There's no such thing my friend. Unless you want to count "State Capitalism", which was supposed to be a transitional phase between Capitalism and Socialism. And which China has ended up in.

But you probably mean something far simpler. In a Capitalist Democracy, the line between public and private services can be drawn in a number of places. In the US, we prefer more private to public, but in Northern Europe, the line is drawn much further on the public side. But still Capitalist Democracies. Canada, I think, is somewhere between the two.

So, there are popular misconceptions on both sides as a result. People on the right tend to see any more towards more public services as Socialism. This is incorrect, the line can move without changing systems. People on the left, perhaps as a failure of the right's rhetoric, think they want Socialism because they want more public services. This is dangerously incorrect. People who think they want Socialism when they actually just want a few more public services, end up agitating for what they don't want. Actual Socialism is entirely incompatible with Democracy. It cannot function if the People make their own economic choices, and as a result, if they make their own political choices. That's why every single Socialist nation immediately became a totalitarian dictatorship. Any totalitarian system, and Socialism very much is one, must be a dictatorship. And nobody wants to live under a dictatorship unless they think they can become the dictator.

There are what, 9-10 times more PCs out there than Macs?

I'm going to call BS on the CPU thermal numbers though. Unless Intel has managed to get it down from 100.

That's what the Iranians have been saying.

And you do know that your signature is a call for the complete genocide of the Jews, right? The slogan is a direct call to slaughter all the Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. And you're joining in.

Can't be that famous, this is the first I've heard about that particular gem of gross malfeasance from the bureaucracy.

Disagreement is not a valid reason to downvote someone. Just take a look at the list of voting options - it isn't there. Instead, try using the comment box to argue. That's the civilized way to disagree.

I find that I rather enjoy our disagreements, but I like to argue. It's a character flaw, true, but without it I'd be perfect. And just imagine how insufferable that would be.

No, I actually can't. I'm not quite long enough.

Any particular reason you brought it up?

So, foreign names sound shady to you? There's a word for that, but it seems to have slipped my mind...

You won't send your own mother pictures of her granddaughters? That's messed up.

Maybe they didn't think they wouldn't be allowed to leave? Could also be that they had family members with guns to their heads. The CCP has a track record of leveraging the safety of family members to control expats.

Oh, wait a tic, I just came across this - "However, the deal comes with a significant twist: Meta does not want any of Manus' Chinese operations, nor will the company have any Chinese ownership post-transaction. While Manus was originally based in both Beijing and Singapore, it is now officially headquartered only in Singapore." (https://www.benzinga.com/Opinion/26/01/49749491/meta-cuts-manus-free-from-china-as-regional-lender-gets-premium-bailout)

If that's the case, and Manus closed or divested its Chinese operations, then they are not in any way subject to Chinese law. Since Manus is a big-buzz AI firm, China is probably trying to keep the tech and know-how from leaving. Which it already has.

Yes, but when the company relocated outside of China, China no longer had a say in if or to whom it might be sold.

It just looks like China wants to cancel the sale of a Singaporean company to an American company, and they're willing to kidnap its two top people in order to coerce them into doing so. It could blow up into a real international ordeal, as China appears to be trying to seize an American-owned, Singapore-based company worth billions.

China refuses to play by the same rules as everyone else. We never should have let them join the game.

Can you possibly explain how those words make sense?

Or the John Finnemore's Souvenir Radio Programme sketch about a game show called "Nobody Knows".

The latter. HP/DY. I don't even know why you bothered asking, that's clearly the only useful measure here.

F-k off with this already. You aren't clever.