ElBarto

Hongkong was taken away from China with cannons and drugs.

Handing it back was the right thing to do legally (for the new territories), morally, and historically.

It's sad to see people effectively praising European imperialism in 2019, reminds me of the old "civilising the natives" antics.

Edit since I'm being prevented from relying to comments:

There is no regression. Those protesters were charged under a colonial-era law.

Hongkong did not even have the Legislative Council under the British, which was created it as a 'gift' to the Chinese.

From the popular vote, it seems to me that the "pro-Beijing" camp has a majority, so that's what "the people want"...

Let's be realistic and put things in perspective, shall we.

Edit 2:

To the person who replied:

> Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed. Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.

HK's culture is as Chinese as can be. In fact it is more traditional Chinese than the mainland. They speak Chinese (Cantonese is 'Chinese', it's the language spoken in Guangdong province hence why it is spoken in HK, 'Canton' is how Guangzhou used to be called...), they eat Chinese. It would be good to know a minimum about a topic before commenting.

An accident in a nuclear plant that was constructed in a highly seismic and tsunami-prone area isn't an argument against nuclear power.

I'm sure that Germany can find a more suited location if they wanted...

Anyway, France is peppered with nuclear plants and Germany is right downwind from many of them.

We have "probability different from zero" to be annihilated by an asteroid...

This is again spreading irrational fears.

We know how to make nuclear power safe. Nuclear power is safe.

It's not helpful to try to kill the discussion by stroking irrational fears.

> It does because it is a relatively industrialized country.

No, it does because its electricity comes from fossil fuels.

You are completely avoiding the point of my comment. Germany could have much, much lower emissions with nuclear but it has decided to continue emitting for political reasons, while trying to claim that they are 'green'...

Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point and you'll see that it is not really realistic.

Then, take into account the goal of making of vehicles electric in the next 20 years.

There is no viable alternative to nuclear as of today even if renewables should of course be pushed as much as possible.

Germany is emitting heavily because most of its electricity comes from fossil fuel and it decided to kill nuclear power of purely ideological reasons. (wood fired plants are counted as renewables in the EU, by the way)

The absolute priority should be to get rid of emissions, i.e. fossil fuels. Germany decided to get rid of nuclear energy first.

They are not a good example to follow.

"Unlimited vacation" is just a gimmick that originated in the US.

Since there are no legal right to anything over there they can advertise "unlimited vacation" but the reality can be quite different because (1) approval is obviously still required, and (2) there is obviously a pressure not to be seem as being a slacker.

In Europe you have 20-25 days mandated by law and people do use them because companies tend to force them for fear of getting into trouble for flaunting employment law.

Bugs are change requests like any others.

Trivial bugs can just be fixed.

Non-trivial, non-urgent bugs can go to the backlog for the next sprint(s).

Non-trivial, urgent bugs replace go into the current sprint, with planned dev. being kicked down to the next sprint.

What happens if you lose access to Stripe or they shut down?

Engineering is one thing but it must never trump strategic business thinking. Sometimes the cleverer engineering option is a business death trap.

Any solution that puts your balls into someone else's hands is suicidal.

Agreed.

> In general, we think it's a good idea to make Stripe the "one true source" for as much of your customer and billing data as possible.

Customer and billing data are mission critical and as such having a third party payment processor as "one true source" seems suicidal, frankly.

We have Stripe handle the actual payments and nothing else.

The comparison was with the holocaust, and what China does, which you clearly don't know, has also nothing to do with the Nuremberg Laws.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

The author (what's his authority, by the way?) agrees, though:

> Well, it can't sell "copyright licenses," as that is a misrepresentation over the rights that Getty Images has -- but if it wants to try to get people to pay for stuff that is otherwise available for free, that's Getty's prerogative.

His point is that he does not think that Getty was selling licences. However Getty's past behaviour (and I'm sure their own website since I'm sure that the T&C and the licence are attached to any sale) suggests that this is exactly what they were doing:

> The first one was brought by photographer Carol Highsmith, who sued Getty after Getty had sent a demand letter to her over her own images, which she had donated to the Library of Congress to be put into the public domain.

And yes, knowingly selling licences for rights you do not have is against the law. If you think it's not then I'm happy to sell you a licence to fish in the River Dee...