data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf8c3/bf8c3e045d9e7a3cdac15a8a00769f0e5011fed2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cf573/cf5738a7398ffdaa742b09be1bd3b76519a7aa46" alt=""
18·
24 days agoIt’s funny that they did all that and open-sourced it too. Like some kid accusing another to copy their homeworks while the other kid did significantly better and also offered to share.
It’s funny that they did all that and open-sourced it too. Like some kid accusing another to copy their homeworks while the other kid did significantly better and also offered to share.
Wait I somehow never thought about this, does the one china policy really dictates that they have to apply tariffs across the strait? I assume it’s in jest since I’m pretty sure they regular import/export on a smaller scale yet (like ban on Xinjiang imports), but I’m curious
I wouldn’t expect anyone to deny the existence of corruption or abuse of power, but I think the corrupting influence of power is often used to justify in retrospect the acts of people put into power to do exactly that. It might sound pedantic to say that CEOs or state officials aren’t really “corrupt”, because they rarely ever intend to represent the interests of the workforce or population, but really it’s a total inversion of causality. They don’t “betray” because they got in power, they got in power to “betray”.
On an interesting sidenote, it also goes against the common misconception that any form of authority ultimately leads to corruption, since those same CEOs and officials seem to stay pretty loyal.