Other countries took photos of the Apollo landing sites as well, including China.

The best ones so far were taken by the Indian Chandrayaan orbiters.

Really shows how deep this conspiracy goes ! :)

Taiwan might be beholden to the US in some sense - but essentially the bargain is for Taiwan not to seek independence and disrupt the “status quo” and in exchange the US will be “strategically ambiguous” about whether it will defend Taiwan against PRC aggression or not.

That’s hardly enough to call Taiwan a “protectorate”

And the only reason Taiwan even needs the US is PRC’s belligerence.

I still maintain that the current Taiwanese government represents the will of Taiwanese people - and would even argue that more so than the American government represents the will of American people for example.

Taiwanese people have been fighting for independence throughout all its history, only to be swept up in larger geopolitical turmoil and ambitions of empires.

Population of Taiwan resisted European colonization, Qing colonization, Japanese colonization… and when it looked like they might finally get a chance at self-determination after WWII, as many other countries have, they got occupied by the ROC military and suffered another wave of colonization from the mainland (with tacit US support), and decades of brutal dictatorship and martial law. Of course each of these colonial periods contributed to shaping the unique Taiwanese identity and culture of present day.

Taiwanese people managed to survive the Chiang dictatorship and reform their government in 1990 to become a vibrant and free democracy, and became one of the most successful countries in the world. Unfortunately they have inherited the complicated geopolitical situation forged during the cold war period and delicate balance of world powers at the time, combined with gross diplomatic malpractice by Chiang Kai-shek, who then, like Xi now, was too focused on Chinese nationalism and trying to reconstruct the Qing empire, and cared little for the actual population of Taiwan.

That’s a wild comparison. Taiwan is ranked 12th in the world on the latest Economist Democracy Index (US is 28th and rated a “flawed democracy”, Pakistan is 125th and China 145th, both rated “authoritarian regime”)

Taiwan is ranked 24th in the Corruption Perception Index (US is 28th, China is 76th and Pakistan 136th)

Taiwan ranks 19th by the Human Development Index - below US which is 17th, but significantly above China at 78th and Pakistan at 168th.

After transitioning to democracy in 1990, Taiwan has been one of the most successful countries in the world by almost any metric you can think of - it has less poverty than China, less income inequality, higher literacy, far more freedoms, better social safety net, better healthcare system, higher life expectancy, higher gender equality, higher per capita GDP … you name it.

According to 2025 polls, only 1.1% of Taiwanese want unification with the PRC. 6.1% support eventual unification with China, but not with the current PRC government. Ironically, these numbers were slowly trending up and reached a high of 3.1% and 12.8% respectively in 2018 - however the crackdown on the democracy movement in Hong Kong in 2019 cut any support for unification with China to half.

There is nothing PRC takeover can offer the Taiwanese - PRC has no carrots, only sticks. And one thing is for damn sure, the PRC government cares about or represents the will of Taiwanese people far less than the Taiwanese government. China promised democracy and universal suffrage to Hong Kong in the 80s, but never delivered after the handover. Xi wants Taiwan for nationalist pride and to rebuild the Qing empire - he doesn’t care about Taiwanese people, he just wants them to be his imperial subjects.

Taiwan is not under American control. Taiwan has a democratically elected government that represents the will of Taiwanese people.

Taiwan was conquered by China as well, in the 1680s. Taiwan was colonized by China only after it was colonized by Europeans (who arrived in early 1600s) - for most of its history it was inhabited by native non-Han aboriginals, who resisted both Chinese and Japanese attempts to settle the island in the 1500s.

Even after the Qing incorporated Taiwan into China, they didn’t control the full territory - they largely left most of the mountainous areas inhabited by the aboriginals alone until late 1800s.

Qing gave Taiwan away to Japan in a treaty in 1895 btw - Japan didn’t conquer the island militarily. The local population at the time wasn’t happy about it, and even declared an independent Republic of Formosa to try to resist the Japanese colonization after being abandoned by Qing China, with tens of thousands of Taiwanese giving their lives fighting the Japanese.

America didn’t conquer the island either - they forced Japan to surrender and give up claim to the island. With Chinese civil war breaking out, the issue of Taiwan was never fully resolved after the war, with ROC assuming control as presumed successor state of the Qing - nobody really asked the Taiwanese yet again what they wanted.

