All these small details will be forgotten in less than a year. But association "Navier-Stokes -- OpenAI" will be part of the history. In my opinion, they are thinking about long term PR here.
The idea of putting "Tibet" and "human rights" close to each other doesn't look very promising to me based on some historic observations of pre-China Tibet lifestyle http://masterok.livejournal.com/1713489.html (sorry for russian, but hopefully it is pretty simple for automatic translation)
Completely agree. Always the same excuse - bring up the past to defend the present. More than 125 Tibetans have set themselves on fire since March 2011[1], including three in the past week [2] (37-yr-old monk, 20-yr-old woman, and a 34-yr-old man) to protest against this repressive Chinese occupation. As a Tibetan, the past protests and these self-immolations are heart-wrenching and at the Toronto vigil this past weekend, there were people in tears. It's just hard.
We live in this amazing world and yet we have all these geopolitical issues (Eastern Europe, Middle East, Tibet, Kashmir, etc.) caused by various factors we vehemently believe/oppose (we humans have an brilliant capacity to rationalize any of our actions/beliefs). This past summer, I traveled across Kashmir with my two high school friends to visit the areas where the Indo-Pakistani[3] and Sino-Indian[4] wars took place. The landscape was beautiful, especially in the Ladakh regions. But overall, these regions are occupied by villages and small towns dwarfed by the huge military bases. Why can't these local people live by themselves without the fear of another war? Most of you already know, it's the same textbook example: a new ruler comes in town, finds the need to distract/rally his or her country - what better than a war (this "war" could be extended to politics/tech/biz, not just the old Roman wars)? History is littered with the similar plots and it works every single time.
Sometimes, I wonder if an ET contact would be good for our world so we could put down our differences and realize we are all in this together so we could take care of each other, our neighbors, and our amazing planet! Also, solving Fermi's paradox [5] would be icing on the cake!
This is not an excuse for China's violation of natural human rights. I'm just putting some attention to idea that Tibet is probably not the most terrified-by-China territory, rather the other way round.
The other way around? What other way around? People in China are terrified by Tibet, because of Tibet's historic human rights violations? Like the Chinese are scared that Tibet might invade and take over China? Really?
I mean, I suppose Americans are terrified of the Pakistani children their military is killing with drones too.
Human rights are a luxury of stable, developed countries. If autocratic governments are too liberal with them, they can lose their power, and that can end up worse than all the human rights problems put together (ie civil war). See Iraq or Syria for example.
Not a requirement. Eg USA didn't have them half a century ago despite being mostly developed (I understand some parts are still a bit wild west), and fairly stable (probably not really going to be taken over by communism).
> Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.
Let me follow your definition, say, in the case of Ancient Rome. There is a minority of masters and a majority of slaves. Minority of masters has a dissent (from the slave's point of view, of course) that slaves should stay slaves. So, according to you, it is wrong for them to fight for their freedom, right?
This statement makes sense for some specific ethic systems.
For instance, in almost all modern states there are ideas, which are shared by some majorities and considered unethical in Christian ethic system.
But bad_user seems to imply ethic system which is based on the aggregate citizens vision. With such ethic system opinions of majorities are ethical by tautology.
Not exactly :) If we suppose that entire economy (which is nearly 70,000,000$M) is expressed in bitcoins (there will be 20M of it), then each bitcoin would cost 3.5$M. Started from order of 4e-2, it is now traded around 4e2, so it have done half-way (in logarithmic scale) to 4e6 -- its potential limit value.
reply