Ha, you can say that in China too (about the US president lol).

True. But it's important to note that it is likely that, given the requirements of creating large, functioning systems of administration, it might be true that all governing systems are trying to solve the same types of problems.

And it's worth remembering that, even in the US there exist examples of people who pushed for real change to these systems, and ended up detained, dead or simply disappeared.

It might also be worthwhile to consider the following well known allegations: revolving door appointments between bureaucracy and companies that it interfaces with and regulates; compromise of politicians by various interest groups using bribery or blackmail; the effects of corporate lobbying and donations to distort the legislative and electoral processes; the powers of unelected career bureaucrats whose tenures often outlast elected officials.

It's important to recall that the US is not alone is allegedly suffering from these maladies, but that it might suffer from them ought be a cause for concern.

Such considerations seem to raise the question of whether the president (and associated democratic and elected apparatuses) are in some way figureheads designed to provide a focus and an outlet, but may also function to protect the overall system against substantial reforms.

Such a description may help explain why processes in democracies often stagnate.

The is not to say that the Chinese system is "better" in any sense (our first consideration indicates that perhaps all large governing systems must essentially be the same), but it might be more honest about what it is.

This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it.

Of course, the flipside is, without such less disruptive avenues, people are then without peaceful recourse. This means that in the Chinese system, the government knows it faces the threat of revolution, which, while it could be thought to function as a kind of guidance of, or check-and-balance on, its power, is also responded to by the system itself becoming more draconian and authoritarian, in order to protect itself, if that makes sense?

So in the US, the system protects itself with what may be described as a generally more peaceful and free society, with what be a somewhat deceptive democracy (of course more authoritarian exceptions are occasionally made to neutralize true rabble rousers), whereas in China, the system protects itself more overtly, with a generally more authoritarian and restrictive society, which is more open about what it is.

The point of this comparison is to foster more mutual understanding and less false-differences that fuel unnecessary divisions and distort discussions with fallacies, in an attempt to try to guide discussions along more productive directions, based on realities.

Half seriously, what's the difference between your career ruined via social credit being wiped by government or your career ruined via social credit being wiped on Twitter?

So I guess the op was right, why does the rest of the world use American standards, since we can't choose your president either

(I don't actually believe that we shouldn't use NIST standards, but my point is that's a pretty weak argument for non Americans. )

The Enigma machine was probably the weakest of its kind of machines. It had a critical security flaw in that it could never encipher a letter to itself, and most of its security came from the IV settings, which were communicated in such poor fashion that the Poles cracked it long before WW2 even started.

By contrast, the US and British rotor machines were never cracked by the Axis powers in WW2, and the other two German rotor ciphers were less thoroughly cracked by the Allies.

Right, I guess I'm asking why anyone puts up with the idea of a state standard to begin with when it only benefits the state.

Yeah, As someone who grew up in one Scandinavian country and currently lives in another, I wouldn't trust a Scandinavian country to not roll over and be a US lapdog when push comes to shove.