This is usually a reference to the types of securities he trades in - stuff that's available to the general public. It's normal to focus on certain security types even when working at larger firms/groups.
In SQL Server it is part of the transaction that affected the underlying data. So you don’t worry about that. Instead you worry about lock escalations!
Lots of strategies are possible. I may only need to refresh the data in it once a day. I may need to refresh it on every write. It depends on the applications needs.
It’s almost like the intention is to divide the world and create more segregation rather than to benefit any one group.
And the brand sounds very pretentious. Maybe “the trust network” would’ve been better. It’s simply a group where we all trust each other. It’s not any “cleaner” tbh.
Twitter sits at the very top of a stack of technologies. Clearly the internet providers shouldn’t ban specific content, AWS should not either. Since Twitter is the most user facing, does that give it more responsibility to regulate the actual content on its platform? If not Twitter, who (if anyone) has the right to regulate content on the internet?
There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do.
There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c.
Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users.
Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used?
Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.
Right. In addition to Walmart, I think Shopify also has a chance at taking on Amazon, from a different angle. More broadly, all big retailers seem to target Amazon as a common enemy.
Yes, this is bad. I think we can all agree on that.
But does anyone have sources on _how_ China got into this situation? They wouldn't be detaining Uighurs at this scale for no reason. So what's the history behind this?
I left a separate comment here of someone else who commented on the article with a potential background reason (terrorism?). Although I'm not sure if can rely on just that one comment, and would love to hear what HN thought.
A part of a civil discussion requires that we understand and seek out the argument from all parties. As a society, we need to evolve from one-sided arguments.
Much has been written in the Chinese academic literature about the need for new policing strategies in Xinjiang. Here's a reading list with English summaries: https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/policy-documents/chinese-acade... Of course the original articles are all in Chinese.
Thanks! This is great. It appears that China's argument for Xinjiang are:
1. Anti-terrorism / Religious Extremist Activities
2. Poverty alleviation
We have certainly seen similar situations play out in the past (e.g. US & Middle East), with different approaches. China's approach is to eliminate "ethnic separatism" through these "re-education camps". Not ideal, for sure. But what would be a better solution?
If we had terrorism in the US -- in fact, an entire state of people subscribed to that mindset -- what's the best way to deal with that?
(This is, ofc, assuming China's terrorism claims are real)
The Chinese government itself admits that these people aren't formally charged with any crime and that criminals go to different prisons. As they aren't actually terrorists, this entire line of logic doesn't apply.
The Black population in the US is disproportionately impoverished. Should we round them up into re-education camps?
It's policy based entirely in ethno-nationalism (racism).
The US had a Civil War over separation and slavery, but we didn't establish re-education camps for all the people who were on the losing side. You didn't see Germans forced into re-education camps after WW1 or WW2 (at least on the non-USSR side).
I don't know of ANY instances of this kind of re-education thinking in first-world countries. Even third-world countries don't usually consider this moral. It's basically limited to second-world (communist) despotic countries. In recent times, I've heard people talk about re-education camps in the US, but (big surprise), they're always alt-left (communists, antifa, whatever).
We created terrorists in Xinjiang, just as we did in Afghanistan. They murdered thousands of Chinese and, now that China has them under control, we make up stories about them.
US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981: "The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state. I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority”. 8/31/19
> We created terrorists in Xinjiang, just as we did in Afghanistan. They murdered thousands of Chinese and, now that China has them under control, we make up stories about them.
This argument is made in bad faith given the author's statements below. In any case, the Xinjiang had attempted to get out from under China's thumb for centuries. Does that "murdered thousands" suddenly give moral permission to imprison, torture, and sell the organs of millions -- especially millions who's only "crime" in this argument is having the wrong ethnicity. Finally, the red revolution in China killed millions and then famine killed millions more.
> I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority
Nobody alive today is rounding up American Indians (instead SCOTUS is giving back half of Oklahoma). Can someone's children be held accountable for their parent's actions?
That said, if the Chinese gave the Xinjiang and Tibet the same level of autonomy that the US gives reservations today, I doubt anyone anywhere would be complaining about anything. Once again, this is a bad faith argument.
> US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981: "The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state.
The whole point of a banner is to serve as a rallying point for like-minded people. If some random person on the street starts waving a nazi flag, does that suddenly mean everyone turns into nazis?
A banner can only rally people who think they hold the position that banner represents. The US could wave a religious banner, but unless the people already agreed, it wouldn't build up support (it's not possible to parse whether Xinjiang didn't rally because they didn't want to join or the rallying cry was not heard).
If anything, the fact that the US tried to empower people to fight for their independence from a despotic, racist regime who hated them should at least be neutral if not morally just.
