I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

They don't need AI for that. Teams - and pretty much all Microsoft products - are honeypots designed to collect data.

Well, no so much "honeypots" in the case of products that employees are forced to use at their workplace: they're no honey needed to attract them and get them to give Microsoft data. If you disagree with Microsoft's privacy invasion, you lose your job.

That's the genius of Microsoft's particular brand of invasiveness: instead of convincing individual people their products are good enough to relinquish their privacy for (Facebook), or convincing a large part of the internet to let them sneak in their trackers (Google), Microsoft convinced the bean counters at most companies to install their spyware and ram it down the throats of people who need to make a living. Disgusting...

Anyway, the AI thing is just the turd on top of the shit cake.

What's gonna stop obesity among Americans isn't permanent standard time. It really, REALLY isn't that.

A good start would be making healthy food that isn't 1,000,000 calories per pound, and not made of fat and sugar mixed in unknown chemicals affordable. And taxing the living shit out of junk food. And getting people to stop eating supertanker-sized servings.

Typical AI shill answer (and the word "agentic" in the sentence is a dead giveaway too).

Wrong logic: a person's job should be gone if your "agentic" thing does the job cheaper AND at least as well.

As always, AI shills conveniently forget to factor in the quality of the work produced.

The reality of AI is, while it might be cheaper than real workers, it also enshittifies the entire world. And that's a fact.

Does it work without a Facebook account and 24/7 creepy corporate surveillance?

Oh...

The issue is: how many people did AI displace?

Hmm no: I trust a coal miner to produce better code than an AI vibe coder.

is right: it's going nowhere.

Adapters are your friend. Undo that knot in your pants.

Not too long. It's defense in depth; it's not meant to be outright impenetrable, just very (very) hard to get through.

Someone with enough drive, enough time, and enough resources will eventually put together an exploit chain that doesn't require an invalid tagged memory access. But if that raises the manpower requirement by 10-fold (to pull a number out of my ass), then it makes it that much more expensive to attack a phone. At some point, the Apple juice won't be worth the squeeze.

I want to hire you as prompt engineer! - Sorry I meant types-question guy.

I did it as a teenager and I'm close to retirement.

There's even a movie about it from that time period.

I live near the arctic circle and this is common knowledge.

Class 1 and 2 e-bikes limit assist to 20 mph, not 15. You can ride them faster than that, but you have to provide the power. 20 mph is well above what most recreational cyclists can maintain on a flat course, so if these classes arenâ(TM)t fast enough to be safe, neither is a regular bike. The performance is well within what is possible for a fit cyclist for short times , so their performance envelope is suitable for sharing bike and mixed use infrastructure like rail trails.

Class 3 bikes can assist riders to 28 mph. This is elite rider territory. There is no regulatory requirement ti equip the bike to handle those speeds safely, eg hydraulic brakes with adequate size rotors. E-bikes in this class are far more likely to pose injury risks to others. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat them as mopeds, requiring a drivers license for example.