian language schools, and Crimean Tatar language schools, not only Russian language schools.
Very similar thing could happen with Taiwan. - Now it have autonomy, but China authorities want to assimilate Taiwan, to make it much more Chinese and much less Western.
Before China assimilated Tibet, and also China make bad things in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and adequate people don't want for these things to spread to Taiwan.
The message I get is that if you are a founder's friend, it's not your job to do the heavy criticism. He will get criticism all around the entire day anyway, you don't want to add into it.
But I bet there are reasonable exceptions everywhere. It's way too complex an issue to have such a simple answer.
> if you are a founder's friend, it's not your job to do the heavy criticism
What will your product do that Google doesn't and why can't (aren't) they do(ing) it isn't heavy criticism. It's reality checking.
The article posits questions asked in bad faith. ("You, for some reason, do not really believe in his idea. You, with some self-righteous zeal, also want to save your friend from some tragic failure.") The questions aren't the problem. The motivations of the person asking them are.
The takeaway isn't "don't ask founders existential questions." It's don't surround yourself with "friends" who don't believe in you, won't tell you that to your face and whose conversation consists of backhanded criticism.
