If your market is large enough and the tariffs are high enough then it seems logical that tariffs will force the companies to manufacture their goods elsewhere to stay competitive and increase revenue.
Short term the tariffs are likely paid for by the exporting country, company and/or consumer (there's a limit to how much you can pass on to the consumer), whereas long term the goods will be manufactured/assembled in another country.
We definitely need laws that require companies to display this information online as well so that ethical shoppers aren't forced to go to the stores to avoid Made in China products.
I hope they don't do anything. It's extremely hypocritical to see companies stand up to Russia yet fail to do the same with China, who in recent years stripped Hong Kongers of their human rights, send innocent Uyghurs to concentration camps and engage in genocide, and caused a global pandemic that has killed millions of people around the world (not to mention their human rights abuses in Tibet, organ harvesting industry, etc., all of which is actively taking place today). They (both the CCP and the majority of the people) also happen to support Russia's invasion.
I'm not pro-China, but a lot of that stuff is debatable. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not. It's open. It's a clear attack. There are explosions and missiles and tanks.
If you were to say "I'm criticizing China's genocide", you'd have to give evidence of that genocide at this point.
Why should citizens be punished for the actions of their government? If you're an American, how would you feel about being punished for the repeated war crimes of the US war machine (bringing slaves back to Libya, Iraq invasion and more recently drone striking innocent kids in a car in Afghanistan)?
The average Russian internet company and its developers have no part in this war. I don't see why they should be punished.
It seems like open discrimination and prejudice, no less toxic than people avoiding Chinese restaurants due to the coronavirus.
It's also deeply dangerous. Pushing an adversary into a corner can lead to isolation or further aggression. America has been battering North Korea with sanctions for decades, and they're more isolated than ever. However despicable this is, if the talks and negotiations stop then you should be seriously worried.
I'm actually with you on that. Attacking a civilian building during a war is a war crime, even if that building is tied into the war effort (e.g. farms). This isn't anything new; plenty of generals have forbid cutting trees or burning farmland thousands of years ago.
However, sanctions have proven a very effective alternative to war. It's a way of punishing warmongers without anyone getting hurt too badly.
I don't know if it's ultimately effective, though. Something like this pushes both China and DPRK into Russia's corner. And then before you know it, you have WW3 on your hands.
That first and last link is really good evidence. The BBC one is the kind I normally see, but I feel they tend to be more anecdotal and highlight interesting stories over painting an accurate picture.
That spyware thankfully isn't no mine, and if you're forced to use it (if you for whatever reason can't use Jitsi/Teams) then I strongly encourage you not to install the app and instead use the web version.
They had a couple big blunders with the ugly border/expansion when clicking the address bar, and "Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently used order".. both of these things should have never been the default (or at least we should've been given the option to select a default when they were first added, similar to what they did with the new color theme support), but besides that then I can't think of anything terrible and always happy to see new updates.
I would especially love to see deeper integration with their Multi-Account Containers add-on, e.g. allow us to tell a bookmark to open in X container, or allow us to always open X container based on URL path instead of just domain name.
> but besides that then I can't think of anything terrible
How about stuff getting removed from the right-click / context menu, e.g. "page information" or "site information" (or whatever it used to be called in English)? How about no longer being able to remove specific (i.e. single) cookies? How about no longer being able to install arbitrary extensions?
I've been using Firefox for almost two decades now and have generally liked it a lot but GP has a point: The fact that the Mozilla devs have repeatedly removed (or at least hidden) more advanced features really is annoying.
> and "Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently used order".. both of these things should have never been the default
Personally, Ctrl+Tab-bing cycling through tabs in most recently used order is greatly useful. Maybe its just me, but everytime I go back to Edge or Chrome, it becomes painful to the point I have to use the mouse for moving through tabs.
I think you can compare it to "natural scrolling" - imagine if an operating system suddenly flipped the default scrolling direction without even presenting a dialog where you could choose your preferred option.
> everytime I go back to Edge or Chrome, it becomes painful to the point I have to use the mouse for moving through tabs
Sometimes I worry if that's exactly what they hoped would happen, similar to how Windows/Linux users often hate using a MacOS keyboard layout and vice versa.. but hopefully that isn't the case, especially because I can't think of any other software where you don't cycle through the tabs in their located order.
