(Because this is the Internet, add a /s to the end of the previous message for full comprehension.)

What kind of a maniac comments Makefiles? It was hard to set up, so it should be hard to read and alter, dammit!

Dude, I said English was harder. Seriously, try to keep up! I just said it’s not much harder and comes with the benefit of people actually speaking it so that learning it isn’t a waste of effort.

Further, Esperanto is ignored because it’s not much easier than natural languages to huge swathes of the world’s population, but at least has the benefit of being utterly useless to learn.

Learn a few languages from places that aren’t Indo-European ones. Learn how you can have grammars with little to no declension, for example: no verb tenses, aspects, voices, genders, cases … not even declining by count. Then consider:

1. Esperanto has almost all of these alien-to-many concepts; and,
2. While it is true that it is more regular in these than in natural Indo-European languages, the latter have the benefit of actually having speakers: the purpose of learning a foreign language is met: communication.

On top of this:

1. Esperanto has a consonant-heavy phonetic inventory, making its pronunciation hard for a lot of speakers of other languages. (It is painfully obvious that Zamenhoff was Polish, let’s put it this way.) Too it is very bizarrely irregular (though it’s not so bizarre once you check out Zamenhoff’s native dialect and its consonantal inventory…). Lest you think this isn’t a problem, most native languages in the world rarely present more than “consonant+vowel” structures, so strings of consonants are absolutely horrendously difficult for them. (Even saying “string” is hard, and that’s mild compared to some of the atrocities of PolishEsperanto.
2. Esperanto uses a system of affixes (pre- and suf-) to words to modify word forms and attach meanings. This is a difficult concept for speakers of languages like Mandarin, say, to comprehend (where word forms are notoriously vague and grammatical particles are used in place of affixes to accomplish many of the same things). Further, Esperanto assumes that a) word forms are universal, b) that the categories in those languages that have them are the same, and c) that even when the categories are the same individual words are categorized similarly across languages. Yet in English “angry” is an adjective. In other languages it is a verb. Fancy that!
3. Esperanto has the single most useless feature of any language: gendered declensions. (And, naturally, just to add icing to this cake, the default is masculine.) Zamenhoff had the chance to remove the single most useless feature of a language from his grammar … and didn’t. Flipping FARSI managed to do this, a natural language in the Indo-European family, but a constructed language had to keep this vestigial nonsense?! Again, gendered grammar is not even slightly universal and makes the language difficult to learn for people coming from sane languages.
4. Esperanto’s lexical inventory is gloriously East European for the most part, with random slathering of Romance-language vocabulary generously applied. So, you know, using as a basis words from a small geographical region instead of words from around the world. Where are the Chinese roots? The Arabic ones? The roots from various African languages? There aren’t any. Thus it is pretty much equally difficult for a Chinese(or Arabic(or, say, Swahili))-speaking student to learn the lexicon of an actual language spoken by actual people instead of a toy language spoken by basically nobody.
5. What is a subjunctive? What is an infinitive? What is a participle? These are concepts that are very much Indo-European. Speakers of languages outside that family (which is checks notes most people) have no idea what one or more of these are. So that’s three alien grammatical concepts right off the top of my head in Esperanto’s grammar, and while sure it’s more regular (FSVO “regular”) than in natural languages, it’s the conceptual barrier that is hard to breach, not the rote memory work to learn them once you’ve grokked the idea. So again, slightly more difficult to learn a natural language, but even a natural language with as low a speaker count as Basque will give you about as many people to talk to as does Esperanto while the Big Name™ languages will give you multiple of orders of magnitude more. Each.
6. Esperanto assumes that notions of “subject”, “object”, and “argument” are linguistic universals. They aren’t. This makes Esperanto’s twee case structure with its cute little suffixes actually fiendishly difficult to learn for speakers of languages that mix agents, experiencers, and patients in ways different from the Indo-European majority. (Don’t know what agents, experiencers, and patients are? Maybe you should crack open an inventory of linguistics before talking about how “easy” a language is to learn…)
7. Why are there plurals in Esperanto? Why decline for number at all? Plenty of languages don’t and it works just fine. OK, so for whatever reason you think plurals are necessary: WHY THE HELL DOES ESPERANTO ALSO HAVE COUNT/VERB AGREEMENT!? That’s just bizarre even in many languages that have retained the unnecessary concept of a plural!
8. Personal pronouns. Ugh. There’s first person singular and plural (but no way to distinguish between inclusive and exclusive in the latter case). There’s second person with no ability to distinguish singular and plural (because consistency is for whiners!). There’s gendered (🙄) singular third-person, but non-gendered (let’s be honest: default-masculine) third-person. And then there’s a weird one (oni) that means one. Or people. Because screw making sense! Why are there gendered pronouns at all!? They serve no useful purpose; many languages (including Farsi, the language of Iran(!)) eschew them completely, and others (e.g. Mandarin) only distinguish them in writing (and that itself is a very recent cultural import!).
9. Articles. WHY IS THERE AN ARTICLE IN ESPERANTO!? And why only one!? You’ve eliminated all the other articles, take that final step dammit! Join the majority of world languages which don’t bother with these vestigial adverbs!

