Always found it weird to see governments paying for PR consultants.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.
But you're right in that it feels slimey when governments hire out PR to dress up problems instead of solving problems.
Since it's an executable like that, this would also allow you to put it in /usr/local/bin (or wherever you keep bins) and call it from anywhere in your shell with 'taoup'
(my technical wording may be off)
"Film stock is very important. we have the finest propaganda offices. The people must learn how well I govern them. How would they know if we didn't tell them?"
he means it sarcastically, but propaganda is important to keep useful people on the planet and to win the general populace over. Leto knows he's backed into a corner on Arrakis and he's focusing on what he can.
I also could only find the part i posted originally online, its not one of the more frequent quotes from the book.
Unless you don't want to fund the economy of Hong Kong through tourism because you disagree with politics of its government and China. In which case, fair enough, really. I'm avoiding pro-China companies as much as possible myself. Although obviously the necessities of living do get a little in the way of that.
The protesters are now a minority and extreme to the point any win ends up "not enough", I for one am seeing it as a milestone for China's shift toward democracy.
Visit or don't, but HK has a unique history, from its troubled beginning as a british colony to its difficult chinese integration. We prefer to slowly build it compromise by compromise rather than shun any sign of progress in the name of absolutism.
Or is we didn't slaughter or own people for speaking their mind this time what you mean?
This statement makes me really curious to understand your point of view: From your perspective, is this what HK people in general (not just the protesters) want? When you say progress, progress for whom, and toward what end? What is the goal of integrating HK into China, or what is the expected benefit for the Chinese people and for Hong Kong people? I am not from China or HK, so I don't really have a great understanding of what people in either place think.
It seems like the point of this particular exercise wasn't to convince citizens of anything, but rather to convince people that want to do business in HK that it is still a good idea. This definitely seems premature to the point of being stupid and massively tone-deaf, but does not seem especially ill-intentioned.
> Always found it weird to see governments paying for PR consultants.
And that is what I'm responding to.
Edit: Side note, I remember a slashdot thread from a while back that mentioned the "Word of Mouth Marketing Association", and someone was like, "um, what? Isn't the whole point of word-of-mouth marketing that it's not organized by some committee, top-down?"
This isn't true. Most people in the US, for instance, never have to deal with the justice system. They have no idea whether it sucks or not, and their opinions are largely shaped by both positive and negative PR.
> According to the brief, published in the PR industry paper The Holmes Report, the government wanted a firm to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
Some amount of PR is IMHO also appropriate internally to inform people about things that are happening/available if they aren't otherwise well-known.
I mean if you where a visited in the past with first hand knowledge that decided not to come back, then PR is not going to have an impact.
Potential customer’s is generally referred to a Lead specifically to make this distinction.
I would consider it null already, given that the parent described their situation very explicitly, and it is clear as day that the situation implied "potential" in "customer".
Though, if they said potential customer that would not be a rebuttal of dsfyu404ed.
Hong Kong is a special case as they're not a separate country, so China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs handles all their diplomacy for them (for better and for worse).
There was an article here on HN about Singapore a few days ago and I was relieved to see that not everyone in the comments is buying it.
In a democracy, sure.
In a dictatorship, you give them tax money because they said so, and they’ll do whatever the hell they want with it, because they aren’t accountable to you in any way.
Singapore and HK, for example, have very low taxes.
There wouldn't be any fighting if companies would stop acting against their employees best interests.