Yes, this is the reality of politics, lines on maps aren’t realities on the ground. That goes both ways

I haven’t read Gordon chang, but I think the demographics situation of China will reduce growth and see a decline in China. I don’t think that’s a controversial thing to say in a geopolitical context, what about it do you disagree with?

Yes, in all of the places that the United States has allies. That is an inherent backing but I think the people there are the main thing keeping the current political groups in power in those countries. If China, for instance, believed they wouldn’t need to violently overthrow the current rulers of Taiwan and the people backing them they could just go there and assume control bloodlessly. I think they don’t because they fear the Taiwanese people acting to stop them to maintain the current political reality of the island. It’s not Americans that woild act to stop landings, it’s Taiwanese people.

And to you too. I don’t know why you ask people to investigate things that you don’t find important enough to share your opinion on, it’s a strange way to communicate.

I’m not really looking at the situation from these minor perspectives like ai, the reality of Chinese demographics is enough to show that there’s a certain decline looming around China and this presents a current best opportunity for China to achieve its outward facing goals as a decline in growth will limit its future capabilities to achieve those goals

You are right that China is not occupying Taiwan, they don’t have any substantial presence there. Countries generally do occupy the places that make up the country though, the question I think we’re considering is about a military occupation, whether the occupation is welcomed by the population freely or maintained through force by military action. It was split because of a civil war between different Chinese factions, not western imperialism. Neither was Korea split by West and East, it was split by American and Soviet forces.who agreed to the demarcation line and then upheld by the United nations. China wishes it could occupy Taiwan, but the Taiwanese people have rejected that idea many times so China is forced to abandon the idea or attempt a military occupation. I hope there’s no military occupation but rather further attempts to peacefully integrate. What are you hoping for?

McCarthy was a long time ago, I think we’re well beyond that today. Today the situation was no peaceful trade and a drawdown of military forces in the far east and dependence upon each other. Then China started building up their military, so some from the West decided not to back down and met that build up, this caused a trade rift and a continued build up and fracturing of those economies to remove the dependencies. I don’t think any of these are the product of anti China racism.

I think recent history is actually very peaceful. There have been minor wars, yes, but nothing like what history has shown the world capable of in the past.

We should also consider that all of the military build up around Taiwan isn’t just around Taiwan, it’s around other allies in the region so any buildup against Taiwan threatens multiple American allies in the region so there was never a real possiblity that they wouldn’t step up to the challenge presented by China

I’m not sure that the United States is more democratic, I do know that China is a one party state and because of that don’t believe it’s in Chinas best interest to be transparent. I think it’s in Chinas best interest to maintain the power of the party above all. I think this is fundamentally different from a true democracy, which I’m not convinced the United states is, to promote transparency in political issues because they have competition that they need to be able to keep an eye on when they lose power. Regardless, I’m not sure what domestic policy has to do with the geopolitics of the situation.

You’re not obligated to answer anything, but if this kind of thing is supposed to be a priority for you but it’s not important enough for you to say what you mean then why would I think this is important enough for me to devote my time to?

I recognize the way China thinks about it, but the way the world is is that the United States already controls Hawaii, there would be no change to the situation on United States placing more assets there and occupying further. No real resistance or anything would be expected for American soldiers increasing the garrison on the island.

China does not control Taiwan, there would be resistance. The geopolitical reality is that there’s no way for China to peacefully walk in assume control to put an end to the civil war. Not only that but trade that many countries rely on would change hands to what they may believe to be less reliable hands.

I recognize the Chinese perspective, but the reality is different from Chinas desire and not recognizing that leads to situations like this.

I also don’t think it’s already decisively concluded in favor of China. Taiwan doesn’t need to win, they only need to outlast a China that’s in decline. The instability from these kinds of decisions is pretty great and this was caused by China, not the United States, the United States is responding to what they see as Chinese buildup with their own buildup. There has been a multi generational draw down in American military in the region before China began the build up that the United States is not responding to.

Should also consider that the United States isn’t only building up around Taiwan, the United States has many obligations in the region that are threatened by Chinese buildup that they must respond to if they want to keep their alliances in the region.

So while there’s some danger for China because of the America. Response to their build up I think it’s something that China must e expected when they built up their own military around American allies in the region, regardless of Taiwan.

I usually get a double and think it’s pretty good, maybe a bit too tall

I always thought the fries were the way they are because they’re fresh cut in the place and not dehydrated and frozen

I’m interested in why you think it’s wrong

I think the current military preparation is fueled by xi’s military buildup and ask for the Chinese military for Taiwan invasion options by 2027.

The united States has responded with rebuilding air and navel bases in the area and modernization programs, largely focused around the navy.

I think it lines up well with the reality of the countries involved. China’s options for occupation of Taiwan will start to diminish as their population ages and shrinks and is less capable to take action. We’re seeing China at their height today and they are communicating that theyre preparing options for action in Taiwan. The response is to prepare to meet those threats, which isn’t really surprising. Neither do I think it’s signs of the West wanting conflict with China, I think it’s the opposite, a deterrence for China, clearly communicating that their threats wont go unchallenged. I think everyone in the West is hoping that deterrence is enough to prevent war, not provoke it.

Neither is it surprising that we don’t see government funding companies for research in the West to the level we see China doing so. That’s not really what government does in the West, companies generally take their own risk while the government may fund some select investments but generally will stay out of it. This idea that the West will adopt Chinese governance before it’s shown any ability to produce long term results or cope with the risks they take on is fantasy. The West has always prioritized stability and risk management, they’re not likely to change without good cause.

No shame in asking questions

Tech fields are always moving forward, if someone has a question they should ask instead of guess

Further, older entrants with experience in older technologies have value that a company may need that newer entrants may not have really had the opportunity to ever work with. Deprecated technology still runs a lot of systems and companies will drag their feet in moving on because they have these older people working for them that, if a problem comes up they’re going to deal with and the company perception is that it’s cheaper than updating the entire thing to more modern solutions.

In n out has the best food and it’s still like $5 for a meal

It’s why all of the other drive throughs are empty and in n outs drive through line spans three parking lots. Somehow pulling up to in n out as the 40th person in the line I still get through it quicker than if I pull up to an empty McDonald’s. I guess the in n out having 20 employees is able to actually make food faster than the McDonald’s with maybe two people in it

I think diversity and inclusion is a net benefit to society, I don’t think government is capable to enforce diversity and inclusion in private spaces in any real way. Over time I think market forces will result in that diversity naturally as the companies who hire the best qualified people incisively do better than those who prioritize traits that don’t create better outcomes

I’m not sure what equity is in the context of government enforcement but I’m 100% for equality if opportunity. Maybe someone can help me understand equity in the context of these programs: for instance, what equity programs was Biden promoting for the previous for years?