Readit NewsGathering6678 commented on Dollar Street – Photos from families with different incomes gapminder.org/dollar-stre... · Posted by u/uneven9434
This is genuinely interesting. Also it is not just one photo for each family and there are a lot of details. I wonder how much resources were put into making this project.
> Are sim cards easily swapped?
Very easily. Apple even specifically introduced dual-sim iPhone for China.
> How easily can a burner be used?
You need to bring your ID to a telecom to get a phone number legally. But I don't know if there is a black market for burner sims.
(Last time I've been there was a few years ago so take it with a grain of salt.)
Burner sims have been a thing of the past in China for quite some time. The official rationale I believe is to curb telecom fraud, which in turn left China and started doing their business in southeast Asia.
Chinese Netizens are very familiar with Xi Jinping's national ID number precisely for this reason :-)
ID verification is enforced on all Chinese websites. People figured out they can just use Xi's ID number.
This is not true. A) personal ID numbers are not publicly available (you could certainly get your hands on some, but I doubt a lot would know Xi's ID), and B) more importantly, nowadays ID verification in China uses more sophisticated methods, e.g. in order to not be restricted when playing games, users need to prove they are over 18. The user would permit the game to verify through a payment provider such as Alipay (I don't think one would even need to give their ID to the game, as it is handled by Alipay which has done KYC already).
Although I suspect such ... "innovations" ... would soon get to the western world including UK.
Gathering6678 commented on Tough news for our UK users blog.janitorai.com/posts/... · Posted by u/airhangerf15
I get the impossible bind this puts small companies in & having people resort to IP blocking the entire country is clearly a sign of a broken setup
But playing devils advocate a bit here if the risk profile to the kid is the same on big and small platforms then there isn't any ethical room a lighter regime. Never mind full exemption, any exemption. The whole line of reasoning that you can't afford it therefore more kids potentially getting hurt on your platform is more acceptable just doesn't play. And similarly if you do provide a lighter touch regime, then the big players will rightly say well if that is adequate to ensure safety then why exactly can't we do that too?
Platform size just isn't a relevant metric on some topics - child safety being one of them. Ethically whether a child is exposed to harm on a small or big website is the same thing.
Not that I think this act will do much of anything for child safety. Which is why I think this needs to go back to drawing board entirely. Cause if we're not effectively protecting children yet killing businesses (and freedoms) then wtf are we doing
"Platform size just isn't a relevant metric on some topics - child safety being one of them."
Agreed, but I guess it could be the case that the current regulation is too burdensome even for large corps, but they could afford to have the resources necessary to deal with the regulation?
Gathering6678 commented on China is increasingly a home to major brands musgrave.substack.com/p/o... · Posted by u/anigbrowl
I have always thought that this is largely due to the fact that Chinese people still cannot inherit their parents' wealth, and that is why Chinese middle class and upper-middle class people travel a lot more than their Western counterparts. Is it not the case?
This is incorrect.
According to Indian regulators, every trading day Jane Street would:
1) buy large volumes of stocks and/or stock futures that are part of an index tracking India’s banking sector, early in the day,
2) subsequently place large options trades, betting that the index would decline or volatility would spike later in the day, and
3) later in the day, cash out of the large long positions, dragging the index lower, making far more money on the options trades than on the long positions.
Jane Street can and likely will claim the firm was only arbitraging away pricing inefficiencies, nothing more, nothing less. It was just business as usual, etc., etc.
However, given the scale of the operation, Jane Street's actions sure look like textbook market manipulation. Calling it like I see it.
My understanding is you need to be able to actually the market to be called market manipulation (e.g. pump-and-dump). If Jane Street alone can move the market in 1), it seems like the Indian stock market is not really liquid...
Not disagreeing on the above, I agree quite strongly in fact. It’s important we are critical of our own tribes.
Your final question though is maybe worth a challenge. Why can’t both sides be in the wrong? I always find we are quick to make a problem quite polar without accepting the grey mush in between.
In this case, China has similarly also demonstrated its far reaching and abusive capabilities when given the opportunity (my thoughts around belt-and-road, Tibet, Uighurs and its own treatment of its people in its past). Your point on china not being in a war is also one that can be challenged, proxy wars have and continue to be a thing. China has played their part and continue contributing to active conflicts.
"Why can’t both sides be in the wrong?"
I would like to upvote simply because of this sentence. Yes.
And stepping away from right or wrong judgements for a moment, I think it is clear that banning space tech really didn't work out, and banning semiconductor tech probably wouldn't, either.