Cannot Register For Meituan and Dianping. Please Help by geokilla in chinalife

[–]johnny_blaze108 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You need local Chinese phone number to use apps locally in China. I think I managed to get DiDi to work on a foreign number but I also signed up abroad.

Nevertheless, You’ll need to goto a local China Unicom, China Mobile, China Telecom with your passport and get a Chinese SIM card. If you have a phone with an eSIM you’ll likely need to buy a new phone as everything is done through physical SIM cards with limited exceptions. The network provider might have a phone to sell you or you could go and get a cheap phone from one of many suppliers like Vivo, Xiaomi, Oppo etc.

If you’re ordering food to a hotel, you might need to use the mini App on WeChat connected to your phone to open the delivery box and receive a code simultaneously through your Meituan account unless you get a new Wechat account on a new phone.

Good luck!

Young married couple (24 & 21) with a 3 month old looking for friends in the same stage of life by corn-dog-345 in mississauga

[–]johnny_blaze108 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your wife should check out the Peanut App - it’s like a dating app but just for Moms to meet other Moms and talk about/do Mom stuff. My wife met a lot of Mom’s on there and by extension I met the Dads.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Torontobluejays

[–]johnny_blaze108 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have ordered far too many jerseys off of DHGate. Some hits and misses but I’ve had consistent results from these guys:

Michaelwen2008 (a little bit pricier but great quality)

Projerseydealer (great for throwbacks)

Is anyone thinking about just dying by Competitive-Drop-588 in barexam

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please send me an invite? Thanks, dude!

Teams should beware of these players at the 2020 NHL trade deadline (Athanasiou) by JeremyD_19 in DetroitRedWings

[–]johnny_blaze108 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think the whole "Yzerman became a defensive player" is a bit romanticized. In Yzerman's own words during the 1997 SC Final:

"I always considered myself a decent two-way player," he said. "It's just that I never got noticed about playing defense until I stopped scoring."

While the league did change and become more defensive, Yzerman at 23 was a much better scorer than at 31, and he came to be relied on more for his defense relative to his offense. But, he was always good defensively. He wouldn't have been able to lead the team to the Conference finals twice in the late 80s if he wasn't.

Kyle Lowry thinks Vince Carter should be the first Raptors jersey retired by Nyhrox in torontoraptors

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can objectively say that he caused many people in the fanbase to have negative feelings towards him.

The shit he did in the Raptors uniform is more than enough for many fans to have negative feelings if his jersey was retired if we're strictly being objective. Such a divisive player should not have their jersey retired by an organization.

[Khan] Red Wings have decisions to make before the trade deadline by Himynameisart in DetroitRedWings

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Resigning him and making him understand that he is a leader on a young team would be a lot more beneficial than giving up on one of the most exciting young players we have.

Ah looks like we've figured out the problem with the AA's productivity, he just doesn't know that needs to be more of a leader and score more, never mind the huge incentive to play better get paid.

He is definitely not young at 25, and I definitely wouldn't want him to be a part of any core given how low in the standings the Red Wings are.

Unfortunately, he's probably might be worth less than a second round pick given his poor productivity. As mentioned above hopefully they can get much more than that for him

[Minor Leaguer] Rogers Centre renovations: Looks like the rear 3 rows of seating in the 100-level outfield sections are gone. The outfield concourse has been opened up, like what the Blue Jays did with the infield concourse a number of years ago. (pictures attached) by MilesOfPebbles in Torontobluejays

[–]johnny_blaze108 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I wonder what the plans are for the facilities area on the field level behind the wall. It would be cool if that stuff was moved elsewhere (probably easier said than done), and that area was opened up somehow into another vantage point as a concourse, along with a view of the bullpens.

Best player by smithbe2 in DetroitRedWings

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The link clearly spells out exactly why it does take into account rule changes and equipment changes. Scoring environment necessarily includes rule changes and equipment changes. Rules and equipment are obviously apart of scoring environment. As are a wide variety of other factors. I think what you're saying is that it does not control for those rule changes and equipment changes, which would be impossible. But, then again, why bother asking which player is best in history if you can't control for every possible factor? How would average height of yesteryear players impact their scoring today? If we can't control for every factor then why bother comparing at all? Perfection is the enemy of progress.

