> It probably wouldn't have been at peace since 1815 if it had not had enough defences to put off other countries from invading in WW1 and 2.
This is a oft repeated myth. Switzerland would have been conquered within a day by any major power in ww1 or ww2. The reason why switzerland isn't conquered is because they serve as a money laundering/transfer center for every power. Swizterland's "defenses" are for show. Swizterland's shield is it's dependable position as banker for nations and the elites.
This is simply wrong. Conquering parts of the flat lands could have been pretty easy but the Swiss strategy was retreat into the mountain area.
And if you have ever looked at the modern american army in afganistan then you will know that you can't just show up with some people and resources and take everything over.
Effective defense is about causing more pain then it is worth conquering you.
Also lets remember that in WW1 Netherlands was not attacked either in WW1. Generally its just not worth attacking small neutral countries.
Banking is just one of many aspects, its simply false to claim that it is the major reasons.
> but I have a hard time believing that foreign tech investments in China really pay off.
If it didn't pay off, apple wouldn't be the most valuable company in the world.
> The Chinese strategy seems to be to woo big foreign companies, build a critical mass of local users who want the product, ban or otherwise limit the foreign company's influence in China
What else do you expect them to do? Cede their entire market to foreigners? Every country did the same thing. The europeans did it. We did it in the US. The japanese and the south koreans. It's really common sense.
> If Google accomplishes anything worthwhile at this research center, won't China just shut it down and re-employ those researchers at a domestic company?
If they did, why would google invest in china? It's been 40 years. If investing in china wasn't lucrative, it would have ended a long time ago.
> Why do high-tech companies even continue to try to break into China?
The real question is why is it that we get the exact same type of comments in every thread about china?
Go through every china related thread on HN and every single one has the exact same comments. Why?
> At its core, the current cryptocurrency craze is simply an unprecedented wealth transfer to China from the rest of the world.
Actually it's a wealth transfer from china to the US. The chinese are using bitcoins as a means to evade CCP capital controls.
There's a reason why china cracked down on bitcoin. Do you think china would stop wealth transfer to china? Of course not. They are trying to stop wealth transfer from china to the US.
> Children given unsupervised access to the internet is ridiculous.
Why?
> People freak out if a predator lives int heir neighborhood but they let their child be accessible to millions of predators via their phone or table.
Well advise the kids of the dangers. I and most of my friends had unsupervised internet access. We are all doing fine.
> This is why kids initial exposure to porn is 8 in the US and 10 when kids are getting addicted.
Every kid is getting "addicted"?
> I still remember working with children and teens and found out, through the police and parents, that a few of the kids 11 to 15 were using their webcams to get people to buy them stuff online. This was in the late 90s.
And guess what? 99.99% of 90s kids didn't use webcams.
> My job as a parent is to help them become awesome adult selves and learning not to be addicted to anything from drugs, alcohol, laziness or phones is part of being a parent.
No offense, but your kids aren't prepared for the real world. What will they do now that they are adults with no parental supervision. Also, no parent with 5 kids is "responsible".
> Well advise the kids of the dangers. I and most of my friends had unsupervised internet access. We are all doing fine.
Most people who ride in car don't get into an accident. We still wear seatbelts.
> Every kid is getting "addicted"?
Perhaps not the best choice of words from the OP, but look up premature sexualization and psychological trauma.
> No offense, but your kids aren't prepared for the real world. What will they do now that they are adults with no parental supervision. Also, no parent with 5 kids is "responsible".
A comment like that to a stranger can be nothing but offensive. For lack of space or time to use anything more nuanced than crude Freudian terms, the role of the parent is to model the superego for the child while he's too young to understand the consequences of his actions and the dangers of the world.
We've banned this account for getting involved in flamewars. If you want to comment here, you need to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take those rules to heart. That means being strictly civil, avoiding flamebait, and especially no personal attacks.
> I and most of my friends had unsupervised internet access.
I don't know how old you are, but personally (in my early 30s) the internet of my youth was pretty vastly different than the internet of today, i.e. as you say:
> And guess what? 99.99% of 90s kids didn't use webcams.
Well now most kids have a high quality webcam in their pocket at all times.
>I don't know how old you are, but personally (in my early 30s) the internet of my youth was pretty vastly different than the internet of today, i.e. as you say:
I too was a 90s kid. No. It really wasn't. The same dangers that existed back then existed today. There was threats of child predators, internet addiction, gambling, porn, etc. That's why we were taught to be anonymous on the internet. You could argue today's internet is a lot safer than it was in the 90s when most parents didn't even know what the internet was.
