Startup School Beijing

Any promise of an option through a proxy subsidiary, variable interest entity for a non listed company is not legal under the republic's law.

On other hand, a right-away stock transfer is fully legit.

If they sell a part of the stock to a listing aggregation vessel, you can have a part of this vessel's share.

Though, I keep myself a kilometer away from any financial scheme in China, and advise you do the same.

Also, a western buddy of mine co-runs a VC fund. Many of the China based start-ups have western equity holders. Something is missing here.

This can't be true since you can have equity in a company. Start-up or not. An IPO may be a different thing because a regular foreigner can't hold A-Shares. If (big if) he holds a Chinese green card then even this is allowed.

Take traffic for example, it is much saner in SH and SZ because the police can actually enforce the rules, whereas in BJ you get a asense they have given up because they feel like everyone is an official or is connected to one. It is a weird city even by Chinese standards.

Existentialist Comics https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/98887750761196748...

So says Wu-Tang Clan and apparently YC.

It seems so very much. From my impression, SV people in China are not to run a new business, rather than to secure connections. See, they did not pair with a university with a genuine tech cred, nor they hold this school anywhere close to a tech hub, but in Beijing, and a university that is second after the central committee party school. The list of invited people I've heard also suggest that.

It's interesting though how people develop such warped perceptions of the world. It's exactly how the greatest disaster of the 21st century, the absolutely unprovoked and absolutely senseless American invasion of Iraq which killed a million people and directly led to the rise of Isis and even more extreme suffering, come to pass. And so what you have here is a bunch of silly people, few of which have likely even been to China let alone done any serious investigation of Chinese culture or politics, utterly trapped in a paranoid fantasy in which -- believe it or not -- China is the aggressor coming for their markets. Nevermind the US's military bases all over the world or the TPP, an initiative started by the US with the explicit goal of denying and containing Chinese expansion.

This sort of delusion is just breath taking. I guess all one can do is hope it doesn't lead to war but I strongly suspect it is. Americans will never face reality as this thread shows. They will gladly and firmly embrace the delusion and blame all their problems on somebody else even if it leads to absolute catastrophe. Absolutely nothing has changed since the Iraq War.

China has 1.3 billion people to take care of. This is not a joke. Let them manage and make the transition their way without sanctimonious judgement from others.

The USA is effectively two party state with both parties propping up oligarchies and special interests with a media who have long ceased to function as a free and independent press and have reduced themselves to mouthpieces for entrenched interests.

The ability to stand on a street and criticize your leader is not the only sign of democracy, the ability to effect change and have a government responsive to peoples needs is. Studies have shown and people can see how the US political establishment are far more responsive to special interests and the rich than the general public. So what is democracy?

Perhaps things are not simplistic or black and white, and continuing to affect a moral high ground inspite of alarming deterioration betrays not only a lack of fundamental concern for any articulated values but also its abuse as a mere political tool to beat others with without any context of global history and world affairs.

individual liberty such as those mass shootings protected by the constitution?

if you do believe there is real democracy in your country, maybe you can talk to your democratically elected local representatives and make some _real changes_ in that aspect first? talk is cheap, show me your democracy.

As much as I give Snowden credit for exposing what can be dangerous autocratic programs, I also must point out that Snowden was not just some random protester. Snowden violated a government secrecy oath that he signed, which is a crime and this fact is printed rather boldly on the contract. Nobody forces you to sign these oaths. You can always say "I'm sorry, I can't sign this, I quit" and walk out and get another job.

That's part of what "the rule of law" actually means. In a nation with the rule of law, the law applies objectively to everyone: crooks, politicians, and yes even do-gooders. If the law is wrong you can vote for representatives to change it, but until then what's written is the law. If the law says it's illegal to hop on a pogo stick, then anyone hopping on a pogo stick gets arrested even if they're on their way to feed starving orphans.

(Secret courts are another matter, and I think those are un-American and should be shut down. But they are used far less in America than in China, and when they are used and the fact becomes known there's generally quite an uproar.)

Also-- personally I find the NSA and CIA less alarming than Facebook and Google. Three-letter agencies operate with at least some democratic oversight and the intel they gather does tend to be used primarily for legitimate intelligence and national security purposes. Unfortunately we do not live on planet fluffy bunny hugs and we need an intelligence service and a military. Facebook and Google operate with zero oversight whatsoever and sell their surveillance services to the highest bidder. Private surveillance operations are completely lawless.

Speaking of misbehavior Iraq, Libya and Syria have been destroyed, hundreds of thousands killed and the countries set back decades if not centuries on completely made up premises. This is not just misbehavior, these are crimes against humanity that are happening right now. Yet some seem more concerned about Tienanmen square.

OK, I think you assume there is no case of Chinese men and non-Chinese women marriage, or same-gender marriage.

That appears rather subtle but offensive bias.

You do?

> Can't say much against it.

You could say it's a poor prediction and explain why. For example, it isn't exactly an inevitability, even though it seems fairly plausible.

This is how Americans justify destroying three countries (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) and millions of lives.

The Katy Perry article says there was no official reason given or confirmation but:

>But the Global Times, a state-run tabloid, chimed in, saying that if it was true "they had brought it on themselves".

It further references that Katy Perry wore a flower dress, an Anti-China symbol, while giving a concert in Taiwan, and that she "draped Taiwan's flag at the concert. It caused a backlash in China, with many accusing her of supporting Taiwanese independence."

This kind of counts as activist activity and most importantly it did not happen abroad, but in China or Taiwan.

The second article says:

>“I asked them, ‘What’s the reason?’,” Hugh said. “Their answer was pretty diplomatic, they said, ‘You should know’.”

and it says:

>Hugh is the head of the Australian Values Alliance, a loose coalition of Chinese-Australians who promote “democracy and freedom” and are critical of Beijing’s policies. Last week he was prominently involved in the Sydney book launch of Prof Clive Hamilton’s book Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia, which details covert, state-sponsored or co-ordinated operations to exert Chinese Communist party influence in Australia.

You might have missed an edit I made to my reply to you within a couple of minutes of when I wrote it, in which I remembered that people engaged in public or journalistic type things are held to a different standard (more likely to be refused entry.)

So as far as I personally am concerned, I think if I did something with a lot of visibility I would have to watch what I say and do, especially if I was literally doing something that would be considered activism.

Do you think I should edit my original reply to you to remove the sentence "But that doesn't mean you can't have ever touched a gun, cocaine, or heroin in your life, it's not retroactive. To prove my case, let me say that Taiwan is an independent country, Tibet doesn't belong to China, and, hmmmm what else don't they like. Oh Xi is a dictator for wanting to be President for life."? Will this off-hand remark which has next to no audience, and made outside of China, cause me to be refused a visa in the future for no real reason?

I am talking about a practical level here. I've gotten feedback from a lot of people since obviously this is a different standard than I'm used to living in the free world.

I'd remove the part of my comment I just quoted if it'll get me banned from entering China. (I don't think it would.) What do you think?

Your description of how we moderate HN isn't really accurate. When a story is nothing but partisan politics, we may kill the thread—though more often users flag it first—but those are just the easy cases. The difficult cases are when a story is both on topic for HN, like this one, but also has overlap into intensely political areas, like this one. Then our job becomes more fine-grained, trying to support thoughtful, specific discussion and dampen generic flamewars.