> The display resolution is 1920x1080, equivalent to about 100 dpi
Maybe a typo? Should be around 157dpi for a 14 inch screen. Though I absolutely agree with the general idea, high dpi screens (over 200 dpi) do make the experience much much better.
The current CEO was appointed in January. It is currently the end of May. I guess we could still count that in weeks, but most would use months at this point.
Why did he decide to call it kawaiization? I don't think this kind of design is inspired from japan, even though the rounded corners, soft color palette can be considered "cute", they exist because they are perceived as "modern web design". I put it in quotes but honestly I don't hate it. It is pleasing to the eyes.
> I don't think this kind of design is inspired from japan
It's almost entirely a west coast US style if anything, nothing to do with kawaii. I even find it weirdly similar to 90s software illustrations, the ancient Adobe Acrobat branding comes to mind [0]
Agreed, there's no additional meaning to the world kawaii that isn't already captured by the word cute. Actual Japanese websites look nothing like what the author describes.
Pretty much. Though it is a very international thing, I think chinese websites in general look more "kawaii" if we use the world like the author(?). For eg. take look at www.ui.cn
Russia took crimea without any issue. Do you really think anything will happen if china took taiwan by force? It's a matter of time before china takes taiwan.
Another aspect of Russia taking crimea is that the people living there to a large extent welcomed it.
There are some that are pro-unification in Taiwan, but it's a minority. Most people are pro status quo, and the number that are for declaring independence is growing. The ruling party is very pro-independence (ideologically speaking, in practice they have to move slowly and maintain status quo to some degree), meaning releasing their claim over mainland China, changing name from "Republic of China" or "China" to Taiwan, seeking UN membership etc.
The other big difference is that Taiwan is quite capable of defending itself to some extent. China will win eventually, but not without devastating the island. This will affect everyone economically. China and the world. If TSMCs factories in Taiwan are destroyed, it'd have an enormous impact on world economy. The production of high-tech electronics would be stunted for years. Russia annexing crimea had absolutely no practical effect on the world.
The fact is that everyone, China included, is relatively happy with the status quo. The CCP has to make a scene now and then to appease the fragile ego of a large portion of the mainland chinese. But I really don't think they actually care that much about invading Taiwan.
I have visited Crimea last year as a tourist and talked with Crimeans personally (in Massandra and Alushta). Where do you get your information? In my experience people are mostly happy with the Russian rule and with changes it brings (simply compare investments before 2014 and after). Of course, those who work in IT, have to virtually reallocate via VPNs to circumvent western sanctions, but they don't blame Russia for that (and VPN is a must-have either way for tech savy due to the Roskompozor). One common complaint was somewhat higher prices, but situation got a bit better after the Crimean bridge got put into operation. Also another complaint which I heard is that new government is much stricter about tax collection and preventing illegal business. Yes, Crimean Tatars a bit less happy with the Russian rule on average compared to ethnic Russians, but I think it mostly can be attributed to the lost profits from illegal businesses, significant amount of which was traditionally operated by tatars (see the issue of illegal construction). But it's important to note that they got much more freedom in respect of cultural autonomy than they had in Ukraine (their language is now official republican language on par with Russian and Ukranian). Only after Ukraine lost Crimea they have started to talk about an autonomy for Tatars, which is quite pathetic in my opinion.
> Crimean Tatars a bit less happy with the Russian rule on average compared to ethnic Russians, but I think it mostly can be attributed to the lost profits from illegal businesses
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The historical and relatively recent mass starvation, persecution, mass murder and forcing into gulags is likely relevant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars
Note that not only Tatars have died from mass starvation in 30s and 40s. It hit equally hard Russians, Ukrainians and other ethnic groups (e.g. it had consequences as far as in the Volga region), so Tatars (as well as Ukrainians) weren't an exclusive target here. AFAIK Tatars weren't forced into Gulags without proofs of collaboration with Nazi forces (the number is estimated around 15k, which is only approximately 5% of the total Tatar population). And while the deportation is indeed should be condemned, as the significant death toll which was a consequence of it (though I wouldn't call it a "mass murder"), I don't think it's correct to attribute Soviet deeds to the modern Russia, especially considering the Russian rehabilitation law specifically targeting Crimean Tatars.
While I will not deny that a certain amount of bad blood still exists due to the deportation, I think most Tatars more concerned about their current livelihood (though I have talked only with 2 tatars, so my sample size is quite small).
The Wikipedia article states that 191,044-423,100 Tarters were deported, depending on which source is used (this doesn’t mean they all went to Gulags, but hard labour in Uzbekistan was what most did). It’s described as ethnic cleansing and mentioning the Tarters was banned. Baria and Stalin’s actions killed 34,000 to 109,956 Tarters during this time and 80,000 homes and farms lay empty.
