Also military expansion in the region (e.g. the Philippines base) and direct aid to Taiwan. The problem for hawks is what everyone sober is already aware of: there aren’t many ways to contain a nuclear power with a large advanced economy next to its borders which don’t quickly end up in a pretty dark scenario.
Not that China needs to be contained anyway. The only worldwide threat to national security is the country with 800 military bases worldwide and a hundreds-of-years-long history of invading someone every few years.
You’re overstating the case somewhat but there’s definitely merit to that point. I think it’s a trap though to assume there can only be one aggressor in the situation: China isn’t a global military power but it has been quite aggressive around its borders and the current actions against the Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. are on a scale reminiscent of 19th century American campaigns against the native inhabitants. If you live around the South China Sea you’re quite understandably going to be worried to an extent that someone in Africa is not.
Most of those "actions" are reported to us by our government, whose ability to report objective fact has not been demonstrated. To take Xinjiang, in particular: do a deep dive into the reporting and see where it comes from. You'll discover that it all boils down to a report by one guy, a fellow of the Victims of Communism org named Adrian Zenz. His report has been responded to in various places, and whether you take the responses at face value or not, they bring up good points worth investigation that call Zenz into very serious doubt.
That’s a serious citation needed on all points, starting with the claim that only the U.S. government is reporting that and we somehow collectively imagined all of the non-governmental and non-U.S. coverage. I note in particular that the “various places” phrasing makes it hard to know what you’re talking about or how you determined those sources are credible.
It's worth reading the response from a person in China. That's not to say you should believe it _more_, but that you should hear what the objections are and whether they make sense (and whether that critique calls into question anything else in the original report, which, by the way, you should also read http://english.scio.gov.cn/xinjiangfocus/2020-09/14/content_...).
That said, "non-governmental" and "non-U.S." coverage can be suprisingly illusory. Pay attention to the sources next time you see a Xinjiang story, whether in or out of the U.S., and report back if you find out that it ultimately sources someone other than Zenz (of course, make sure to do this recursively).
It's also worth pointing out that non-governmental organizations get their funding from somewhere, and, surprise, the places most critical of China tend to get their grants from sources that are ultimately government funds. The National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Asia are particularly infamous for distancing themselves from their government ties (Allen Weinstein, a founder of the former, famously said in a 1991 interview that "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.").
Not the way America is, no. China gives loans with minimal terms to build infrastructure, and has a record of forgiving the debts when they become unpayable. The US (via the IMF) lends money for infrastructure under terms that require concessions in government policy like "repealing wage laws" and "spending less on healthcare", and rarely discharges debt, instead lending out more money at worse interest with even more austerity concessions. If a government pops up thay doesn't like the terms, we coup them. China does nothing anything like that.
I agree that the parent is being overly pessimistic, but on balance I’m not sure that your list represents a net positive. The iPhone especially has been negative, as it nearly single-handedly ushered in the era of ubiquitous smartphones, vendor lock-in, and app stores.
"No value" is of course not the same as "net positive benefit".
Takes drones for example. I've been woken by them at 7am on campsites. I've been quietly reading a book at the beach only to be disrupted by some instagram addict with a drone. Peaceful walks in the mountains have been disrupted. As far as I'm concerned, they're a net-negative. They're excessively loud, annoying, and as far as I'm concerned they're net-negative.
You're other examples are more complex, but my point is mainly: "provides value" is not identical to "net positive benefit".
Online tax prep isn't a net positive at all. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist. In normal countries, the government already knows your income and other such info, and fills out your taxes for you; you just have to verify and sign, unless there's a problem.
Messaging apps are a bit similar: SMS is so horrible that proprietary apps were made as a better alternative, but it's all Balkanized and incompatible. Still, they fill a need, since communication is important and something people should do (tax prep is not: most people shouldn't be doing it at all).
The smartphone is the worst invention in the history of the world. Worse than nuclear weapons, worse than corona virus, worse than leaded gasoline. It is an enslavement device, a tracking device, a spying device.
[EDIT] Messaging "apps" used to be neutral but now are trending negative due to being controlled by spy companies.
Taxation is theft so making it easier doesn't sound like a good thing.
Spotify is a service designed to remove your property rights under guise of giving you access to a large catalogue.
Dropbox is a government surveillance service. Upload your files so the government can scan them.
Nope. Roads? Government won't let me drive without more taxes. Healthcare? Haven't seen a doctor in a decade, not that it is "free" here anyway. Electricity, gas, water: paid for by me with duties and levies and tax on top. Firefighters? Have never once called for their services but I would pay them when needed. Police? They're the ones who enforce the stealing. Plus they get special privileges the rest of us don't.
Another way to phrase this point: if I had to choose between all of it, so far, or none of it — I’d choose the latter. And as I type here now, I say I would. Pull the plug
Only for personal use. If you're using it at work, you're supposed to purchase a license. https://obsidian.md/eula
> You need to pay for Obsidian if and only if you use it to contribute, directly or indirectly, to revenue-generating, work-related activities in a company that has two or more people.
That's not exactly how I'd read that EULA. To me it's asking for payment if you use it for work not at work. so someone recording personal notes on a work system wouldn't fall into that category, but someone using it for product development at their company would...
> If your notes contain content directly related to work projects or processes for a greater-than-one-person company, then you require a commercial license.
(This is from Q13 on that page, "I use Obsidian to store all of my knowledge, both personal and professional, because it's difficult to separate them. Do I need a commercial license?")
If what you're writing is related to your professional activity, you're supposed to pay. So for example if you use it (as the article suggests) to record your work achievements at your job, you're supposed to buy a license.