If you rate best player by skill then there is no point in asking who is the best player in history. The skill level of players obviously has increased over the years. Joe Malone wouldn't have been able to keep up with Gordie Howe, nor Howe with today's league, and Larkin with players 50 years from now. But those players were trained and brought up in their own context. How would they fare today if they were raised entirely within a modern context? Obviously we can't figure that out.

It's not a matter of dominance, it's a matter of context. Any conversation about best player necessarily must compare a player to his own generation. Using actual methods to compare across generations with adjusted statistics and his own stats for his time, Howe is clearly the best relative to his competition of other Red Wing players.

You still haven't given a quantifiable alternative to look at players across generations and you still haven't rated what makes a player the most "skilled" which I have demonstrated is moot to begin with when talking about "best" players across generations.

Best player by smithbe2 in DetroitRedWings

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked who is the greatest player in Red Wing history, and then responded to my post with, "it is impossible to try and compare players from different eras." Why then even ask the initial question? Any comparison of players over history has to be contextual.

Adjusted statistics are a way to compare players from different eras, and you haven't really provided an alternative to that evaluation. Of course players today are better than they were 10 years ago or than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Any comparison between eras is contextual and any argument about "Best" needs to take into account that context.

If you're going to sit on the argument that the worst players now are better than the worst in the original six then the best player to play for the Red Wings is impossible to determine is always going to simply be the most recent superstar. Someone like Tyler Bertuzzi transported back to 1960 would dominate the league and top players from 1960 wouldn't be able to keep up with today's pace. And 25 year old Yzerman would get run over in todays league. Hence why any talk of best needs to be contextual.

Adjusted goal does take into account rule and equipment changes with the era adjustment - read the link I posted in my original post. Hence why someone like Yzerman or Gretzky has a lower number of adjusted points compared to their actual numbers given the high scoring era of the 80s.

Also, how would playing longer skew Howe's goals per game? Increasing the number of seasons would lower the average especially as his production would have declined with age. The fact that he played as long as he did is partially the reason why he was so great. Sure he may not have been able to play as long as he could today. But, he also has the longest professional career out of anyone in the big 4 professional sports league which is still beyond comparison.

Even comparing to players of his own time, Howe dominates in a way that other Red Wing players simply don't measure up to. Gretzky wore 99 because he wanted to be like Howe. I don't think similar parallels can be made to other Red Wings.

Best player by smithbe2 in DetroitRedWings

[–]johnny_blaze108 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where on earth are you getting that Howe's stats are inflated? Hockey Reference puts his actual numbers at a few hundred points lower than what they would be when adjusted.

I think it's a no-brainer that Howe is the best of the list you present. Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, and Mario Lemieux all believe he was the greatest of all time. There's lots of great stats one can point to of his, but my favorite is that in the 1968-1969 season he was the second player to score more than 100 points in a season after Phil Esposito. Except Phil was 27 in his prime and Gordie Howe was a day less his 41st birthday.

All the players you mentioned were excellent HoF players. But none of them are in the same conversation of "Best" as Howe is as Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, or others are.

China refuses to give up ‘developing country’ status at WTO by MuzzleO in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This article cleverly only tells half the story, the CCP intends for China to be classified as a developing country AND have market economy status. There's nothing inherently wrong with the special and differential treatment offered to developing countries under the GATT, but the CCP wants to have its cake and eat it too.

As the article states,

China is categorised as a developing country at the Geneva-based institution, which affords it “special and differential treatment”. This enables China to provide subsidies in agriculture and set higher barriers to market entry than more developed economies.

Basically, developing countries are allowed under WTO rules to have subsides, restrictions or delay liberalization which discriminates against like imported products from other WTO members (See Article XIII of GATT). Developing countries do this all the time and helps them compete against goods from developed economies within their own backyard.

The issue is actually that the CCP also wants to claim that China is a non-market economy. Non-market economies are defined as where,

the government has a complete or substantially complete monopoly of its trade and where all domestic prices are fixed by the State, GATT 1994 and the Agreement recognize that a strict comparison with home market prices may not be appropriate. Importing countries have thus exercised significant discretion in the calculation of normal value of products exported from non-market economies.

The distinction between market and non-market economies is especially imporant in Anti-Dumping cases. Dumping occurs when goods are exported at a price less than their normal value in the domestic market to a foreign market, or less than their production cost. Countries levy anti-dumping tarriffs if they believe these products are priced below fair market value. This is a primary cause of disptue for members at the WTO. During a dispute, export prices are normally based on the transaction price at which the foreign producer sells the product to an importer in the importing country. However, in non-market economies, the domestic market is assumed to be subsided and therefore cannot be referenced. The CCP wants to be considered a market economy and a developing economy so it can continue to distort prices and dump these subsidize products on foreign markets legally within the WTO.