> Well now most kids have a high quality webcam in their pocket at all times.
And? 99.99% of them don't use them to sell their photos to pedophiles.
There are pedophiles lurking at libraries too. I guess we should stop kids from using the library. It's funny how people who want to control kids and who are so scared of everything find something to be scared of no matter what.
Just because 0.000001% of kids might do stupid stuff on the internet isn't a reason to monitor every kid or keep kids from the internet without supervision.
> > Children given unsupervised access to the internet is ridiculous.
> Why?
Your reasoning with kids. Sure when they are teenagers that's great but children need more than a reasoning parent. Children need to be protected and above everything feel safe. The internet is not a safe place for children nor just YouTube for kids without someone keeping an eye out. Research absolutely proves that children need to feel safe. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/persistent-fea...
Now I am not talking about helicopter and babying children. I am saying all children need strong parents that will protect them and help them to make good meaningful decisions and have awesome experiences. They don't need parents saying hey 10 year old Susie there are guys that want to hurt you sexually for their own perverse desires so you need to .... No you tell them they are safe and you are their to help keep them safe. If they ever feel uncomfortable or someone is touching what a bathing suit covers to tell you. You also need to know that the vast majority of predators are family and friends.
If you aren't your children's protector your just throwing you responsibility and weight of parenting on to a child. Again I am not for helicopter and over protective, but all kids need to know that Mom and Dad will protect them (Even if we fail sometimes).
Yes when the 4th grade boy wrote down the url to where he saw a man having sex with a dog and gave it to my daughter, yeah that kid had some issues. He also had a tablet with Netflix when he was in Kindergarten and still has unlimited access to the internet. Sadly that kid ins't in school anymore due to his mother not protecting him physically or mentally.
> And guess what? 99.99% of 90s kids didn't use webcams.
And guess what kids are being exploited unbelievably now. The Children's Mental Hospital has many homes with just sexually exploited girls ages 11 to 15. There are dozens of them messed up. Most of them were exploited by people they met online.
> No offense, but your kids aren't prepared for the real world.
Hey buddy if I could swear at you I would. My two oldest that were abused for years. They both graduated from college (10% of former foster kids attempt college 50% don't make it past 1st semester) My son is being shipped out to Kuwait with the National Guard and he just got married last month. My daughter she now works full time with the girls who were sexually exploited. You are all focused on over babying children that you think negating a basic parental role of protector messes up kids. Please. They both lived on their own since 19 and when i can help them out I would, but my kids are the most tenacious hard working adults I know, because they knew the neglect they grew up with before my home was crap and that the love and protection they had when they moved in. It was hell for them and us both for the first year or two. In the end they are rocking. Also Mr No Offense I even got an award from the state of Pennsylvania and a bunch of congressional and state plaques for parenting these abused kids to where they aren't in the system anymore and are successful productive members of society.
The first step of parenting children is that you make them feel safe from day one till they are mostly adults. That's essential and you give kids internet with no filters? That's how we have Alex Jone's audience members.
It's against the rules here to get involved in flamewars and especially to get personal like this. I realize some topics are personally intense and one isn't always able to contain the intensity, but in such cases we need to take a step back and not contribute to the downward spiral.
Yes. There are bad people everywhere. Did you lock your children in the basement? I'm not denying there are dangers in the world and on the internet. My point is that those threats are overblown.
And there have been clickbait fearmongering articles every decade.
> Research absolutely proves that children need to feel safe.
And you telling your kids that there are dangers everywhere must make them feel real safe.
> Again I am not for helicopter and over protective
Okay. But everything you've written and the "research" you've done says otherwise.
> Did I say every?
You kinda implied it.
> Yes when the 4th grade boy wrote down the url to where he saw a man having sex with a dog and gave it to my daughter, yeah that kid had some issues. He also had a tablet with Netflix when he was in Kindergarten and still has unlimited access to the internet. Sadly that kid ins't in school anymore due to his mother not protecting him physically or mentally.
Anecdotes?
> Hey buddy if I could swear at you I would.
No need for that.
> The first step of parenting children is that you make them feel safe from day one till they are mostly adults.
And I posit that you did just the opposite. I doubt there was a day in your kids life that they felt safe.
> That's how we have Alex Jone's audience members.
What? Oh my god. I now am very concerned for what you did to your kids, if you had any.
It's like speculation on top of speculation. Reminds me of the MBS/CDOs of the housing crisis. Speculative loans of speculative loans.
> All we need now is someone adding leverage and hilarity shall most certainly ensue
Oh, it's already starting. Believe me.
