This app uses huge amount of coupons, discounts to attract users. Unfortunately many Chinese citizen don't care if their privacy is infringed, all they care is that they are able to save maybe 5 yuan. Baidu's CEO even made an open statement that Chinese users are willing to trade privacy for convenience. That is a very sad situation.
Oh well, the fact that e-cigarette pneumonia at the end of 2019 and the samples were not allowed to be inspected, and that those US military members who went to Wuhan to participate in an event showed symptoms, is conveniently forgotten.
There are seven in-print translations of Crime and Punishment (and another six that are out-of-print). Which one is best depends on who you ask, or what you're looking for. The Garnett translation is itself considered a classic, and is in the public domain. The trendy one is Pevear and Volokhonsky. But there are other well-regarded versions to consider. This page lists them all and has extracts and links to articles to aid comparison.
https://welovetranslations.com/2020/04/25/whats-the-best-tra...
That's an interesting article -- thanks for posting.
One thing that struck me: two of the translation samples included the (correct/reasonable?) names for the street and bridge (Stolyarnyi Lane, Kokushkin Bridge). The others replaced the words with S-----i Lane, and K------n Bridge (or S. Lane etc).
I think I understand the problem. Cyrillic alphabet doesn't map to Latin alphabet, and there was no established English-language translation for the names in question. The two that attempted it even had slightly different spellings, akin to the problem we see with many Arabic names in English today.
This makes a big difference in readability, to me. The setting is supposed to be foreign and a bit unfamiliar to excultural readers, but K-------n looks like an error, a misprint, or an "(unintelligible)" in a transcription. That becomes part of the story, and it isn't intended as such by the author.
For this and other reasons, my vote goes to Sidney Monas, 1968. I'll add that note to my long and ever-growing TOREAD list. :)
I think it is just the opposite, and I'm not sure how much Dostoevsky thought about excultural readers. The setting is supposed to be familiar, or at least feel familiar, to many of the readers, to the point where certain names are redacted to give the feeling that the author is "protecting the innocent", or avoiding accusations of libel, because you are actually reading a true story and not something made out of whole cloth.
The first line of the original is (asterisks mine, indicating where Dostoyevski intentionally did not write the name of a street or bridge):
"В начале июля, в чрезвычайно жаркое время, под вечер, один молодой человек вышел из своей каморки, которую нанимал от жильцов в **С — **м переулке, на улицу и медленно, как бы в нерешимости, отправился к **К —** ну мосту."
In English:
"On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge."
I assumed that the redactions were not in the original, and that the translators were avoiding complexity by presenting the English-speaking audience with a digstible form.
I guess I underestimated the translators, or the reading public. Thanks for the correction.
PS: I did not mean that Dostoevsky intended excultural readers to feel unfamiliar, but that excultural readers should expect (and maybe prefer) a certain amount of unfamiliarity in foreign works. I thought the translators were insulating their readers from it, which felt inauthentic.
I'm even more bothered by the idea of the translators "filling in the blanks" that were intentionally placed by the author. Curious that both translators who did so, used roughly the same names for each -- perhaps they are the real names that we know the author was referencing? Still, that's a bit presumptuous, I think.
The remote authoritarian regime you fear the most have the covid-19 pandemic well under control for its people. And you still have to deal with the virus at your doorstep in your non-authoritarian paradise. How good is that?
No, it's about your neighbor slept with the wife of your great great great great great grandfather 143 years ago, and he's offspring is biting his teeth, alleging you slept with his wife, coz he probably learnt that someone can sleep with others' wife from his ancestor.
Because right now the US politicians feel challenged, and they are panicking to paint their competitor as a threat for everyone. This kind of political trick happens all the time.
Edit: it unfortunately looks like you've posted flamewar comments repeatedly as well. Would you please not? We're trying for a different quality of conversation here, as you'll see if you read the link I just mentioned.
The problem is that some of those impressions you got about China are manufactured as part of the politics. Things can't be so torn, can they? Now it's your job to figure out which ones are manufactured and which ones are not.
I truly believe that the majority of Chinese civilians are well treated under their current government.
I also think the treatment of the Uyghurs is scary. That the control of media flowing into China is so controlled that the people are not free. The lack of democracy means there are not enough checks and balances to keep the people free. The way the one child policy has been enforced is not humane. The oppression of religion means people are not free.
I am not staying any country is perfect only that I would not like to live under that control. I also fear in my part of the world we could end up under their control in my lifetime.
If you're in the Americas, Europe, or Australia that will never happen in your lifetime. Think about how plausible the US annexing China and controlling it would be. Now flip that around and double the difficulty.