And I’m out of steam already. There are a whole lot of hidden linguistic assumptions in Esperanto that are alien to language speakers from outside of the Indo-European milieu, or difficult for such speakers to actually perform. To someone in steeped an Indo-European linguistic environment these are invisible. They’re “natural” or even “logical”. But they are absolute tongue-twisters and conceptual mountains for those coming from outside of those environs. And if you’re going to climb those conceptual mountains and twist your tongue in service of these phonetic horrors, where do you think it’s best to expend your efforts:

1. On a fantasy football league language that has maybe a million speakers world-wide (and that’s being generous!); or,
2. On a natural language that’s a little bit more difficult but gives you access to ~1 billion native speakers and ~200 million secondary speakers (Mandarin), ~475/75 million (Spanish), ~400 million/~1 billion (English), 350/250 million (Hindi), or even 50/26 million (Hausa)?

If you’re sane and value your time, you pick literally almost any natural language in the world for better return on investment, even though it may, in the case of some of those (coughIndo-Europeancough) languages, be a little bit more difficult than Esperanto. (Yes. A little bit.)

Esperanto is not a particularly easily learnable language to most of the world. It’s a very parochial language made by someone whose exposure to language was all European and very strongly focused on specifically East European languages both phonetically and grammatically. English, to take a horrifically terrible language at random, is not much harder to learn for, say, a Chinese speaker than Esperanto would be, but it would be a million times more useful given the rather pathetically small number of Esperanto speakers out there.

If you’re going to use a constructed IAL (as opposed to de facto lingua francas like have been historically the case), make one that isn’t filled with idiotic things like declension by case, by gender, by number, by tense, by … Or you’re going to have most people in the world ignoring it. Like you already have for Esperanto.

The troll reek is strong from this one.

The OFFICIAL NAME of the Party in English is “The Communist Party of China”.

Not “the correct translation”. The OFFICIAL NAME.

It follows, incidentally, the same pattern of naming in a whole bunch of other countries. The Communist Party of Canada, not The Canadian Communist Party. The Communist Party of Cuba, not The Cuban Communist Party. The Communist Party of Korea, not the Korean Communist Party. Etc. etc. etc.

But hey, you don’t have to believe me. Just go to their official site: http://cpc.people.com.cn/. Then try http://ccp.people.com.cn/ and see where that gets you.

Getting a name correct is the very most basic element that gets you credibility. If you can’t do that, anything else you say on the subject is highly suspect.

Consider how much credibility I’d have if I babbled about Germany as “The German Federal Republic” (or, more extremely, translated it like you did and came up with “The Dutch’s Land’s Federal Republic”) or about the USA as “The American United States”. Extrapolate.

Or you could use the proper English initialization from their official English name: Communist Party of China. But hey, why not remain an ignoramus and snark instead?

You seem to have overlooked I actually praised the Communist Party of one of the Chinas in my comment.

I didn’t. It’s why I told you instead of rolling my eyes and ignoring you.

Here’s a little tip for you: If you use “CCP” you’re basically identifying yourself as an ignoramus whose opinions on the topic can be safely ignored. After all if you can’t get the name of an institution correct, what are the odds that you got things that require genuine knowledge and nuance right?

In F/OSS circles pre-Github a fork was when there was enough dissatisfaction with a F/OSS project (for many reasons) that people went through the effort of taking the source of a project at a given point and making an entirely new project based on it. Some famous examples of this kind of fork would be the GCC/EGCS fork, the Xemacs/Emacs fork, the DragonflyBSD/FreeBSD fork, the X.org/XFree86/Freedesktop multiway fork, the OpenOffice/LibreOffice fork, etc.

In this sense of the term “fork” it’s a major watershed event in F/OSS that sometimes shapes the way future projects run. (And sometimes, like the GCC/EGCS thing, one of the branches becomes the “new normal”.)

Post-Github, a fork is just what Github calls cloning a repository on their platform within their platform. Any time you look at a project on Github, if you have an account on Github you can “fork” it (in their sense of the term) which basically means you have a cloned snapshot of that project in your account. It’s functionally identical to typing "git clone " on your own machine only it’s all kept in Github’s own ecosystem.

