NotPaidToPost

I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions.

By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless.

Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.

First result on Google: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Isn't this unlawful intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?

This is not civil disobedience.

Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison.

Such drone attacks are dangerous (they do put aircrafts at risk), affect thousands of people, cause millions in damage, and, simply put, are lightweight terrorism. It is quite right that the article open with a reference to the IRA attacking Heathrow airport with empty mortar rounds to shut it down. This is exactly the same thing.

And it is completely ineffective. The only result is to alienate the majority of the public.

There certainly are wrong and undemocratic ways to "participate".

Breaking the law, causing public nuisance (to say the least), putting aircrafts are risk are not acceptable.

It cannot and won't replace the current monetary model (nor is there any need to replace it) . People who spread this have something to sell.

Well if that's the best alternative to fiat money it only shows how fiat money will stay with us for a long, long time...

Many of those connected appliances can receive software updates.

They probably thought "Let's put a mic in, it costs nothing, we'll add speech recognition later when it's ready."

Maybe they do but at least WeChat have their own face recognition technology, in which case they do hold people's biometric data.

This is not that big a deal in China considering that people have photo ID card, which means that the government already had everyone's biometric data.

This has nothing to do with FaceID, which isn't mentioned in the article.

WeChat has its own face recognition system.

Obviously not.

As others have pointed out, it comes from Chinese/Taoist mythology and refers to a character. It's like if we chose a name from a character in Roman or Greek mythology.

As many such Chinese names it is not that easy to translate, and like in Roman/Greek mythology the idea is linked to what the character did.

It's exactly the same as debating whether God exists.

Not sure how that answers my question.

There is the rule of law in HK and, according to this bill, any extradition request will be examined by HK courts with the accused able to defend, in the same way as extradition requests from other countries.

Are you implying that Chinese courts will completely fabricate evidence and that HK courts will blindly rubber-stamp it?

More generally, it's not uncommon for Western countries to have extradition treaties with countries where the justice system is more than dubious, but somehow it does not seem that people are shipped over on these countries' whim.

The IMEI identifies a device. It is, or should be, useful to lock stolen phones, though it can obviously be used to track someone who keeps the same phone even if they change SIM card.

The IMSI identifies the subscriber (and/or the SIM card) even if you change phone.

As long as people are able to call and be called and as long as people need to be billed there has to be a reliable form of identification.

This is not an "intrusive privacy violation", it is, as you point out, a technical requirement of our willingness to be reachable and most people think that the benefits far outweigh the very limited drawbacks.

Hence the groupthink we see all the time... Not least on such a topic which is 'owned' by extremists who will not tolerate even a shred of non-conformity.

It's hypocrisy when mods say otherwise.

Most varieties of plants used for crops, fruits, flowers, etc. have been so heavily selected by us over thousands of years that they are completely artificial and would not survive long in the wild.

It does not mean that it isn't sustainable. Just that we are required.

It is not really a question of integration, as far as I can see.

Currently HK has extradition treaties with 18 countries, but none with Macao, Taiwan, and mainland China.

On the face of it, it is rather odd that currently someone may be extradited from HK (a territory of the PR China) to, say the US, but not to mainland China.

It is understandable that people have reservations because of the judicial system in mainland China but this should ideally be dealt with by safeguards in the proposed bill.

To me it is a bit like arguing that someone in Puerto Rico should not face extradition to the US mainland.

> This extradition law has far reaching consequences against freedoms and the rule of law that locals have had until now

Could someone explain how?

> once something is more than a few hundred years old then humans will automatically try to preserve it unless there's a good reason not to

This is a very recent development that started circa the 19th century in Europe.

Before that no-one really cared.

> The problem with explicit leadership positions is that people have no downward mobility. If you are bad, then the organization loses a great resource.

There is downward mobility if you want it.

I have seen technical people promoted to managerial positions in the 'usual' way, i.e. seniority, who ended up not liking it and not who were not very good at it, and went back to purely technical positions within the same organisation.

Nothing prevents this as long as people are sensible, talk, and don't promote battles of egos in the organisation.

Whatever we think of the mainland Chinese justice system, and there is indeed a lot to be said about it, the current situation is rather strange.

Indeed, it seems quite extraordinary that someone could not be sent from one territory of the PRC to another one to face trial.

It's not possible to protect against destruction by human beings over these timescales, irrespective of whether people remember what the artefact means.

Any such project can only use engineering to provide assurance that the result should last that long _if_ no-one destroys it.

If Hollywood can no longer do in-your-face American propaganda then the end is nigh, indeed.

Uber Eats, Deliveroo, etc. are like Uber, Lyft, etc. : Throwing massive mounts of money to 'grow' at huge losses.

It should be for your manager to introduce you to the team. Then you can add a message yourself.

Once you are the first man on the Moon they can ask you to resign for disobeying orders or even sack you if they don't mind the bad publicity at a time when NASA is showered in international glory. But you're still the first man on the moon.

The market is already crowded with Uber Eats, Deliveroo, etc.

All of the incumbents are bleeding money.

Amazon decided to invest in Deliveroo not to miss the boat but it seems sensible not to pursue their own platform.

> You can't say they're not money makers though.

Since that's what Amazon is optimised for, that's indeed a success.

What is the larger point, then?

Electricity generation does not need to burn fossil fuels.

Competition drives people to push themselves, and can therefore play a useful role in education.