rydre

This has been debunked, look it up.

> I'm sorry, did you just allude to America being more corrupt than China?

I'm saying that America is relatively in my opinion more corrupt than the America of the past.

I'm not comparing it to China, China has a different set of systems. Both systems might work.

> Maybe we are seeing the effect of monopolies stifling innovation.

American's will only wake up when it's too late. Zuck will bribe the government in the meanwhile. Corrupt countries become less competitive over time. America is trending on the path of corruption and it's visible to every outsider now, except for unfortunately American's themselves.

> As pollution mounts and industrial input into agriculture falls, food production per capita falls. Health and education services are cut back, and that combines to bring about a rise in the death rate from about 2020. Global population begins to fall from about 2030, by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions fall to levels similar to the early 1900s.

This article is from 2014, so the 2020 bit struck me.

> This is at least partly false. First, you need to be Mirandized before being interviewed. You do not need to be Mirandized at the moment you are being arrested.

> because they didn’t put a decal on their vehicle.

Dude do you really see no problem with this? My biggest issue is how do I know if they're actual law enforcement agencies or some thugs? If I were in the situation, I would not know to resist the arrest or to comply because I do not know if they're kidnappers or law enforcers.

I do not have much of a problem if I know they're actual law enforcers. But I can easily see this slipping into worse things like gangs pretending to be law enforcement and kidnapping people.

> It’s probably easier to buy the whole thing than to buy 30% of it. ‘Cause I say how do you do 30%? Who’s going to get the name? The name is hot, the brand is hot. And who’s going to get the name? How do you do that if it’s owned by two different companies? So, my personal opinion was, you are probably better off buying the whole thing rather than buying 30% of it. I think buying 30% is complicated.

... I did say that if you buy it, whatever the price is, that goes to whoever owns it, because I guess it’s China, essentially, but more than anything else, I said a very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States. Because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don’t have any rights, unless we give it to ’em. So if we’re going to give them the rights, then it has to come into, it has to come into this country.

It’s a little bit like the landlord-tenant [relationship]. Uh, without a lease, the tenant has nothing. So they pay what is called “key money” or they pay something. But the United States should be reimbursed, or should be paid a substantial amount of money because without the United States they don’t have anything, at least having to do with the 30%.

This could also be interpreted as something akin to extortion.

American social media app's dominate my country. Google 99% market share. Facebook/Instagram 95% market share in social. 5eyes/PRISM (they're not gonna forgive snowden, he ruined their reputation) monitors my country (not part of the anglospehere) and I never consented.

Am I supposed to tell my government to block American apps so that I can compete with American apps or on "national security" grounds? Because this is the trend American's will see. And if Zuck is reading this, you're shooting your own foot. What do you think is gonna happen? You're pitting the government against TikTok because your company cannot compete fairly. You think you'll win like this? Your Facebook/Instagram will get banned in future by other democratic countries in future because of the precedent you're going to be setting.

Let China do it's thing. It may very well turn out that their way of governance is better. Losers stick to old ways, if it turns out it's the superior system, they'll clearly be better.

But for a system to be proven takes decades/centuries. As long as China does not force it's system, it's fine in my eyes.

All media is propaganda. I like consuming the American and CCP kool aid at the same time tho... am I a sinner?

4chan. He wrote it there, afaik from a Twitter comment with screenshot posted many days ago before the Feds announced the kid.

Then bragged about it and went for more accounts. His friends left him when he went for the high profile accounts. I think it was organized on discord.

[deleted]

If there is any rule of law in the country, this should be against the constitution.

If the US does this, they'll be losing a lot of goodwill founders from other countries have about the US.

The US is uniquely thought of as a part of every country for business. If you're from third world country but you'd like to do a tech business in the US, you're free to do so without much hurdles by the government. Open competition. No other country is like that.

This is what separated the US from the rest of countries like China. You'd dream that in case your startup got big, you'd move to the US, and hire quality engineers/researchers there. You'd like American protection on free speech to protect your company. Your company would not be banned for 'hurting' people. Rule of law. This is increasingly no longer the case.

Now the US is starting to feel like China and the EU more and more. Even if China's economy was bigger than the US, the US would still be in a good position because of their appearance and rule of law. When it's going to be similar to China, why not just do business with China first altogether since they're going to be the bigger economy? China is slowly becoming more liberal to founders from 3rd world countries now. While America seems to not notice this right now, China is slowly becoming more open to competition from poorer countries. The difference is stark even compared to 5 years ago.

Maybe China might not be so much fair right now to American companies because of a power imbalance where the US is too far ahead on certain things that they feel like after their companies catch up, they want to allow open competition. And they seem to progressing to this trajectory.

It would bring up opportunity for alternative models for news instead of being tied to search/feed.

YouTube will be difficult to replicate. The long tail channel are too many and useful.

Yeah, I have built a proof of concept for this, but without GPT-3.

Works well except for the edge cases. Aka not fully automatable yet so I never showed it to anyone.

> Does Apple treat other video streamers differently than Amazon?

Apple changed it's rules for everyone in this category to get Amazon onboard with their video service.

Why should it take another Amazon in another industry to change rules for that industry? Why did Apple change it's rules in an entire category so that they can get Amazon onboard? Because Amazon is too big and has leverage over Apple? Isn't it?

Well this is precisely why good democracies and competitive countries have anti trust laws.

This also shows that for some arbitrary categories to please companies that have leverage over Apple, Apple will change rules at whim. This also indirectly indicates that Apple does not treat all developers equally - if you look at this in good faith.

Context for those who missed yesterday's anti-trust hearings:

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple said that Apple treats developers equally - under oath. The problem is that Amazon got a special deal. Baidu (the Chinese Google) got a special deal where Apple fast tracks App Store approval for them and have special assigned Apple employees for their app(s). This might be one of the evidence that Apple's CEO lied under oath.

> (do you mean "didn't really happen"?)

I messed up (just edited the comment to correct), what I mean is in a hypothetical scenario where Apple really did this, why would you defend them?

> What is really amusing in hindsight was the number of people willing to pile on and argue that this was in fact totally reasonable of Apple to be doing and that we shouldn't be surprised or upset at all about it.

Exactly, while I had doubts about this accusation on Apple, I was surprised about how many people were okay with it. These people (defenders of Apple) vote, but they're not even likely to be Billionaires (it's not wrong to be a Billionaire if you play fair). Why do they defend such an awful practice if it actually happened and wasn't fake news?

Projected revenue for 2021 is $6b. $50B valuation is robbery at day sight by investors. TikTok's China sibling Douyin is projected to make $28 billion this year in China.