If you're in southeast asia the calculus changes. But the cost benefit analysis really leans against annexing hostile locals these days unless it's some nationalist mythology like China and Taiwan. And if you're in southeast asia I'd say future heat waves and climate disasters means you'll be more likely heading north into China than them heading south.
If it's a soft ideological takeover you're envisioning then that's really the responsibility of the democratic society you live in. Democracy falls when people no longer believe in its ideas or that it is an effective way of governance.
I'm in New Zealand and have family in Vietnam. It's a soft ideological take over I'm worried about with both. Vietnam being far more likely than New Zealand but we get a lot of economic benefit from China and they are buying up agriculture in New Zealand.
Vietnam I wouldn't be worried about. China's burned it's hand in those jungles before, I doubt they're keen to do it again. As for those island disputes all I can say is good luck and at least they're not heavily populated. Unfortunately Asia still has a lot of uncleaned messes left over from the 1940s what with the constant tug of war between China and the US ever since China went communist. Vietnam isn't exactly democratic though, but I guess that's why you're in New Zealand.
As for new Zealand, remember that you always have massive leverage over China in the form of nationalizing their purchases. Don't let wealth from China be a crutch. Enjoy it but know how to live life without it if the price of wealth is too great.
That's funny. The thousand talents program is about attracting talents globally. Now who are you to say that those talents are 'yours' not 'theirs'? How about those talents the US attracted before because 'everyone likes the freedom here'? Are those not stolen simply because the US did it under a different political banner?
China has not forcefully seized foreign company's promising assets so good so it's impossible to consider for sale, by both a measly 'offer' of maybe 1/10, or less, of the market value and threatening from the leader, has it?
They haven’t directly done that, but what they have done is force American companies to form joint ventures with a Chinese company in order to operate in China.
This requires the American company to hand over intellectual property and trade secrets. And then, amazingly, some state funded competitor comes along doing the same thing the American company wants to do.
Would a Chinese company have this same problem entering America??? No.
We need to treat China the exact way they treat us. The entire western world.
No one is forcing companies to do joint ventures. These companies have the option to refuse and not operate in China. Are countries not allowed to impose restrictions on foreign companies?
What is being proposed here is to treat China, and Chinese companies, the exact same way as American companies are treated in China. So, yes, countries are free to have whatever restrictions they want. But we, the western world, must not allow China to abuse our open markets while shielding their markets.
I have no problem with this. Though US' strength has always been insidiously entering foreign markets and forcing developing countries to be dependent on US tech (e.g India, EU, GB). The more US decouples from China in terms of tech, the more incentive you are giving China to be tech independent and thus, be free of US hegemony.
You need evidence to support your claim that they are 'required' to hand over intellectual property. Joint ventures are formed based on terms and contracts, signing such contracts is a very silly move.
Also, the use of 'hand over' suggests they are all the way not willing to disclose the intellectual property but were forced to, but isn't there a patent system in China? Why would these companies refuse to disclose some intellectual property and make use the legal system, just as how they did it back home?
This isn't a new thing. It's been going on for decades. Huawei is a stolen corporation that would not exist if not for theft of technology, intellectual property, and trade secrets. It would further not exist if the Chinese market were as open as the American market and Huawei was forced to compete on a level playing field domestically.
These companies are after profit, so they chose to go to China to earn that profit. And for that profit, at some point in time, they must have deemed acceptable to give up something in exchange. Isn't this what trading is all about? Now somebody regrets they shouldn't have made certain choice, so they blame it on the other government? Be an adult.
Except it wasn't entirely their choice (to give up their IP).
Most of the companies when those joint ventures were setup were promised or told that their intellectual property was secure. It was then stolen and they were left with regret. Companies which refused to take that risk were compromised by Chinese actors and had their IP taken by force.
If you are talking about the military, hey, doesn't NSA spy on everybody on this planet? Or didn't Crypto AG spy on every client, even on the Germans, who are allies?
There is a marked difference between intelligence collection and economic espionage.
In the US, economic espionage is illegal and has been for some time, with legislation reinforcing that rule (such as the Economic Espionage act of 1996). If I as a private company engage in economic espionage I am liable to get prosecuted and may get time in prison. The same does not apply to companies in China, where economic espionage of a competitor is not only tolerated but encouraged.
The above linked suit was against individuals for economic espionage and not intelligence collection.
Stop moving the goalposts. First you asked for evidence they had to hand over trade secrets and IP and now you're saying "so that's just part of trading". You are not being an adult here with your argument.
They sure do. They also have restrictive laws that require foreign companies to sell majority stakes to government controlled companies... or at least partner with locals that have significant stakes in your company.
Even if you comply with all these regulations, you can still get booted out of the country and have all your assets and IP seized and redistributed, at the whim of their farcical of a judicial system.