Taiwanese people should finally have the final word about their own country and sovereignty - they have their own unique history, culture and identity - Taiwan shouldn’t be a plaything of empires and their imperial ambitions, be it China, Japan, America or Europe.

Perpetual bonds are an actual thing

deleted by creator

You can keep a short position for a long time, as long as you can maintain margin, which gets bigger if the stock price continues increasing, and pay margin interest - there is no set date when the short has to he closed, it’s indefinite. Sometimes the lender who loaned you the stock can ask for it back, and if you can’t locate any more shares to borrow to replace the returned shares, you might be forced to buy the shares back and close the short, but this is not common, at least during normal market conditions.

This is only partially true. Very early on, this was the case - Chinese characters started as pictograms representing objects and concepts. But this was fairly limiting in how much complexity you could capture without creating an unmanageably large set of unique pictograms. So the system evolved to use compound characters (characters made up of 2 or more components) incorporating phonetic (i.e. pronunciation) information into the writing system.

Most Chinese characters used in past 2000 years are made up of parts related to their meaning or category of meaning, and parts related to the pronunciation of the spoken word they represent (at least at some point in time, typically in Old Chinese) - these are called phono-semantic compound characters. The first comprehensive dictionary of Chinese characters that was created almost 2000 years ago already classified over 80% of all characters as phono-semantic compounds. This percentage also went up over time in later dictionaries as new compound characters were still being added.

As an example the character for book (書) - is made up of 2 parts, the semantic part is 聿 (brush - in its original form a literal picture of a hand holding a brush) on top (so the word is related to writing or painting), and 者 on the bottom (the meaning of 者 is not important here (it was a picture of a mouth eating sugarcane originally, but lost this meaning long time ago), but 者 in Old Chinese was pronounced similar to the Old Chinese spoken word for book, so it serves a purely phonetic function here)

When Chinese writing was adopted in Japan, it wasn’t really used to write Japanese - it was used to write Classical Chinese. Literate people would translate from Japanese to Chinese (which they would have been fluent in) and write it down in Classical Chinese grammar and vocabulary, not spoken Japanese grammar. They could also read it back and translate on the fly into spoken Japanese for Japanese speaking audience. They also brought in the Chinese pronunciation of the Characters into Japanese (in fact several different versions of this over time - see Go-on, Kan-on, etc.) so the phonetic hints in the characters were still useful when learning the system.

Attempting to write spoken Japanese using Chinese characters was difficult, initially they would actually use Chinese characters stripped of their meaning to represent Japanese syllables. These were later simplified to become modern kana

Spoken Chinese itself evolved beyond the monosyllabic written Classical Chinese (which remained quite rigid), so for a long time, Chinese also wrote essentially in a different language from how they spoke. It was only fairly recently that vernacular Chinese began to be written (rather than Classical Chinese) with it’s polysyllabic words (most words in modern Chinese have 2 or more syllables, and require 2 or more characters to write, further distancing modern words from the original simple pictogram meanings)

So while the idea of some kind of universal abstract concept representation divorced from phonetics sounds intriguing, in practice it is a poor way to capture the complexity and nuance of spoken languages, and all languages (including Chinese) that attempted to adopt it ended up having to build various phonetic hints and workarounds to make the system actually useful and practical for writing.

The last Bolt model year was 2023 - you can’t really find new ones at dealer lots anymore. There is supposed to be a new version coming at some point, but no official details or timeframe yet.

Plenty of countries have national parks btw. Many of them had them before America.

Well not really though ? Yellowstone established in 1872 is generally considered the first national park, in the modern sense of the term*, and inspired others to follow in the next couple of decades in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It wasn’t until the 1900s that the first national park was established in Europe.

* there are a couple of other places that also claim this distinction, depending on how exactly you define what a national park is, but not many

Calling national parks “America’s best idea” is a quote from historian and environmentalist Wallace Stegner - I think the point of it is not to toot some US exceptionalism horn - in context it’s more of an acknowledgment that America deserves a lot of criticism - saying that national parks are America’s best idea is actually putting a bit of shade on other American exceptionalism claims, especially during the Reagan “shining city upon a hill” era.

According to CBP’s own stats they conducted 42725 basic and 4322 advanced searches of electronic devices at US ports of entry last year (so before any new policies of the current administration took effect)

“Under a basic search, a border agent physically inspects your phone and reviews what they can, while an advanced search means the agent can potentially download all of your files using an external device.”