Usually when you start hearing of "record setting" purchase of art, you start your clock on the next recession. I guess this could be that moment. Wouldn't be surprised if we have a recession in the next 2 or 3 years.
> He was brazen enough to admit, early on, that he does not care whether or not his plan is unpopular and that what the public thinks makes no difference whatsoever.
Looks like it. It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.
Also, we really need to look into how government and regulation works in this country. What's the point of having a regulatory system for industries if the officials of companies in these industry lead the governmental/regulatory agencies?
If former goldman sachs officials run financial agencies and if a former verizon official runs the FCC, what's the point of these agencies?
There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencies; in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s). The problem with this proceeding is that it is based only on industry comments and ignores other voices, which is the worst way to create regulation.
Remember that Wheeler was a former cable industry lobbyist. Unlike Pai, he actually listened to non-industry voices during his proceeding and created rules based on inputs from many different sources. He did not give net neutrality advocates everything we wanted, but he did listen and did create something much better than what the industry has been demanding.
Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest. Taking inputs from various parties, including the industry and the general public, to then make an informed decision about the best course of action in the general interest, is a completely different thing.
"Industry people working at regulatory agencies is an obvious conflict of interest."
Not necessarily. An obvious conflict of interest would be someone who has a significant financial stake in the industry, or someone who is married to a CEO in that industry, etc.
Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry? It is often the case that the only qualified candidates are people who have worked in the industry or who have worked against it (which is just as much of a conflict of interest). Someone who is clueless could be worse: they could be more susceptible to lobbying pressure, since they have no prior knowledge of the issues they are dealing with.
In theory the job of the Senate should be to determine whether or not a candidate will be able to serve the public instead of their former industry bosses. Such people definitely exist -- Tom Wheeler is a prominent example. We also have an impeachment procedure to deal with the possibility of failure i.e. the possibility of the Senate confirming a regulator who fails to serve the public; by now there is ample evidence that confirming Pai was a mistake, but with today's hyper-partisan Congress there is not much hope for impeachment.
> Also consider this: who is actually qualified to regulate an industry?
Off the top of my head, economists and lawyers?
I don't think you need first-hand experience in an industry to regulate it. We need experts in regulation that can take input from industry and consider the public perspective.
I'm not convinced it's possible to have a career in a field and not have your opinion tainted by that experience. This is why neither industry insiders or opponents should be responsible for regulation.
> There is nothing specific wrong with industry people working at regulatory agencie
Sure. In the abstract. But in practicality, it doesn't pass the smell test. Just like if I committed a crime and my mother was judge of the case, there isn't anything specifically wrong with it. But there are potential issues of conflict of interest and she should probably recuse herself from the case.
> in fact, good regulation should include the input of the regulated industries (failure to do so was a causative factor in the bankruptcy of railroads in the 60s and 70s).
Of course regulatory agencies need input from the industry. But there is a difference between providing input and leading the agency. I'm all for input. I'm not too keen on former Directors, CEOs, etc of banks, ISPs, etc leading agencies that regulate those companies. Especially when we have people going back and forth between regulatory agencies and companies.
I get the argument about the ex-Verizon employee - the much bigger conflict of interest is that such a person is a future-Verizon employee, as the fate of other such officials in e.g. finance sector illustrates; we get regulatory capture because the industry lobbyists promise and hand out lucrative deals to individual regulators after their term is done.
Employees do have an interest in their old companies. If nothing else working for successful companies is a good sign on a resume. But, high level employees often have close ties to other people in management and a much easier time being brought back.
They don't necessarily have loyalty, exactly, but they do have a detailed understanding of the company's point of view and interests, coupled with possibly a much shallower understanding of the viewpoints and interests of the public.
ex-<company name> execs almost invariably have plenty of equity and personal connections with their former employer and the industry at large, so that would de facto disqualify pretty much all of them.
Generally, you want someone who is a legal/policy nerd for the regulated industry to head that industry's regulatory agency.
For most industries, the only people who are interested enough to become legal/policy nerds are either people who work in the industry in legal/policy executive positions, or a small number of academics who specialize in those industries. The academics are usually a little too theoretical to deal with actually running an agency, and so that pretty much just leaves people from the industry.
Nothing happens in a vacuum so even telecom regulation has impacts outside the telco industry. For this reason I do not think first hand experience is that important in regulating an industry. I would much rather see someone with a history of balancing competing interests in charge rather than someone with a strong bias.
> It's pretty surprising how ambivalent the guy is to public pressure.
It actually could be expected. He is not an elected official, so he can easily do the bidding of corporate masters, instead of serving the public, especially if he feels that legislative power is too dysfunctional to do anything about it. It can happen even with elected officials, even more so with appointed ones.
