One can not meaningfully argue with a self-appointed sheriff and self-appointed judge who creates a law without agreement with people concerned. The only language they understand is their own language. China should and is doing exactly that speaking their language. Just watch the development.
Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
now noticed the tweet
China is forecast to spend 900 billion yuan (134 billion U.S. dollars) to 1.5 trillion yuan (224 billion U.S. dollars) on network construction from 2020 to 2025
China is forecast to spend 900 billion yuan (134 billion U.S. dollars) to 1.5 trillion yuan (224 billion U.S. dollars) on network construction from 2020 to 2025
Brumby
Major
Thanks. I noticed it too but then it was starting to get bad then and was one of the reason I decided to take a break. There seems a lot more nationalistic chest thumping nonsense which would not have been tolerated in the past. The other thing is the rabbit hole mentality of Alice in wonderland where right is left and up is down reasoning. People just make up their own rules and decide what things they prefer to mean rather than what ii actually means. A lot of energy is wasted in circular conversation and getting to a starting point e.g. the "off topic" conversation. I call this draining oxygen. At least those days people debate with some form of professionalism and honour.
An article speculating that Apple might choose Chinese firm BOE Technology as a supplier of AMOLED screens for a new iPhone. Published in 2017, so somewhat dated. However, in my opinion the significance here is not that Apple is considering BOE, but that a Chinese company has world-class display technology. This could be important if Trump's persecution of Huawei extends to banning sales of smartphone screens to the firm.
I would paste the whole article here but I don't know how to replicate all the links in it.
(Yeah, an article by Bloomberg. It may be lying, but I have independent confirmation that BOE has the technology.)
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
What an ironic complaint coming from someone who defines "always" as " odds are favorable of one outcome against another." Using your definition, you can say "because 105 males are born for every 100 females, therefore, you will always have a boy." Anyway, you may or may not have surmised by now, but the rest of your feelings are mutual from the other members and myself to you.
I think this subject is more appropriate to the other thread "News on China's scientific and technological development."
That said, there are few things I want to comment.
- There is no "banning sales of smartphone" to Huawei, US does not make smartphone display.
- Huawei is ALREADY using BOE AMOLED panel for its Mate 20 Pro released recently. The previous Mate 10 used Samsung AMOLED. Source such as
- Bloomberg is right on this one although it some times is not honest, but not always. Cross checking with other sources is always needed regardless whom.
Just for fun and refreshing my English.
That "always" seems to differ greatly from , or , the three authoritative dictionaries in English.
Put it in statistic terms, the three authorities define always as near 100%, while this new "always" is defined as anything above 51%, pretty much a gambler chance.
I think the proper English word for the new "always" is likely.
Brumby
Major
You are murdering the English language. Words convey meaning when constructed correctly. You did not call Brat out as being off topic in your post #409. I am reproducing below the full post so that there is no wriggle room.
.
Your first sentence says you are calling Brat out (in your opinion) for adding nothing to the topic. That is not the same as calling him out for being off topic. The meaning of "off topic" means precisely that and is different from non value adding comments. Are you adding another rule i.e."Meaning of words according to whatever Equation says it mean"?
Please refer to my reply above as to whom is having comprehension problem.
Systems are build upon concepts and they are meant to ensure outcomes are developed in a certain direction. When you build a system based on no checks, no accountabilities, no transparencies then you are likely to end up in a certain outcome rather than not. The outcome is an aggregate of 1.3 billion people interacting with a system and each individual will have a capacity to behave differently. How people behave is dependent on the system roadmap. Your position is trust the people in government to do the right thing who will not abuse the system for their own personal gains. Why do you think China is so corrupted? Where do you think corruption comes from? It is payment by people who wants to avoid being oppressed and abused by government officials acting with unchecked powers, no accountability and transparency to their actions.
You may know the street where you lived better than others but that is about how much of an authority you have on China based on that experience. It is fallacious because it is an argument of false authority. Your experience on China is 1 out of 1.3 billion and it would not even qualify as a statistical anomaly as representative experience let alone authority. How does your experience living in China accord you the authority to speak on Chinese laws? .
You are mischaracterising the topic of conversation. I am questioning your reasoning that having lived in China makes you an authority on China..
You ae making what I call an Utopian argument. You basically set up an utopian state as the standard and argue that it can't be reached and therefore it is not sound. The problem is you are resting an argument based on execution and not the design. Off course execution will always be messy because unscrupulous people will always be out to game the system to their advantage. Not having solid foundation of due process will even make it worst.
Michael Kovrig is a case that demonstrates precisely why China's legal system is so problematic and a source for corruption. There is no due process and no transparency in contrast to Meng's case. No transparency hides a lot of problems and why there are no information on MichaeI Kovrig's case. it is rule by law vs the western system of rule of law. It is a system where the government use the laws to control the people as opposed to protecting the people.
Your argument is basically the end justifies the means because it is for the common good until you are the one in the receiving end of the Chinese justice system. I am sure the mafia is much more efficient and effective in debt collection than a debt collecting agency but then I digress.. .
Last edited:
- Status