Uyghurs are important to a large part of the economy, but it’s presumably possible to discuss parts of it without discussing Uyghurs at every stage.
Uyghur forced labour is certainly widespread and bad. I am not sure that it’s fundamental to the Chinese economy though. If we say that there are 20 million Uyghurs (which is a very large overestimate), out of 1.3 billion that’s not very much. Moreover the current strategy of forced labour mostly began in the 2010s, so all of China’s previous economic strategies managed to proceed without the use of forced labour. And sterilisation means that they’re unlikely to be relied upon economically in the long term—elimination and economic exploitation are very difficult to reconcile, as indeed the Nazis found.
If you’re discussing some market in a small village far from Xinjiang—of course forced Uyghur labour in some way impinges on it, but, well, it would be odd to discuss the camps as the most important determinant of what’s going on in those camps at all times. You can’t develop an understanding of the whole without understanding the component parts, and that involves occasionally e.g. reading articles that don’t mention the Uyghurs.
The obvious analogy is the Holocaust. Nobody complains about books about the Nazis that contain e.g. chapters mostly concerning matters other than the Holocaust. That’s for good reason: you have to pay attention to the other components too, even though the aim of extermination is an important overall reason to understand the Nazis.
In the frame of my original comment, i.e., ‘at what level should one focus on specific individual parts even at the expense of overall important atrocities?’, I agree that discussing the economy writ large whilst ignoring the Uyghurs would neither lead to a good factual understanding of the economy nor be appropriate morally. But the question of poverty alleviation in the Han heartlands to me is a discrete one that (a) is important to broadly understanding the economy and (b) is a sufficiently narrow topic to be discussed without necessarily focusing on the Uyghurs.
> Moreover the current strategy of forced labour mostly began in the 2010s, so all of China’s previous economic strategies managed to proceed without the use of forced labour.
is rubbish interpreted in the natural sense. Of course I meant without the use of forced Uyghur labour as we see at the moment. It is arguable that growth 1970s-now mostly was not underpinned by forced labour, but the strategies of the 50s-60s certainly involved a lot of what we should call forced labour.
Bizarre. In Australia I can literally call up a new ISP and get switched over in minutes, and it automatically terminates my old ISP (and many will refund the remaining monthly charge)
Apple maintained the iPhone 30 pin connector for 10+ years. The Lightning port is 10 years old. Apple supported Thunderbolt for its entire life as a standard. Apple was one of the first to use USB-A and supported it for ~20 years until they switched to USB-C (another standard).
Apple does tend to go all in on a bus, but they don't change them often. You won't find 8 different ports on a Mac to satisfy the previous 4 generations of various connector technologies.
Regardless, if you buy a USB-C powered computer, it doesn't matter a bit what Apple does next year. It's USB-C. Whether Apple changes next year or not, you can still buy cheap/ good third party USB-C charges and they are likely only going to get better.
I think apple has this reputation because even if they keep a port for 10 years, that means 20% of the people get their first apple product within 2 years of the port disappearing
This still makes no sense. USB connectors for smartphones have gone through 3-4 different iterations in that same time depending on the make. If you bought Samsung, you likely went through a year or two with that god-awful USB 3.0 "Micro-B" connector.
My first smartphone was a Palm Pre in 2009 that took a micro USB. I recently (this year) got my first smartphone with a USB-C connector and all of the ones in the interim used micro USB.
As far as computers, I have had USB A on all of the laptops I've ever owned, and gone through 2 display connectors (DVI, and HDMI). The laptop I'm currently typing this on has a VGA connector, should I need it. My wife, who uses macs has had a different display connector for every laptop going back to her G4.
For desktops, I wouldn't be surprised to see a PS/2 connector on the back of my computer, though I haven't looked and I know my second most recent one had a PS/2 connector. Heck, my motherboard has a firewire pin-header, which is absurd because that standard had approximately zero popularity on PCs in the first place!
Apple has much more abrupt changes. I don't think there was a single Mac that shipped with both ADB and USB ports, and it was about a year from the first iMac with USB, and the last Mac Pro with ADB shipping.
This abruptness is possible because Apple controls much more of the ecosystem than anybody does in the PC world. I think I had USB ports on my computer for 3-ish years before I ever used the for anything at all (thumb drives weren't really a thing yet, and I had no need to upgrade my mouse or keyboard). For a long time mice would implement both USB and PS/2 and come with an adapter to let them plug into either.
If my kids are asleep we turn the TV volume down. Why would you wear headphones with your spouse, you can't have any conversation so it defeats the purpose of watching together
If you want to talk put a headphone in the outer ear, and you can still talk softly to each other. Headphones are super immersive sounding. And if you have the pros, you set them to transparency mode. You can still talk, but kids won't hear the movie.
You should consider turning down your headphone volume if the idea of talking to someone with them on seems far-fetched.
I used to be like that and my hearing shows it, and I've learned that just because I'm listening to something, it doesn't need to immerse my entire aural apparatus.
I'm against giving up my ability to negotiate for myself to someone who is going to negotiate for compensation that I can't use at the expense of compensation I can.
Also, weird take. In a scenario where compensation has no lifestyle strings attached to it, both the childless person and the child having person can use that money. Pushing for heavy parental leave is the "fuck you, getting mine" option.
It's only that way if you think of money and time as equivalent, which I assume from your tone you do. For many parents, time with their child during those early months is invaluable, and no money compensation can compare, so it's not really a viable option for them to "get theirs" while you don't "get yours". I think collective bargaining could solve this better by asking for an option to either have the cash or the time... but getting only cash is also saying to parents "fuck you, getting mine", just with the added "and you get it too, even if you don't want it".
Overall, I think grouping together to have a more powerful negotiating position is better for the group as a whole... It's a classic Nash Equilibrium problem, and obvious to many people that grouping together even if you don't want the exact same things is still better.
I'm not sure why people who advocate for staying "alone" in your negotiation think that the outcome will be better by leaving the employer in the state of having more power in the negotiation by you being alone. Can you explain if you see it as better for any reason other than that you prefer to "have yours" even if "yours" is more for you at the cost of less for us all?
Apart from a terribly selfish attitude, I'd like to see proof of the wait for CT scans. Australia has mostly socialised healthcare and I've always had xrays same day and CT, Pet and MRI within a couple of days at most.
For Canada, the data is easy to find, since it is all public. Here is average and 90% (when 90% of the patients have received care) data for non-urgent CT scans in the province of Alberta. Before the pandemic hit, average and 90% were approximately 12 and 20 weeks. Due to the pandemic, now they are double. Ontario is doing much better. You can see their data in the second link.
The complaints I frequently hear from Americans regarding 'socialized healthcare' never ring true based on my experience in countries like the UK or Australia.
