PricelessValue's comments

> Fascinating. It's a shame that it's so hard to get people to pay for quality journalism.

Maybe because it isn't quality journalism. Ultimately, something is worth what people are willing to pay for.

> The world will be a dark place if the only news sources left are blogs by self-proclaimed journalists.

It's just as dark a place with "quality journalism".

> I guess all the folks in Xinjiang just don’t love freedom as much as you do.

Of course they do. Good god you completely missed my point.

> We're not talking about US, Britain, Europe or any other country.

But you said "people of those nations"? Now you are backtracking?

> It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it.

I didn't say it was a prerequisite. My point is that the assertion that "we don't want dystopian surveillance" is absurd considering the amount of surveillance we already have. Okay? Considering the guy wrote for a western news outlet, I'm assuming by "we", he meant the western world.

> He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.

Right. And my point is that we already have it.

>1. Who "started it"

Not just who started. The quality and sophistication.

> 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)

Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?

> Did you read the article?

Yes.

> Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.

Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom.

What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta...

Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference?

If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?

> This post is clearly suggesting that the PEOPLE of those nations don't want that dystopian future.

What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people.

> What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.

You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.

> How do you even measure that?

How about on a per capita basis?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...

Or how about

1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech.

2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance.

3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable data? Nearly 50% of china still lives in rural areas.

> China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china".

The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it.

The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US.

Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.

HN is an echo chamber too. It's no different than reddit. Just much smaller.

> In simple terms they couldn't keep up with comment moderation and were not able or willing to invest in enough moderators.

Has nothing to do with that. It's because their comment section gets no activity to merit investment. Instead they are investing in "managing" social media via twitter, facebook, reddit, etc.

> So I have to give credit to HN to having one of the most civil comment sections on the internet.

It also has the worst and most biased comment section. It's why traffic is down and hardly anyone uses HN.

> So, keep it up, dang and sctb!

Only on "hacker" news would someone support censorship.

The spirit of hacker news died years ago.

How on earth can this be flagged on "hacker" news?

> It very clearly sets it to display = block the line after

That's the point he is making.

> if you ran a normal browser.

What's a normal browser?

> for the first time since WWII the US may have the second biggest economy and be falling further behind.

Since 1890 or so. The US was the largest economy in the world for more than 50 years before ww2 started.

As long as the functionality is there, there will be initial outrage and then people will accept it. Having gone through a few redesigns of a major website, the first few weeks can be a nightmare though. People love to complain. But in the people's defense, we've had a few screw ups too.

Because you aren't a kid anymore? You are older and have a wife, children, nephews, nieces and responsibilities? Not only that you have friends from childhood, high school, college, work, etc and there are only 24 hours in a day?

It's called growing up. Are we supposed to stay naive children forever without responsibilities forever?

It's not a myth. It's a fact. Younger people are more naive and idealistic. Older people are more skeptical and conservative.

Is it possible to have a discussion about anything without someone bringing politics to it?

> He's my dad and I love him, but needless to say, when I see my partners going down the same path, it freaks me out.

Your dad is your partner?

> It seems impossible to have normal, non-political conversations with him anymore, he just doesn't have any knowledge or interest that doesn't come from TV.

And here you are doing the same thing. How about not making everything political? Things are toxic as it is. Do you need to bring toxic politics to HN?

> Nuclear power can (technically) easily replace all fossil fuel power.

It can replace fossil fuel power for electricity. Not all fossil fuel power.

> It would take a decade of serious dedication and leaving behind a "safety first" culture, but no major technical advances are needed.

Strangely enough, it's the clean energy lobby, not the fossil fuel lobby that is the biggest hurdle to nuclear energy. It's so strange to hear the solar, wind, etc advocates claiming they want to save the environment railing against nuclear power.

It's ridiculous. My university tried to switch the CS program from C/C++ ( OS, networking, etc ) and Scheme ( functional, programming languages, etc ) to java and there was a mass movement against it and we kept the "traditional" languages. I don't know why there is such a movement in academia to dumb down everything.