What I find funny about the people protesting the second use as some kind of Github conspiracy is that the alternatives they themselves recommend instead … do exactly the same thing (but aren’t subject to the same conspiracy theorist tripe)! Cognitive dissonance is a HELL of a drug…

Phase 1:

Phase 2:

Phase 3:

And that’s where it sticks forever. Longest test run was over an hour.

Indeed whenever I try to upload anything (including the images used in this report that I eventually had to host at imgur) I get this popping up briefly:

That might be a useful data point.

I’ve been unable to make any posts of any kind today. Was there a server update that turned that off?

The CBC managed to interview a self-serving Canuckistani who was flexing how “brave” he was for not abandoning his family in Wuhan when the Canadian government sent evacuation flights, but not for dependent Chinese nationals. If an outfit as incompetent as the CBC can manage to track down an expat to interview, why couldn’t professional vloggers with boots-on-the-ground contact networks?

I think you should atleast open the link and check the video description and comments. Probably it might surprise you.

It was a pleasant surprise, yes, though less pleasant was they didn’t seem to talk to any expats in Wuhan proper. That’s a damned peculiar oversight.

I think you should at least open the link and check the video description and comments. Probably it might surprise you.

I’ll do so when I have some spare time. (Last night was a non-starter. I got injured working out so my night was spent mostly whining quietly in my corner. :D)

Harvard study made that very clear, and to every single person I have mentioned it as a response to “haha but gubmint evil CCP bad no freedom”, each of them has acted like a denialist. I always tell them as an asterisk that CPC does not get to fund Harvard, so they should use better arguments to convince me.

As a general rule of thumb, when I see people use “CCP” I map in “ignorant asshole”. It’s kind of … ballsy … to claim expertise in a subject when you can’t even get the name right, after all.

One more question here. Since Russia and other socialist countries also have “authoritarian” governments yet clearly have had a response failure, why is China so different? Socialist countries generally have people in solidarity, so I want to make sense of that.

Rice culture.

No, really. It’s a thing.

When the main crop of the bulk of your society is rice, and has been for thousands of years, cooperation is in your genes and memes. Rice is not a crop you can farm large-scale individually. Using ancient techniques, for a village to even farm enough rice to feed itself (not to mention an excess for use in trade) it takes a lot of cooperative behaviour that is not needed if you’re, say, farming wheat or potatoes or such. Any person not doing their thing kills the whole. Villages that didn’t learn that lesson starved to death and stopped the spread of their genes and their cultural memes. Farming rice turns out to be a powerful vaccination against maladaptive selfishness.

Russia (which is not particularly socialist right now, and maybe never really was) doesn’t have that need to cooperate hammered into its very genetic and memetic structure. Japan and South Korea (neither of which is even remotely socialist) both do. This is why Russia fared pretty pathetically in facing a threat that was society-wide and J/SK fared relatively well.

And I saw this before https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DfBFWxTuM.

Sorry, I’m not going to watch an almost hour-long thing to get maybe ten minutes’ worth of actual information. If there’s something to read, I’ll read it. (I read like lightning.) I do not have an hour out of my day to watch what is very likely a bunch of bullshit (given that it’s on Youtube).

Why are the attitudes of people there compliant both on micro and macro scales when compared to rest of the world?

Better education, more trust in expertise (because education is valued), and better government in the experience of an overwhelming majority of the population.

On that latter point, as incredible as it may sound, keep in mind that the single largest source of government interaction most people have is with their community officials … who are their literal neighbours. Keep in mind too that in my lifetime China went from a mostly-agrarian economy to the #2 economy in the world, having switched from (barely) rural majority to full-blown urban majority population not only in my lifetime but in the time I’ve been here. (It was 60% rural when I came. Now it’s approaching 80% urban, if I remember the stats right.)

The government, to the shock and dismay of western pearl-clutchers, has a lot of credibility with the Chinese. As I’ve heard from quite a few people: if everything changed today and genuine free and open elections were held, the current government would win in a landslide. (This is especially true given the utter shit show that the western world has become in controlling a disease that was almost contemptuously handled by Chinese authorities, not to mention the clowns the “free” world put into power around the world … including India.)

There are a lot of factors that play into why China handled COVID-19 so well, and its authoritarian government is probably the least important of them (though it obviously had an impact: building two massive hospitals in under a month is something that could not happen in Canada, for example, because there would be people profiteering from the land sale, people launching lawsuits to block it on stupid grounds, etc. etc. etc.)

