guiltygatorade
https://www.amazon.com/Zhuangzi-Speaks-Nature-Chih-chung-Tsa...
Edit: Found a non-amazon link for some preview - https://books.google.com/books/about/Zhuangzi_Speaks.html?id...
As long as there isn't a huge discrepancy between the expectation and the services/goods rendered, most people can't tell the difference over something that is largely subjective anyway.
It's an open world RPG with Monster Hunter combat mechanics (and tbh I think also influenced how HZD's excellent combat is designed)
You also need to plan your equipment / consumables before you go take on certain areas in the world.
It's a flawed gem but I love it to death.
Speaking of modern Fallout 1/2, this game just came out:
I'm kind of waiting for the initial round of reviews / reactions before deciding on whether to give it a shot.
Dragon Age II was largely panned by Bioware fans as it got a lot more action oriented and less RPG/choice driven.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is basically unrecognizable to Baldur's Gate days, as mechanically it's more similar to Mass Effect 2 than old time RPGs. That game was 90% pulp fantasy open world quest completer with decent combat/skill syngergy. But the last 10% uncovered some story bits that really made me go "wow I want to know more".
Looks like the sequel is in the works.
I played Baldur's Gate and barely understood the plot. A few years later, I eventually got to Planescape: Torment and actually managed to understand it.
If you love TTD, you should check out http://www.openttd.org/en/ if you haven't already.
Most of those sites are "free". People are willing to wait for things that they want to consume and are available for free, up to some limit.
If we're talking about websites that offer some sort of utility -- i.e. it does something for you and you need to interact with it often. Then its responsiveness is likely going to be a much bigger factor.
If gmail loads your inboxes and emails in hundreds of milliseconds but yahoo took several seconds, and a person needs to respond to lots of emails during the day, I'm sure the person would develop a preference for the former if all other things are equal.
But poetry is always more fun to leave things ambiguous. Original words matter -- the hardest parts is to translate poems precisely, and try not to let your interpretation of its meaning overwhelm the original.
To use the verb "掉" on a person is unusual, but I think it's exactly the author's point -- that the person is treated like an object.
Here's my take:
A screw fell to the ground
On a night of overtime
Straight down, a gentle clink
Nobody noticed
Just like last time
On a night not unlike this one
A person fell to the ground
Whoa there. That escalated quickly.
You're absolutely right about the protocol, but protocol does not a complete wireless ecosystem make. You could have a shitty protocol and happy customers, or a great protocol and upset customers.
Also, just because two industries are dominated by oligopolies doesn't mean that consumers in both are suffering the same. One can put the customers' interest slightly ahead of another. It's like having the assumption that authoritarianism automatically means people are suffering. It's just unhealthy and unstable. Every once in a while you can still get benevolent dictators doing something nice ;)
Just from personal experience, I know the cell phone fees in China are a lower % of people's incomes than here. The speeds aren't amazing (but that's probably because I rarely browse any domestic sites while in China). But I've also never had a dropped call or lack of signal until I got waaaaaaaay out in the mountains / rural parts of China, where as here I will still occasionally get my calls dropped or have spotty reception near a well-populated suburb.
The Kid A vs Kid B isn't really the situation here as it's the CEO of a company from country A complaining about country B influencing the decisions of a company from country B. That's why injected the bullying older brothers to help with the analogy. If Huawei actually screwed over AT&T in the past and now AT&T pulls out of a deal with Huawei and Huawei complains, then the Kids A/B bullying each other would be an accurate analogy.
Incidentally I've seen the Chinese government basically hype up problems or impropriety of foreign companies (e.g. Apple) in the past in order to bully them in to compliance. I'm not saying that the US government is doing the same thing to Huawei here, but the cynic in me also isn't ruling that angle out either :/
It's like if Kid A complained about how getting bullied by Kid B's older brother sucks and you're like HA your complaint is laughable and insane because Kid A's brother is a bully, too!
If you presented evidence on why it's reasonable to suspect Huawei for being complicit in espionage in their hardware devices (and why other countries don't seem to be that worried about it), then you'd have a compelling counterpoint.