> Sometimes I worry if that's exactly what they hoped would happen, similar to how Windows/Linux users often hate using a MacOS keyboard layout and vice versa
Well, think of it this way: In what order do windows appear when you Alt-Tab through them? Surely its not the order in which they are located on your taskbar?
I'm still traumatized from the time they broke all and I mean ALL extensions. I've only gotten back ti using Firefox very recently because I have an issue where chrome keeps hibernating, and nothing short if a complete restart of my computer fixes it.
You could even argue that whenever China does something positive that's note-worthy then it has a much higher chance to be promoted multiple times (e.g. 3/5 are about the Mars rover, all within a month) and less chance that it will be flagged (or at least remain flagged).
I think it's safe to assume the majority of HN support democracy, privacy, freedom of speech & press, and similar civil liberties that China have cracked heavily down upon and not just within their own borders. When you look at what they have done in the past few years with Xinjiang, Hong Kong, SARS2, Taiwan, etc. then it's only natural that there will be a lot of negative coverage, and this negative coverage is understandably and deservedly greater than the positive coverage. If USA or any other country banned under-18s from playing games for more than three hours/week then it would receive the same amount of coverage. Same thing goes for for Swiss Ph.D student’s dismissal, Steam being banned, cryptocurrency deals becoming illegal, blocking Wikimedia from entering World Intellectual Property Organization and every other story you might consider "anti-China". My submission doesn't even mention China so people are not blindly upvoting it because it's "anti-China", but more likely because it's interesting to see proof that one of the largest Asian YouTube channels (which cover a lot more than just China) is planting interviewees to push a certain agenda (keep in mind the channel put a lot of emphasis towards presenting themselves as being 'authentic' and sharing views of random and regular people they meet on the streets).
It's of course worth noting that China is one of the countries that stopped reporting excess deaths themselves since it would be pretty obvious that if China e.g. reported a million excess deaths then the majority could likely be attributed to SARS2 (whether they die directly from the virus or starve as a result of their brutal lockdowns).
Economist using excess deaths figures from countries that failed contain covid to make upper bound inferences for PRC, which contained covid.
Also range starts from MINUS 150K, i.e. excess life. Which makes more sense considering the source Economist used to extrapolate excess deaths for PRC concluded excess deaths was lower outside of Hubei/Wuhan in the months post lockdown [0] and things have been basically normal since due to aggressive covid zero policies. Other countries that aggressively contained covid also has excess life stats.
"Ecosia is a search engine based in Berlin, Germany. It donates 80% of its profits to nonprofit organizations that focus on reforestation" [1]
"80% of profits will be distributed among charities and non-profit organizations. The remaining 20% will be put aside for a rainy day." [2]
"Ekoru.org is a search engine dedicated to saving the planet. The company donates 60% of revenue generated from clicks on sponsored search results to partner organizations who work on climate change issues" [3]
While Ecosia is not technically a non-profit, no one can sell Ecosia shares at a profit.
> Ecosia says that it was built on the premise that profits wouldn’t be taken out of the company. In 2018 this commitment was made legally binding when the company sold a 1% share to The Purpose Foundation, entering into a ‘steward-ownership’ relationship.
> The Purpose Foundation's steward-ownership of Ecosia legally binds Ecosia in the following ways:
- Shares can't be sold at a profit or owned by people outside of the company and
- No profits can be taken out of the company.
Also https://searchmysite.net/ for personal and independent websites (essentially a loss-leader for its open source self-hostable search as a service).
We wouldn't be turning into China if we only banned Chinese companies, if we only blacklisted/punished western companies that spread CCP propaganda (nine-dash line, calling Taiwan a province of China, etc).
To quote HN user stale2002: Tit for tat reciprocity is the basis of most modern trade relations.
Banning Chinese companies is actually a ban on Americans using Chinese companies. As tempting as it is to retaliate or perhaps extract national economic gain, It must be done sparingly, if at all, as it as a reductions in freedom for American citizens.