Me and my friend discuss things, and we feel Western countries might still struggle with this for a year, and USA for even close to 2 years, at the rate the whole scenario is going on.

A year? You’re an optimist. Look at the chart I posted. Two years into a pandemic that has already killed over 5.5 million people and infected over 300 million and … Europe and North America both are having sudden rapid rises in infections. Two years in and they haven’t learned even the basics that China learned in the first three months or so (from the December start date, not the date of the Great Lockdown).

This is not going away anytime soon. Five years from now there will still be outbreaks all over the “free” world and more and more people are going to stack up in body bags.

(As a side note, whenever someone opens with “I am not X, but…” my brain automatically finishes that with “…I totally am X.” You might want to work on that.)

If you “know” more than people with boots on the ground there is simply no hope of convincing you. I’ve learned since the Great Wuhan Lockdown not to argue with people who are convinced and can’t be unconvinced. I just break out the popcorn and enjoy their lamentations.

But the fact is that my direct social sphere numbers in the thousands (courtesy of 16 years of teaching … that’s a lot of students, and in China students keep in touch). With my family (spread out over about four cities here—including Wuhan), my friends (mostly just Wuhan), my colleagues (again mostly Wuhan), and my former students I know nobody directly who has had a case of COVID-19. None of their family or other people important to them have had cases. And take that another degree of separation and still, thus far, not a single reported case.

I’m also in a few QQ and WeChat groups that have people spread around the country. These groups have participation measured in six figures or more. Not a case reported. My Weibo interaction is smaller, but that’s another 50,000 or so people, from a brief eyeballing, that have no reported cases.

Oh and somewhere along the way I also managed to completely fail to fall over the stacks of bodies that would be required for some of the more hysterical death estimates. (Some fuckwits are saying 21 million dead because mobile phone cancellations.)

Oh, sorry. I lied. I do know a friend who got COVID-19.

In Poland.

Not a single person in China.

So … your dad is a doctor, but he’s not a doctor IN CHINA. He has not seen what mitigation efforts were used IN CHINA. He has not seen the behaviour of people IN CHINA. He is, to put this bluntly, not a source of information. He is at best a slightly better than average source of speculation.

But speculation don’t mean shit in the face of actual information and experience.

Here’s a few clues, however, to help you through your confusion.

… unless they literally locked people away in their homes …

When the Great Lockdown occurred in Wuhan, there were no locks. But yes, people were required to remain in their domiciles for all but a very small number of very specific activities. For two months my world was my apartment with my wife, my son, and my mother-in-law. We were permitted to leave only to drop off refuse, and to pick up food deliveries (in timed small batches of people) from the compound gate. When we had a lockdown, it wasn’t that cosplay shit the west called a lockdown. It was a genuine lockdown. For two months. Dead streets. Dead businesses. Dead parks. Dead everything. The only things that moved were ambulances, police vehicles, and the delivery trucks.

(The story of those delivery trucks alone is worth a fucking movie. They were the real heroes of Wuhan, topping even the health workers by a small margin!)

Is it because asymptomatic testing was avoided entirely?

The exact opposite. In the summer of 2021 when we had a Delta outbreak in Wuhan, the entire population of Wuhan (11 million people) were tested. Twice. Inside of two weeks. Again, the Chinese didn’t do the cosplay shit the rest of the world did in fighting COVID-19. When a case was found (note: A CASE, singular!), a large district of the city was shut down in a mini-lockdown, contract tracing was turned back on, everybody was tested (twice, as I said), and that was kept up for a few weeks until it was clear the Delta spread had been stopped. Then life returned to normal.

I live here. Which specific lies are you thinking of? Let’s see if I can’t put any of them to bed for you.

“Banned from Twitter” is usually code for “right-wing extremist” IME. I mean look at Gab or Parler and see what’s mostly in there.

… the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 …

Ooh! I missed that one!

There was no Tiananmen Square Massacre. At all. This is hinted at in the very title of the piece you quoted: 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. There’s a few “facts” you’re going to find out, to your likely intense shock, surrounding that.

1. There was no massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Citing the same source you quoted:

Several people who were situated around the square that night, including former Beijing bureau chief of The Washington Post Jay Mathews and CBS correspondent Richard Roth reported that while they had heard sporadic gunfire, they could not find enough evidence to suggest that a massacre took place on the Square itself.

Taiwan-born Hou Dejian was present in the square to show solidarity with the students and claimed that he didn’t see any massacre occurring in the square. He was quoted by Xiaoping Li, a former China dissident to have stated, “Some people said 200 died in the square, and others claimed that as many as 2,000 died. There were also stories of tanks running over students who were trying to leave. I have to say I did not see any of that. I was in the square until 6:30 in the morning.”