I had an ethnically Russian co-worker from Donetsk at a previous job right around the time Russia started "supporting" the rebels there (i.e. sending in a large number of their own troops as "tourists" etc.) and while he personally hated Russia, he lamented that the vast majority of his extended family back in the Donetsk region supported and welcomed the Russians
I got the impression Putin used social media, e.g. VK, to manipulate people's opinions, eg untrue "news" about people from Russia being harassed and worse.
Seemed like successful psyops by Putin to me. I guess if Ukraine had blocked VK sooner, not many people had been particularly much pro Putin.
Of course now Putin continues with psyops via Facebook but that's harder for him than via VK.
It's quite well known if you venture outside the mainstream media.
For example there were opinion polls done by western polling orgs in Crimea where the vast majority supported unification with Russia. It's not hard to understand. Salaries in Russia are ~10x what they are in Ukraine for the same job. Economically they're not comparable, and that's before you get to the whole conflict in Ukraine starting because the government was overthrown by rebels supporting a new government that amongst its first acts, banned the Russian language.
Remember that Ukraine's response to the peaceful annexation was to cut off Crimea's entire electricity supply. That's hardly the work of a friendly government trying to help its loved citizens. Russia had to send in generator ships, if I recall correctly.
I'm from Moscow and I have relatives in Crimea. I've visited them in 90s and then in 2000s. Most of Crimea citizens are 'soviet' pro-russian people. They are happy to get russian pension and all that infrastructure porjects money cause Russia is a really rich country compared to Ukraine.
So if more than 50% of population haven't welcomed Russians, then Crimea now has twice less population, right?
It's very easy to attribute such disappearances to the evil KGB to promote political agenda, while there are far more probable explanations. It brings to mind the "Heavenly Hundred", a significant number of those people haven't even died on Maidan, but to promote the political agenda they have been promoted to national heroes, even though their "heroism" is dubious at best.
And don't tell me that's organic that suddenly bunch of big guy "civilians" appear and start using force. We have heard about green little men. So there are gray little civilians also.
And Crimea does not need to loose 50% population that does not agree. It's enough to "disappear" few more prominent activists to scare the rest.
Severe repression for some and a welcoming majority are not mutually exclusive. This is why politics are complicated, especially in regions that were passed around for decades or centuries and have very mixed population.
As much as I like the Ukrainian people, no one cared about Crimea because it was of absolutely no strategic importance to anyone but Russia. Taiwan is critically important to the US. The US _will_ go to war to defend it, and China knows this.
The whole point of US Taiwan policy and the wording of US-Taiwan Relations Act is to make it sure that the US can refuse to war against China if it attacks Taiwan.
US has treaties with South Korea and Japan that make it it clear that the US will defend them if they are under attack. The Taiwan treaty is worded in a way that US may provide assistance or limited support in a war.
The explicit wording states that in case violent action they would seek immediate Security Council action. That is toothless assurance when Russia is permanent member of security council.
They've waited seventy years for the right president. How many more decades will they wait and how will they react when they discover the military can probably force any president's hand?
>It is only since Xi became president, that China feels confident to have a more assertive foreign policy.
How so? There hasn't been a sharp rise in military spending, they haven't invaded anywhere, and they've largely maintained their same course on most of the disputed territories.
In comparison to when Mao was around and China was invading Vietnam or funding communist groups across the third world in the 70s, China today is quite tame.
In comparison with China of the 90s and 00s, China of the 10s has definitely been more aggressive. In 1990s when the Philippines grounded an old navy ship on Scarborough Shoal in the south China sea to reinforce their claims, there was barely a peep from China. By the 2010s though, Chinese coast guard ships were harassing Filipino resupply ships to their outposts and China was making it's own island bases.
People think China's being more aggressive since their point of reference is the 90s and 00s, when China was frankly a pushover on the world stage. Chinese freighter gets accused of smuggling chemical weapons to Iran in 1993 and gets held hostage in the Indian ocean before nothing was found? Not even an apology from the US. Chinese embassy gets bombed by NATO forces in 1999? Nothing but words. A Chinese fighter pilot dies in a mid air collision with an American spy plane off of Hainan in 2001? No reparations for the loss of life and expensive military hardware. Anyone would think China was being more aggressive today if their baseline was that.
>In 1990s when the Philippines grounded an old navy ship on Scarborough Shoal in the south China sea to reinforce their claims, there was barely a peep from China
They engaged in combat with both Vietnam and the Philippines over islands in the 80-90's, and effectively took over Mischief Reef in 94 by building bases on an island. Not to mention what was a huge victory for them in the return of Hong Kong. That was their primary aim for much of those decades.
There probably is some growth in aggression, but nothing like "Xi's waiting for an election before invasion."
Both involve a hostile takeover of disputed territory. One's a more impressive engineering feat, but not drastically different.
edit may have misread your post, unsure if you're comparing or detailing two steps. China has invaded uninhabited islands and built buildings to stake claims for some time. Building the uninhabited island isn't some drastic change.