We understand his broken incentives and allegiances. But most people have at least a small amount of allegiance to and empathy with the general population. Perhaps they won't necessarily listen if the opposition is weak, or if they think they can get away with it.
But Pai has tens of millions of people vehemently opposing him. He is probably recieving jeers and hate mail and rude gestures every time he goes out in public. And people have even started harassing his family - at what point does the money cease to be worth it? Most people would have given up under a hundredth of that backlash.
One of the dirtiest aspects I've seen in this whole NN debate has been the very ugly behavior of NN proponents. That, as much as anything, has eliminated any support I might have had for NN.
Pai digs in and fights back against racist death threats? Good for him. Shame on anyone expecting him to back down in the face of that.
If you're going to dismiss a cause because some of the proponents use ugly tactics then I don't see how you can maintain any moral convictions whatsoever.
>You can't say "One thing that should remain Sacred is family, wife, and kids"... when there are families who make a living by working online. If this goes through MILLIONS of people will be fucked... I can assure you .. If this falls through, go into witness protection or some shit because you are gonna get killed. Period. 384 upvotes
>This twatwaffle needs to be burned at the stake. 301 upvotes
These are people promoting Net Neutrality. I don't support that. It is disgusting.
In that light, his performance has been stellar. Not even personal threats to him or his family sway this guy, he'll be the perfect scapegoat when this is over.
This was all Ajit's fault, but he's been sacked from public office, rejoice!
> he'll be the perfect scapegoat when this is over
Reminds me a story, where there was an official who had an arrangement to receive a payment for every day in prison (if he ever ended up there as a scapegoat for actual criminal overlords, whose crimes he was covering up).
Corporate masters implies he’s still under the employ and compensation of Verizon.
If Verizon is bribing him, they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so. They can just invest in PACs or lobbyists, or even straight up bribe any elected official.
Not necessarily direct employ, but serving their interest. They wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly employ him.
> they certainly wouldn’t need a former employee to do so
It was the path of least resistance for them. He was already in the FCC, and he was always backing the interests of ISP incumbents against the public, if you paid attention.
A former Verizon employee probably has no more ties or vested interests in Verizon anymore. If they have stock or other interests then they shouldn’t be in those regulatory offices.
The quid pro quo usually comes later, after they leave their government post. In the form of board seats or high level positions in the companies that benefited. So, hard to police since the payoff is down the road.
> I am in my mid-60s, manage a machine learning team at a fine company, busy writing a new book, and getting close to being an investor in a new company.
I think you just proved OP's point. Seems like you have nothing going for you but work.
> My Dad is 96 and does 3D animation, makes movies and documentaries
This is a problem I have with modern american society. I wonder whether it would be better to give those resources to younger and more capable people who can actually make good movies and documentaries.
> and is still a member of the national academy of science.
People are members of NAS for life.
> Life ends either when one gives up learning and doing new things, or when our bodies finally wear out :-)
That's not what the guy was talking about...
But you've highlighted a lot of problems we have in our society. Too much resources and wealth have been "stolen" by the older generations like you and your father. And the younger generation are suffering from lack of opportunity and resources. I don't think this is very healthy for society over the long term. But I guess only time will tell.
That's blatantly false. The US, Europe, China, Japan and every top agricultural nation subsidizes agriculture.
Subsidized agriculture has been responsible for pretty much ending hunger in most of the world. Free market agriculture hasn't been responsible for ending any hunger.
In the USA, welfare spending dwarfs farm subsidies by a factor of >50. No doubt this is true elsewhere, too. Private ownership of agriculture is what ended hunger. Its effect has been shown quite convincingly in Massachusetts and China.
The US didn't always have agricultural subsidies. Hunger in the US was virtually eliminated before the Civil War. Agricultural subsidies did not happen until after WW1.
You could argue that government help in wiping out the natives and stealing their land and giving it to the white settlers is an agricultural subsidy. It's true that we've never had persistent hunger in the US. But that's cause we stole all the natives land. The natives however suffered tremendous hunger/starvation though.
Archaeological bone evidence of the pre-Columbian Indians is that they periodically had famines. Having land is not a sufficient condition for having a consistent, sufficient food supply.
The US, around 1800, was the first country in history to achieve a consistent food surplus.
This is a oft repeated myth. Switzerland would have been conquered within a day by any major power in ww1 or ww2. The reason why switzerland isn't conquered is because they serve as a money laundering/transfer center for every power. Swizterland's "defenses" are for show. Swizterland's shield is it's dependable position as banker for nations and the elites.