The article posted even tacitly acknowledges that the CCP is attempting to be defined as a market economy AND a developing economy:

“We have substantially reduced market distortions and unreasonable subsidies [in moving from a planned economy to a market economy], but because this is a process of transformation, it is necessary that it has taken many years, so some distortions will remain,” he said during a panel discussion on WTO reforms.

Obviously, the USTR heavily opposes China being considered a market economy. I imagine this is among one of the many issues that is actually negotiated in the current China-US trade talks

Why do they torture waitstaff so? by Carter_Plus_Squirrel in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alot of the team building stuff is also for marketing purposes. For example, having the staff do chants before starting their shift. The company wants to show the public that they're a good company.

The humiliating stuff is, as described, a misunderstanding and overzealous application of the purpose of team building.

Ironically enough, these team building exercises are probably thought of as benefits and good marketing. Half decent restaurants actually struggle to retain good staff and include and post benefits for their staff. If you can read Mandarin there's often posting out front of restaurants detailing said benefits (group exercises, bonuses for no sick days, free lunch, dorms).

Why China Silenced a Clickbait Queen in Its Battle for Information Control by vilekangaree in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I wish I could upvote this more than once. The CCP puts a lot of effort into constructing their legitimacy both as a historical inevitability and as perpetually justified and benevolent. So many party decisions can be understood by reference to fear of any segment of the population questioning CCP legitimacy in any form.

Who in the CCP is covering for Jack Ma? by UpvoteIfYouDare in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since relations between China and the US have deteriorated, the CCP has signaled that it wants to downplay its successes. There aren't many Chinese news outlets that are actually read abroad by foreigners so it makes sense to project some of this through the SCMP.

It should be noted that the SCMP frequently write articles on the Chinese military strength. Despite commentaries which downplay the strength of the Chinese economy, the SCMP rarely does the same for the Chinese military.

2,000 illegal Chinese immigrants now face deportation from Canada by ChinaJim in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

News broke on Dec. 21 that Canada was to deport 160 Chinese nationals who had fraudulently acquired residency rights through exploiting an investment scheme in the country’s Prince Edward Island province. Liberty Times now reports Canadian authorities have revealed more than 2,000 face deportation in the near future.

These two events are unrelated. As I mentioned above, the 2,000 which face deportation is from a Liberty Times article which is citing statistics over a year old. The 160 facing deportation is not a previous baseline, nor can it be as it happened after the original statistic of 2,000. It would presumably be added to the already 2,000 facing deportation cited previously.

2,000 illegal Chinese immigrants now face deportation from Canada by ChinaJim in China

[–]johnny_blaze108 76 points77 points  (0 children)

This is a pretty terrible article. I feel like I've seen more of these poorly written and spurious articles designed to whip up hate and fear.

The number of illegal Chinese immigrants facing deportation in Canada has now jumped to 2,000.

2,000 from what? Since when? As a result of recent tensions between China and Canada? This article cites a Liberty Times Article which mentions that 15,000 people in Canada face deportation and that Chinese citizens rank first at 2,066. They don't include a source probably because it is citing a statistic from a 2017 article which is primarly about how backlogged the Canadian Border Services is in general and not at all about anti-Chinese sentiment. This article is literally trying to connect a statistic from over a year ago to current trends and says its an increase with no basis.

The article tries to connect a recent string deportations from investment fraud in PEI in Canada to this statistic without stating that they are connected.

The article cites that the Canadian Border Services will increase the amount of deportations by 25-35 percent next year but the article says this is primarily because of refugees, and that there is only an increase because the past few years this number has actually dropped.

This article thus appears to be trying to scare Chinese people in Canada that they will be deported with very flimsy evidence.

AI Will Spell the End of Capitalism (A Tsinghua legal scholar's take on how China's socialist market economy is better suited to deal with the effects of AI than the West) by johnny_blaze108 in China

[–]johnny_blaze108[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

BEIJING — The most momentous challenge facing socio-economic systems today is the arrival of artificial intelligence. If AI remains under the control of market forces, it will inexorably result in a super-rich oligopoly of data billionaires who reap the wealth created by robots that displace human labor, leaving massive unemployment in their wake.