But Ukraine had a very bad strategic position and outdated military. Taiwan is an island well prepared. Taking it is possible but very costly. Nuking it into oblivion is always an option but the optics of that kind of liberation is bad.
No nuclear powers are backing the Ukraine or Crimea. The US is explicitly backing Taiwan. When the CCP started conducting "exercises" near Taiwan during the Clinton era, the US sent 3 carriers to conduct "exercises" nearby.
And, as others have pointed out, they weren't trying to conquer all of Ukraine, just the parts with a "warm" water port, which also happened to have a lot of ethnic Russians. Limited scope, for a tactical gain (a seaport). The CCP, however, is trying to take all of Taiwan, and enforce their will on people who absolutely do not want it.
With a Nuclear India next door (and Nuclear Pakistan next to them), plus Japan, Vietnam, and a host of other countries that have a reason to be weary of China, it's a risky gambit. It is a good way to kickoff WWIII, for an island that is already, effectively, in the Chinese cultural and economic sphere.
Yes. Given the current administration of the United States and the previous one, yes. I'm not trying to be political, I'm just stating what I think is going to happen if that were to be the case. As it is, the US is the main one antagonizing China after their ridiculous South CHina Sea claims.
Moreover, the US is closer to Asia than Ukraine. I mean that honestly. The West Coast -- and the greater US in general -- has a lot of Taiwanese and Asians who would be upset if China took over Taiwan. Much more Asians than Russians or Ukrainians. It doesn't hit as close to home frankly.
China is working on taking Hong Kong first, before moving onto Taiwan.
I give it between 1-5 years before they move in some way on Taiwan.
One thing I would not bet on is a direct military incursion - that would cause too many foreign headaches. Something messy that's hard to pull apart is better. The current events with social unrest in HK are a good example of creating ambiguity.
The one interesting thing to me is that China normally has a very long time horizon, but now they don't. Trump has effectively made sure that Cold War 2.0 has started, and China is the enemy. The problem for the Chinese in this situation is that a substantial amount of manufacturing will move out of China, weakening their economy. And a weak economy is usually not a good thing for leadership.
There's a pretty interesting part about how Chinese media describes the causes of the unrest in Hong Kong that gives a window into how they think about the world and human nature. That is, the point about how Hong Kong's unrest is due to its education system that gets raised.
Right now, 1 country 2 systems means that PRC can't just dismantle HK's education system and institute their own until 2047. But the comments HK's education system indicate that the PRC thinks if they could just put HK's children through a state-approved education system, in 1-2 generations all the unrest in HK would be over. This is a worldview that people are ultimately malleable, or at least their children are, and that with the right childhood education you can get people to believe anything. Brainwashing, after all, is originally a word from Chinese that became an English loanword. In this worldview, everyone who's gone through schooling is brainwashed in some way to support the state that created the education system. And this worldview applies to any state-sponsored education system in the world. Take a Chinese immigrant family in America, put their 2nd gen kids through the American education system, by the 3rd gen you have Americans that can't imagine themselves as anything other than Americans.
This worldview that people can be molded is probably why China is in no rush to exercise full control over HK and Taiwan. After all, if people's national identities are so easily changed, any discontent in HK and Taiwan today can be brainwashed away in few generations. It's far more important to focus on the physical and economic levers that would allow China to exercise long-term control over those regions than social levers that determine whether people in those regions actually like the prospect. If they don't like it, their children will.
You mean other than the crippling sanctions that were actually working until Trump took office? I think you fail to realize how close Putin was to the precipice on that one - when the oligarchs lose faith, it's tough to keep your hold on power.
It's just so fascinating how this is accepted as truth, yet Crimea having a pro-Russian majority is touted as absolute bollocks, propaganda, brainwashed people.
Pretty much the same situation, completely different reaction from the same people.
I believe both of these to be correct (Falklands pro-UK, Crimea pro-Russian), fwiw.
> It’s kind of like how Spain will occasionally bluster about Gibraltar, despite the overwhelming majority of Gibraltar supporting British rule
Well, I guess that’s what happens when you replace the population of Gibraltar by British settlers. They will probably be pretty happy to be under British rule. Are you going to apply this logic to the areas colonized by Israel too?
I pick up smoking a few in a gap of a few months. Then I feel guilty and stop for a few months. I have been smoking about 50 cigs year. Truth is I don't think I can really quit. Forget addiction, I just like it that much. It is so much fun. I remember my first cig. It was so much fun. That's all it took
I used to run it on node but then I switched to notion I prefer the notion way much more. However I'm looking to move away from notion to something selfhosted.
Maybe a typo? Should be around 157dpi for a 14 inch screen. Though I absolutely agree with the general idea, high dpi screens (over 200 dpi) do make the experience much much better.