Your argument contains several claims that are not supported by the historical evidence.

There was a violent crackdown in Beijing in June 1989. This is documented by eyewitnesses, journalists who were present, diplomats, hospital workers, declassified government documents from multiple countries, and later research. While the exact death toll is disputed, there is broad agreement among historians that hundreds, and possibly more than a thousand, people were killed when the Chinese military used live ammunition and armored vehicles to clear protesters and bystanders.

The protests did not begin as a violent uprising. They started as largely peaceful demonstrations calling for political reform, freedom of speech, government accountability, and action against corruption. In the final hours, some protesters and residents did fight back by throwing rocks, setting military vehicles on fire, and attacking soldiers after troops advanced into the city. That does not change the fact that the military used overwhelming lethal force against civilians.

There is no credible evidence that the Chinese government deliberately recruited ethnic minorities because they "hate Han Chinese." The People's Liberation Army is a national military whose units are drawn from across China. Claims that the crackdown relied on ethnic groups chosen because they were hostile to Han Chinese are not supported by credible historical sources.

The claim about mandatory two-year programs for all ethnic groups is inaccurate. China has implemented various education, labor, and relocation policies affecting different ethnic minorities, especially Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but these policies were not introduced as a response to Tiananmen Square. Researchers generally view those policies as part of the Chinese government's broader strategy of political control and assimilation rather than a measure to prevent another Tiananmen.

Finally, dismissing the Tiananmen Square crackdown by comparing it to other events doesn't address the historical record. Serious discussions should rely on evidence from contemporaneous reporting, archival documents, eyewitness testimony, and academic research, not egotistical, unsupported assertions from the Chinese Communist Party point of view.

Ok, you're a Chinese shill. Tell me, what's your official stance on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre? Got any opinions on that? What to talk in depth about it? Or, are you mysteriously going to go silent now that I mentioned it?

I'm betting you go silent. That's because China isn't a free society. You're not allowed to talk about it.

Xi Jinping, as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and President of China, holds ultimate power as paramount leader. His authoritarian rule is a dictatorship due to his unchecked authority.

Oh my god, this is laugh out loud funny. There's a reason there's "basically no violent crime." It's a communist dictatorship. Dictators love to highlight the law and order in their countries. That's what you promote when people have no freedom.

If you think America is unwelcoming to foreigners, then you're living a completely sheltered life. Trump and MAGA are a temporary problem that will disappear in 2 years. America is still the most welcoming country in the world to foreigners. Go to China. See what life is like in comparison to the US. See what life is like in comparison to Berkeley, California. Note the difference in how everyday people treat you. And yes, there's going to be a difference between the Bay Area in California and China.

What a weird ... hey, wait, I think I figured it out!

You're looking at it from the point of view of the bank robber, aren't you? (Instead of from the point of view of all the people who didn't rob the bank but still somehow had their locations leaked to the government.)

Did I guess right?

If a hundred million employees are effected, we're talking $5 per employee. This program is starting woefully underfunded.

I'm imagining devices going by a conveyor belt, and a worker with a wirecutter is making a brief snip on each of the devices as it travels by.

The boss walks up, and the snipper guy asks "Is it true? Is the customer canceling?"

The boss briefly nods but then shakes his head. "Yeah, they're canc--no, I mean they still want the devices. They just don't want the snipping anymore. They say go ahead and leave the warrant-detection-and-lookup circuit live."

"Good. I never really understood what I was doing here. They're still weren't required to check the sensor anyway, so why disable it?"

The boss explained, "so we could charge them for the snipping."

There's no way to interpret these costs, that nobody is ever going to be willing to pay, as a reminder that soon these companies are going to be bankrupt.

Every time I see an AI story like this, it makes me realize I really have no idea what the AI bubble hardware is actually like, and how it might be used after auction.

A few months from now you might find yourself at an auction where 4TB of faster-than-anything-you-have RAM might be for sale for $80, but of course it won't be in the usual DIMMs that any of your existing mobos can use, will it? What will it be, and how do we best exploit it?

I like Krypto. However, this is the second movie in a row where he features as a key part of the plot. Like, find something else to drive the story. Please. Let the dog be an interesting side character.

Supergirl’s plot involves getting a poison antidote hanging around an evil character’s neck. She fights this evil character multiple times and could take the antidote at any point. Of course, she doesn’t because that’d be the end of the movie. The end result is that this plot point gets dragged out for no particular reason.

Other points make no sense. There’s only 2 Kryptonians left. But, evidently they’re so well known across the galaxy that everyone knows their weaknesses.

I use left as change things quickly, break things, tear down Chesterton 's Fence, taking big chances, and right as gradually careful change, thinking about why things exist before destroying them, and be averse to risk. Trump is left of FDR in that view.

Republicans lost two presidential elections, 2008 & 2012, due to running conservative candidates. So they gave up and became a further-left party. Now Obama looks like a relative conservative .. but Clinton & Harris look conservative _too_.

Voters are insisting on left-wing presidents, with the exception of Biden because the initial leftist shock of Trump pt1 was too much to absorb.

Your comment completely ignores the previous one. In a communist society, companies and the government are one entity. They are the same. That is fundamentally different from how companies and government works in capitalist societies.

China is a communist country. That's a whole other level of government involvement in the economy and specific companies such as Alibaba than you'll find anywhere in the US.

When it's codified into the highest law of the land and doesn't work, and suggestions to do so voluntarily can't work to the point of being laughable, what options do we have left?

There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.

Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.

Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money. They have no power over us except what we give them. Stop being so selflessly altruistic when it comes to actively supporting your own abuse.

It's so damn easy, and there's already hundreds of years worth of hassle-free game-playing available to spend the few remaining seconds of your life on.