Want non-Chinese sources? How about The Columbia Journalism Review? Read that and a few more similar sources (the finding of which is left as a learning exercise) and upon completion ponder this: what other things have you been lied to about over the course of your life?

2. No matter what you think you remember, Tank Man did not get run over.

I have met people utterly SHOCKED (indeed shaken to their core) when faced with the evidence that what they “clearly remember”—Tank Man being squished into pulp under the treads of merciless Chinese tanks—never happened, but … it didn’t. If you remember seeing Tank Man killed, you are the victim of very skilled propaganda using carefully timed editing, skillfully worded suggestion, and flat-out lies.

The full video exists showing the aftermath of the famous, iconic shots that shocked the world. It’s a good exercise to seek it out. When you do, ponder this: what other things have you been lied to about over the course of your life?

3. The real story of what went on is far darker.

Not only because of what it implies for the Chinese people but also because of what it implies for western people. The truth is that there was protests aplenty in Beijing in 1989. And there was a massacre. It’s just that the protests the Chinese government was nervous of were worker protests, not student protests. The thing is that the western press didn’t want to do the actual work (and dangerous work!) of covering these. The children cosplaying revolutionary were far more photogenic and could be covered within a brief walk from the popular journalist hang-out hotel.

Further, the corporate masters of most western media really did not want to be broadcasting stories of workers rising in rebellion against cruel masters. It would have struck far too close to home, that would have. Much better to focus on the cute kiddies playing revolutionary! D’aw! They even have a mock Statue of Liberty they call the Goddess of Democracy! Aren’t they cute!?

The real massacre was near Muxidi. It was a massacre of workers who’d finally had enough and snapped. Who’d rioted and attacked police and PLA. Who were subsequently mercilessly gunned down by machine gun, run over by tanks and APCs and generally slaughtered. It was the low point of governance in the modern era of China and it sparked quiet reforms that continue to this day: some good for the people, some … not so good.

In retrospect the press story never really made any sense. The students at the protests came from all the top universities in Beijing and environs. They were the scions of the most powerful and wealthy people in China. They were the sons and daughters of Chinese leaders! I know that people have been trained for their entire lives into thinking that the Chinese are unthinking, unfeeling robots, but do you seriously believe it extends to the point that Chinese leaders are going to order the massacre of their very own children!?

Ponder that for a while, and ponder this: what other things have you been lied to about over the course of your life?

4. The protests (and suppressions) didn’t just happen in Beijing.

One of the huge problems I have with the ZOMG THEY KILLED ALL THE STUDENTS IN THE SQUARE!!!1111oneoneoneeleventyone!!! narrative is that not only does it suppress the worker uprising and subsequent bloody suppression in Beijing, it also hides the same uprisings and suppressions that happened all over the place! There were protests in Shanghai. In Fujian province. In Hubei province. In all kinds of places. Workers protested. Low-level Communist Party officials protested. PLA SOLDIERS PROTESTED! This was a nationwide political disaster brewing and all of that is erased in the official western record of cute kids cosplaying counter-revolutionary.

What possible motive could the press have for not reporting this? (It was known to them. You’ll find sources detailing that quite easily once you drop down that particular rabbit hole.) Ponder that and ponder this: what other things have you been lied to about over the course of your life?

5. Things have actually improved since then.

You don’t last as long as absolute dictators as the Chinese government has, over a population as unruly as the Chinese have historically always been, if you’re stupid. While the Chinese government did clamp down and clamp down hard (the better term is “brutally”) on the uprisings (note the plural) they also recognized what led to them and started to, get this, fix the problems.

Jackasses from the west bemoan that the locals don’t want to talk about 1989 with them. There’s three major reasons for this, however.

1. Nobody trusts the west. There’s a long, ignoble tradition of the western press putting sources at risk and then topping it all off by lying. Of fucking course they’re not going to want to talk about politically-sensitive issues, knowing that western reporters are sociopaths who’ll put them and their families at risk all for the fucking clicks.
2. Most of the time people use the wrong language. They assume everybody calls it the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre for instance. Which is not the term used here. Quite often, I suspect, the people being asked have no idea what they’re being asked. It would be like me going up to an American and asking them their opinion on Santa Anna’s Grand Victory or whatever.
3. 1989 is over 30 years ago. Most of the people being addressed weren’t even born for it. Many of the rest were in middle school. They don’t know, and don’t care, what you’re talking about. Kind of like how most Americans alive today don’t know or care about the fall of the Berlin Wall.