naringas

but with individualism we can form a better collective.

however it is harder to do, takes longer to get there, and there are some tough patches on the way.

because quality takes time and effort (and always encounters failure along its path). it's just more expensive to do things that way.

but the vast majority of those "lo" would be the male article not the neuter.

while the article is factually incorrect when claiming that Spanish has no neutral gender at all.

It's also true that "lo" is seldom used in Spanish and there are almost no neutral nouns (like in german).

there's a steady droll of anti-free software going on.

I take it to mean that commercial interests are stronger that potential gains enabled by new technological forms of collaboration. We (as a society) are 'choosing' to keep all gains enabled by digital technology private rather than revising the capitalist apparatus which is strained by these new digital possibilities.

I was assuming that there would be law in China that clearly stated this as a legal requirement?

Also, I have this perspective in which, given the case that this is a corrupt practice, it ends up as a form of taxation (corrupt taxation, but same thing from an certain business perspective).

I was thinking about a comment I read here, that claimed that in China companies have to hire party members because is the politically correct thing to do.

And that got me thinking how in "the west" companies have to hire lawyers (and accountants) for legal compliance reasons.

I see a parallel there.

"These "investors," who have zero industry skills or expertise, take advantage of a [insert economic activity]-as-a-service (?aaS) model to gain sophisticated capabilities"

The type of billionaire individuals who by virtue of inheriting billions upon billions, don't ever have any real skills (nor the need to develop any) and yet, they live in societies (subcultures) which expect that they keep having (and making) billions upon billions.

Think of descendants of descendants of founders of what are now giant corporations.

They fund VC-backed startups, which they then own (by proxy). They can barely use an iPhone; let alone understand how it works or is made.

Except the business being funded is a criminal enterprise, maybe their riches originally come from "shadier" dealings?

My point is that the underlying principle is the same, it's a very powerful principle. This is how the market enables societies to build super complex stuff. The marketplace abstracts away the complexities. This 'principle' is a technology, it's ethically neutral.

maybe it's one of the perks of controlling the world's reserve currency?