It's a massive oversimplification that seems to whitewash China's policies.
Every country that undergoes industrialisation and urbanisation has a big drop in birth rates. Same in capitalist and socialist countries, there's no essential difference in how it plays out (the tempo is different from case to case for many reasons, but the trend is the same). But China additionally made the rates plummet through govt intervention.
So you stressed and praised the part that wasn't truly crucial for the outcome (socialism), but ignored the part (one child policy) that drastically contributed to the outcome and that can't be presented as nice or intuitively desirable (regardless of whether it objectively was or wasn't a good decision). That's not simplification but selectiveness.
(Yes, it is true that many lemmings who live outside China just project their own "China sucks" logic onto the Chinese, and their approach is wrong, I agree with you on that count.)
That's not the point of downvotes. If you're assuming people are downvoting you just to make you feel bad, you're taking it way to personally.
Upvotes are funny too. I like what you posted, but can’t be bothered to articulate why. So I’m gonna click a button at you and hope it makes you feel good.
I get the joke, but the sources aren't self-published. They're published by an instance other than the author and that's good enough, that's what the self‐publishing rule is about.
The COI can hardly apply to members of a fairly broad group writing about the group. By that logic, Americans shouldn't write about the USA, only gay people could write about heterosexuality, etc.
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.
Dedicated gay beach, as far as it gets without having some official designation of that sort. Straight people just don't go there at all, based on decades of my beachgoing in the area, local oral knowledge, and, well, going there myself and seeing the people. My friend once tried to go there, his mother (who has lived nearby on and off for decades and has family there) asked him wtf he's doing, that's the gay beach...
If you were actually at some sort of private gay club where public sex is allowed, all good, but I feel like you probably wouldn’t be questioning and trying to justify it if that was the case.
Well, obviously, I realise this was definitely a more questionable case, especially as I consider it in retrospect 😅
Well, the beach was a dedicated gay nudist beach, so I figured it might be more tolerant of that (though a friend of mine, who passed it by many times, said he has never seen people having sex there), and the place was relatively secluded so very few people on the beach could see it at all. Definitely not kids.
So that's how I'm rationalising it to myself.
But you explain it well, and I guess some feeling of guilt is deserved. Beach sex isn't very comfortable anyway so I'm not planning to do it again any time soon.
I had sex on a nudist beach and a boat passed by right as I had a cock down my throat. Can't say I felt any embarrassment, with regards to being seen by the people on the boat. Yet afterwards I wondered if the act could've been seen as inappropriate by the other beachgoers, which would definitely make me feel some embarrassment.
LG's recent software update has forcibly installed Microsoft Copilot, an AI assistant, on smart TVs without removal options, sparking widespread user backlash over privacy, bloatware, and loss of control. This highlights growing tensions in smart devices, where monetization often overrides user preferences.
Sure is ironic that the article summary is itself AI-generated.
I'm not interested in fighting you either, I was just asking, perhaps the interesting conversation still could've occurred. (Admittedly that other reply to you is really good and extensive, and I wouldn't have much to add after that.)
Dictionaries can also note hyperbolic (and other "deformed") uses of words, especially when commonplace, I see no problem with that. You have some odd expectations from dictionaries.
And then the speakers from insular communities get told to fuck off with their special definitions, or they're so persistent that the new definition catches on. Either way, problem solved.
The word "literally" still serves its old purpose just fine, along with the new one.
start putting up the money to make their support no longer required
There's no way individual donations from ordinary people could match Google's. They're also likely to be less reliable.
Mozilla doesn't even ask for donations from users a whole lot, and the money they receive mostly doesn't go into development of the browser:
These funds directly support advocacy campaigns (i.e. asking big tech companies to protect your privacy), research and publications like the Privacy Not Included buyer's guide and Internet Health Report, and covers a portion of our annual MozFest gathering.
It's a massive oversimplification that seems to whitewash China's policies.
Every country that undergoes industrialisation and urbanisation has a big drop in birth rates. Same in capitalist and socialist countries, there's no essential difference in how it plays out (the tempo is different from case to case for many reasons, but the trend is the same). But China additionally made the rates plummet through govt intervention.
So you stressed and praised the part that wasn't truly crucial for the outcome (socialism), but ignored the part (one child policy) that drastically contributed to the outcome and that can't be presented as nice or intuitively desirable (regardless of whether it objectively was or wasn't a good decision). That's not simplification but selectiveness.
(Yes, it is true that many lemmings who live outside China just project their own "China sucks" logic onto the Chinese, and their approach is wrong, I agree with you on that count.)