I am moderately involved with various sinology students from Europe. And have traveled to China personally.
Personally I stayed at various AirBnBs within China and registered at the police in Bejing and Shanghai.
The host provided a signed letter confirming where we are staying. With that letter I headed to a local police station where I gave the letter and had to fill out a form with basic personal details and address of where I was staying.
In return I got a stamped letter confirming my stay.
Anecdotes from others:
People who have registered late for various reasons (finding apartment, inconvenient arrival combined with work, etc)
I have as of yet not heard anything experience other than the police saying please register on time next time and still got their stamped confirmation of stay.
One standout story however is someone who looked up a recent political dissident via Baidu and got a visit from the police, nothing really exceptional happened except he got visited at his apartment got told off, had to sign a letter confirming the visit and infraction.
The person in question has been back to china multiple times since.
Chinese police are known to shy away from any work that falls away from what they are normally doing.
Registering a foreigner in a small town is a once in a lifetime experience for them, so many things can go wrong, so they wont do it.
OP's app looks more like Canva (https://www.canva.com, which Spark is also a copycat of), especially the icons in the left nav. The timeline view is super neat though.
I don't really think is an ad hominem fallacy. An ad homihem fallacy is when you attack the person making an argument rather than the argument. But no one here is attacking the people making the argument.
The argument is "Trust DDG". That argument is being attacked as "DDG's founder has done bad stuff in the past, it's likely DDG will do bad stuff, so I won't trust it". That seems to be attacking the argument to me, thus not an ad hominem.
[My opinion on trusting DDG] - [Reason for my opinion on trusting DDG].[More information about the reason]
In this case, because I don't use the "personal attack" to reach my conclusion that the person was wrong, I don't think it would be a case of argument ad hominem.
But if someone read it like this:
[One reason for my opinion on trusting DDG] - [Another reason for my opinion on trusting DDG].[More information about the second reason]
Then I am using the "personal attack" to reach my conclusion that the person was wrong, so I think it would be a case of argument ad hominem.
My comment wasn't written very well, and I'll try to write better comments in the future. Not that adding an ad hominem to a valid argument makes it invalid, I guess?. But it's still good to avoid fallacies, and to write one's comments so they're likely to be understood the way one meant them.
That’s not an ad hominem attack. The comment didn’t say that the person’s argument is wrong because that person is silly. Clearly the comment is saying that the argument itself is silly.
The intent of the comment was probably not ad hominem, as if it were rephrased like "trusting ddg is silly" because then silly is modifying the act of trusting. But as-written, silly is modifying anyone (a person) without distinguishing whether silliness is the cause or the effect; if silliness is the cause of the trust then it's an ad hominem attack. It would be more clear-cut if instead of "silly" they said "low intelligence."
A common fallacy I see, though I don't know if there's a name for it, is assuming that just because what someone is doing can be described by the name of a fallacy that what the person is doing is fallacious.
> Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy.
I'm talking about situations where no fallacy has actually occurred, not situations where a fallacy has occurred but a correct conclusion has been arrived at anyway.
So what does any fallacy tell me then? Especially the fallacy fallacy? If it does invalidate the invalidation of fallacies it is in itself untrue...bz...recursion error..bz stack overflow
Consoles have 8 and are about to have 8 cores / 16 threads. Multi core utilization on android is essential to running at lower clock speeds and not thermal throttling. Engines and graphics APIs are catching up and there are less singlethread bottlenecks than there used to be.
This is going largely off topic, but I'll indulge.
> I don't know why leavers think the UK will be able to
> negotiate better trade deals than a bloc of 27 countries.
Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of? And is what the EU offers worth ~£9 billion a year?
The UK doesn't have to make better trade deals, they can even afford to be slightly worse and still be of a net benefit. The trade deals would have to be ~£9 billion worse in order for them not to be beneficial.
Playing 4D chess: I highly suspect that the UK will receive very good trade deals in a medium/long-term gamble by other super powers to destabilize the EU.
> Other than shear volume, what does the EU offer that the UK is not capable of?
Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade negotiations.