This is true, however you can still be targeted for extra checks by both customs and immigration if they have a reason to suspect you, even when departing the US. Both CBP and ICE have access to departing passenger lists.

For example you are required to declare larger sums of cash being carried out of the country (over $10k). You are supposed to go to customs and fill out a form, but many people do not know this, often legal immigrant workers taking cash back to their home countries. CBP uses dogs trained to smell cash and patrols departure lounges in airports, and if they pick you out, you can be searched, and any undeclared cash will simply be seized if found.

It’s easy to imagine with the current administration they could start targeting people based on social media posts or some kind of previously compiled political profile or “enemies” list or whatever, if they aren’t already.

photography might be an area where digital hasn’t caught up, since film’s resolution is down to the molecular level

Film resolution is limited by the size of the silver halide crystals that make up the light sensitive layer of the film. Crystals can come in different sizes, but their sensitivity to light depends on their size - generally you need pretty large crystals for usable photographic film, somewhere between 0.1 and 10 microns (depending on the film ISO rating) - about 3-5 orders of magnitude larger than what you would consider molecular scale.

When the film is developed the crystals are visible as film grain limiting the resolution in some ways similar to pixel size of a digital camera (although there are differences, since the crystal size is not completely uniform but rather has a specific distribution, creating a more random effect than the regular pixel grid of digital cameras)

The pixel sizes on modern high resolution digital camera sensors are actually similar, down to 0.5 micron. It’s hard to make an exact comparison, but I have seen estimates that you need a full frame digital sensor of somewhere between 10 to 50 megapixels to equal the resolution of 35mm ISO 100 film.

And modern sensors are much more light sensitive than film, which allows you to shoot more optimally and give you more flexibility (less exposure time, potentially higher f-stop with better lens resolution, lower ISO, less light, etc.) and therefore achieve potentially better results in more conditions. Add to that the hassle and costs of working with film, and most professional photo work is now done in digital as well. Film is generally only used for stylistic purposes, by purists who are not satisfied with digital simulation.

But your citation gives both statements:

“In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.”

and

“The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events that has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly occur an infinite number of times, given an infinite amount of time or a universe that is infinite in size.”

So when you say the number of times is “unknowable” the actual answer is “almost surely an infinite number of times” no ? Since the probability of that can be calculated as 100%. The mindfuck part is that it is still possible that no monkey at all will type a particular text, even though the probability of that is 0.

The probability that only 2 monkeys will type the text is also still 0, same as 3 monkeys, 4 monkeys, etc. - in fact the probability of any specific finite number of monkeys only typing out the text is still 0 - only the probability of an infinite number of monkeys typing it out is 100% (the probabilities of all possible outcomes, even when infinite, have to sum up to 1 after all)

We just know that it will almost surely happen, but that doesn’t mean it will happen an infinite amount of occurrences.

Basically, if we know “it will almost surely happen” then we also know just as surely (p=1) that it will also happen an infinite number of times (but it might also never happen, although with p=0)

Ok, this is interesting, so thanks for pointing me to it. I think it’s still safe to say “almost surely an infinite number of monkeys” as opposed to “almost surely at least one”, since the probability of both cases is still 100% (can their probability even be quantitatively compared ? is one 100% more likely than another 100% in this case ?)

The idea that something with probability of 0 can happen in an infinite set is still a bit of a mindfuck - although I understand why this is necessary (e.g. picking a random marble from an infinite set of marbles where 1 is blue and all others red for example - the probability of picking the blue marble is 0, but it is obviously still possible)

That’s the thing though, infinity isn’t “large” - that is the wrong way to think about it, large implies a size or bounds - infinity is boundless. An infinity can contain an infinite number of other infinities within itself.

Mathematically, if the monkeys are generating truly random sequences of letters, then an infinite number (and not just “at least one”) of them will by definition immediately start typing out Hamlet, and the probability of that is 100% (not “almost surely” edit: I was wrong on this part, 100% here does actually mean “almost surely”, see below). At the same time, every possible finite combination of letters will begin to be typed out as well, including every possible work of literature ever written, past, present or future, and each of those will begin to be typed out each by an infinite number of other monkeys, with 100% probability.

But it also works with infinite number of monkeys, one will almost surely start typing Hamlet right away.

Wouldn’t it even be not just one, but an infinite number of them that would start typing out Hamlet right away ?

The Threnody is definitely his most famous, but he has used that technique in some of his solo compositions for cello as well - example

He’s playing Penderecki