1) People aren't raised with a mind to combat discrimination. Despite recognizing and celebrate some 50+ ethnic groups, the majority of Chinese are Han and look like each other. There are some laws in place to protect against discrimination against certain classes (e.g. Gender/Ethnicity) but they're not strongly enforced. The legal system simply isn't there for individual plaintiffs to succeed against corporations or government.
2) Chinese have culturally accepted authoritarian rulers as "heaven's mandate". As long as people can be fed, clothed, have a roof over their heads and even prosper, then the ruler continues to carry "heaven's mandate", regardless of what Machiavellian means by which the ruler achieves prosperity for the majority. If the government has to read my letters in order to find evil schemers to keep me safe then so be it. But if the government did all these things and the safety/prosperity of significant communities are still constantly at risk, then the ruler has lost the heaven's mandate, and it's time for a revolution to install a new ruler.
3) Chinese people are raised on family, piety, and harmony, not individualism. Many place a sense of family/community acceptance above individual will. I think most are protective of the very private -- maybe on the class of secrets -- what I say to my friends or my own journals as private, but there are very few that even think that the metadata about how they carry out their lives should be considered private. Ultimately I think most people's mindset is that if I went to a restaurant and ordered food and they kept a record that I went there and ordered XYZ off the menu then it's no longer a secret. People haven't really come around to the power of what can be done when enough information has been gathered by simply going about your everyday business.
I still attribute the success of Tencent and Alibaba significantly to both the public perception of privacy as well as what I expect to be a tacit compliance with the government on making available the data that they gather.
The Chinese government can find ways to shut down any company pretty much at will. I can't imagine Tencent or Alibaba or Baidu got to where they are today without playing ball with the government.
That means they're likely complicit in any information gathering the government wants to perform on its citizens as a precondition to their continued operations. The Chinese government is probably all too happy to see these "monopolies" that are effectively playing ball with the government, since the more users that adopt their platform, the more data they have on their citizens.
And this is not even touching on how they can exert themselves on these Chinese internet companies to shape the conversations that are happening online.
Of course you probably already know all this :P
- China has a "ministry of culture" which decides what foreign media can enter the domestic market, especially to play on the big screen
- Chinese domestic films enjoy what effectively is media protectionism
- Hollywood obviously wants a piece of that giant market
- What movies get approved/denied and for what reasons can get very arbitrary. So it comes down to a matter of trying to win favors of people deciding the approval process.
- Often this means shooting big scenes in locations in China, or portraying China in a positive light, or starring Chinese characters, etc. This effectively translates to "you can help us look good globally and we allow you to make money in our market".
I have no idea where the "get 50% what they should" came from, and I'm too lazy to look. But dealing with the Chinese government regulations is really just a quagmire of conflicts of interest.
*Edit: formatting
Maybe 5 is a bit young for all of multiplication and division (but you could include the face cards). The game is still playable without -- there would just be a lot of "welp we shuffle these back into the deck" situations.
I still think Western reporting likes to sprinkle in a few words to demonstrate their distaste for communism and authoritarianism (even when unnecessarily) whenever possible. But above all I think I just learned to be skeptical -- a useful trait for this current election cycle ;)
To be fair I think for the people that are much older who have spent their life dedicated to the proletariat struggle, the truth may be a lot harder to swallow. On the other hand, the older folks aren't blind either. Most will have some idea that there are devious things happening behind the curtain -- but Chinese as a culture has always promoted collective harmony over individuality. So most simply accept the way things are.
Other interesting pieces of media:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_of_Heavenly_Peace I think does a pretty good job at covering a highly controversial event. Providing its own interpretation of what lead to the protests as well as what escalated and its aftermath. (And when both sides of a controversy complain about "bad coverage" of their side then I consider it worth watching/reading ;))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMUjsbSAZv0 Cui Jian Live at Tiananmen Square in 1989, performing for the students on hunger strike. (Cui's a rock and roll pioneer in China, who was later banned for many years for his support of the student protests)
*Edit: What I find fascinating now is I will see American Idol type of singing shows where the young contestant walk on stage and cover "A piece of red cloth", which Cui sang during the protests to allude to the youth being blinded by the government's promises and became an anthem for the protest. But the contestant likely had no idea what happened at Tiananmen Square nor what the song was alluding to...