> I highly suspect that the UK will receive very good trade deals in a medium/long-term gamble by other super powers to destabilize the EU.
Very few of the UK’s potential trade partners are superpowers where the actors necessary to negotiate and ratify a trade deal have consensus around destabilizing the EU as a goal. With a generous definition of “superpower”, you have China and Russia and that's it.
> Shear volume is a big part of why Communist China has
> better trade deals with the US than Communist Cuba, I
> wouldn't discount the importance of volume in trade
> negotiations.
That's not entirely true, it also has somewhat to do with their relaxed policy on human rights and their status in the WTO. Now that the US is looking to balance the books, China's economy has taken quite a serious hit.
That said, the UK is also part of a much older and relatively large trading group - the Commonwealth.
> Very few of the UK’s potential trade partners are
> superpowers where the actors necessary to negotiate and
> ratify a trade deal have consensus around destabilizing
> the EU as a goal.
What you hear publicly and what goes on behind closed doors, are too very different things. I highly suspect that the US also has a vested interest in breaking up the EU, after all, it's the EU which is putting pressure on its booming tech industry for example.
I also suspect that there are multiple other powers poised to take advantage of destabilization of the EU. I also further suspect the EU has realized this threat, which is why the UK must help safeguard the EU-based banks for a Brexit deal.
> With a generous definition of “superpower”, you have China
> and Russia and that's it.
The term "superpower" is not easily defined at the best of times, granted.
I'm no expert, but perhaps not having to comprise with 27 other nations will allow the UK to negotiate the trade deals that benefit them the most, rather than deals that are agreed upon by a majority of countries in the EU.
The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN on shorting the pound. By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
> The politics of Brexit are also not very suitable for a HN
> on shorting the pound.
As I stated, £3.3 billion is very small compared to its other ongoing expenses. Factually pointing out the cost of membership is neither an argument for leave or remain.
> By mentioning only the costs of remaining in the EU, not
> the ongoing benefits, you're being pretty disingenuous
Please read the Full Fact reference [1]. From the £17.4 billion membership fee I negated the rebate amounts. The only major thing not taken into consideration is the financial sector investments and the philanthropic nature of the EU.
You cannot compare a loss to a transaction. The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments, infrastructure projects. If black wednesday didn't happen you would just have an extra £3.3Bn. If we weren't members of the EU we would have £17.4Bn more, and our farmers would have lost their subsidies, rural development projects would be cancelled, we'd have no body to regulate all sorts of industries etc. etc. etc.
As well as this your other EU example is spurious too - since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's the agreed remaining financial obligations that the UK had previously committed to. In fact It's things like MEPs pensions which was agreed long before the UK decided to leave the union. So the divorce bill is essentially net 0 - the UK is paying nothing to the EU beyond the money that the UK and EU had already agreed to spend.
It's like saying losing a £50 note should be put in perspective by comparing it to my salary. My salary is much larger than £50, but that's not relevant, because for me to get £50 of disposable income I need to exclude all my living costs. It may be that my salary in fact perfectly matches my living costs - in which case whilst £50 might be tiny in that perspective, it's huge because it could be literally all of my disposable income.
> The £3.3Bn is a loss, the £17.4Bn is a payment that
> provides regulatory bodies, courts, CAP payments,
> infrastructure projects.
Not £17.4 billion's worth of transactions.
> As well as this your other EU example is spurious too -
> since the 'divorce settlement' isn't a loss either. It's
> the agreed remaining financial obligations [..]
A divorce settlement could also be called "fulfilling agreed financial obligations", but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow. I also somehow don't believe it's £30+ billion in pensions. I believe it'll mostly be investment into projects we'll never see the fruits of, I hardly believe they'll say "well, seeming as you invested into this, it's only fair you eat from the tree".
You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway").
You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)
> His point is that the index funds don't own the stocks at all
This is misleading, I think. Depends on the fund. Some seek to match the benchmark through a certain exposure to derivatives and synthetic things. Others hold the stocks in proportion.
The vanguard funds I'm invested in don't have much synthetics - they own the stocks