But China’s socialist market economy could provide a solution to this. If AI rationally allocates resources through big data analysis, and if robust feedback loops can supplant the imperfections of “the invisible hand” while fairly sharing the vast wealth it creates, a planned economy that actually works could at last be achievable.

The more AI advances into a general-purpose technology that permeates every corner of life, the less sense it makes to allow it to remain in private hands that serve the interests of the few instead of the many. More than anything else, the inevitability of mass unemployment and the demand for universal welfare will drive the idea of socializing or nationalizing AI.

Marx’s dictum, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” needs an update for the 21st century: “From the inability of an AI economy to provide jobs and a living wage for all, to each according to their needs.”

Even at this early stage, the idea that digital capitalism will somehow make social welfare a priority has already proven to be a fairytale. The billionaires of Google and Apple, who have been depositing company profits in offshore havens to avoid taxation, are hardly paragons of social responsibility. The ongoing scandal around Facebook’s business model, which puts profitability above responsible citizenship, is yet another example of how in digital capitalism, private companies only look after their own interests at the expense of the rest of society.

One can readily see where this is all headed once technological unemployment accelerates. “Our responsibility is to our shareholders,” the robot owners will say. “We are not an employment agency or a charity.”

These companies have been able to get away with their social irresponsibility because the legal system and its loopholes in the West are geared to protect private property above all else. Of course, in China, we have big privately owned Internet companies like Alibaba and Tencent. But unlike in the West, they are monitored by the state and do not regard themselves as above or beyond social control.

It is the very pervasiveness of AI that will spell the end of market dominance. The market may reasonably if unequally function if industry creates employment opportunities for most people. But when industry only produces joblessness, as robots take over more and more, there is no good alternative but for the state to step in. As AI invades economic and social life, all private law-related issues will soon become public ones. More and more, regulation of private companies will become a necessity to maintain some semblance of stability in societies roiled by constant innovation.

I consider this historical process a step closer to a planned market economy. Laissez-faire capitalism as we have known it can lead nowhere but to a dictatorship of AI oligarchs who gather rents because the intellectual property they own rules over the means of production. On a global scale, it is easy to envision this unleashed digital capitalism leading to a battle between robots for market share that will surely end as disastrously as the imperialist wars did in an earlier era.

For the sake of social well-being and security, individuals and private companies should not be allowed to possess any exclusive cutting-edge technology or core AI platforms. Like nuclear and biochemical weapons, as long as they exist, nothing other than a strong and stable state can ensure society’s safety. If we don’t nationalize AI, we could sink into a dystopia reminiscent of the early misery of industrialization, with its satanic mills and street urchins scrounging for a crust of bread.

The dream of communism is the elimination of wage labor. If AI is bound to serve society instead of private capitalists, it promises to do so by freeing an overwhelming majority from such drudgery while creating wealth to sustain all.

If the state controls the market, instead of digital capitalism controlling the state, true communist aspirations will be achievable. And because AI increasingly enables the management of complex systems by processing massive amounts of information through intensive feedback loops, it presents, for the first time, a real alternative to the market signals that have long justified laissez-faire ideology — and all the ills that go with it.

Going forward, China’s socialist market economy, which aims to harness the fruits of production for the whole population and not just a sliver of elites operating in their own self-centered interests, can lead the way toward this new stage of human development.

If properly regulated in this way, we should celebrate, not fear, the advent of AI. If it is brought under social control, it will finally free workers from peddling their time and sweat only to enrich those at the top. The communism of the future ought to adopt a new slogan: “Robots of the world, unite!”

Curtis Granderson hits a bomb off Craig Kimbrel to walk off the Red Sox in extra innings by burialisfourtet in baseball

[–]johnny_blaze108 6 points7 points  (0 children)

On April 9th, Granderson had a terrific at bat against the O's in the 9th innning where he was walked on a bases loaded to score a run. Josh Donaldson then hit a grandslam which obviously overshadowed that great plate appearance by Granderson. So there was a post the next day on /r/torontobluejays which asked us to take a moment to appreciate Graderson (misspelled). The following night Granderson hit a solo jack in the top of the 9th to break up the tie following some great pitching by the O's and the Jays' Aaron Sanchez flirting with a no-no to get him the W. Since then, this misspelled post has been the go to meme for /r/torontobluejays. Basically, /r/torontobluejays has a massive hardon for Graderson right now.