test113

Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.

Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there's no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.

I agree; China's best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn't particularly interested in helping causes that don't further their goals. More "chaos" in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.

You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.

Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you'll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.

That's why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won't significantly change the priority list.

The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what's happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the "9/11 card," and the USA would allow and support it.

Just to be clear, I neither support any form of "genocide" nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.

If you believe China's reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it's improbable, considering China isn't known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China's agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn't make it morally superior.

Example here: Uyghur genocide.

Bro, I'm not engaged enough for this... again, I don't argue for or against separation. I never said it wasn't a feudal system. I said the two Catalans I spoke to said they want more freedom within the feudal system, namely more self-determination like the states in the USA, not a separation from Spain.

If you really think the INE is faking numbers to fit Catalan propaganda, then I don't think you are able to make factual discussions or statements regarding the economic situation of this issue.

Just a quote from the INE to help underline my point:

"This statistical operation adopts the methodology contained in the European System of Economic Accounts (ESA-2010) in compliance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 May, as do the rest of the statistical operations that make up the Spanish National Accounts, which guarantees the international comparability of its results."

If you were the one paying to keep most of the lights on, you might reconsider your position in the system as well. And yes, that is why we have political discourse; I wouldn't word it or see it like you do, but again, yes, economic factors can be a bargaining chip in such political problems.

For the Catalans I have spoken to, it's more a cultural and historical thing that is amplified by the economic and political situation. Also, none of them believe or want to (fully) part with Spain, they want more self-determination and be more independent from Madrid but not leave Spain, much more like a state in the USA. But I have only spoken to two Catalan people about this issue, so it's not a huge sample size.

The data forming the basis for the economic argument is from the INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística), it's not "Catalonian propaganda." link to INE: https://www.ine.es/dynt3/FMI/en/

I do not argue for or against separation, thats their matter. I just wanted to clarify and add a few sources regarding the issue. I do belive economic differences contributed to the separation movement, though.

As far as I know, it is the other way around. Catalonia wants to separate from Spain because they are the economic powerhouse region of Spain, in addition to cultural and ethnological reasons.

There are reasons to boycott some Spanish production, significant water problems in certain regions due to unfavorable water contracts for the population, labor issues, etc., but definitely not like this. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20345071

https://www.thelocal.es/20230818/why-are-the-basque-country-and-catalonia-so-rich-compared-to-the-rest-of-spain

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/10/14/catalonias-independence-movement

Oh, thank you for the explanations! However, all you've described is the misuse of this data, and my point is that it is not unforeseeable that data (whatever data it may be) gets misused, stolen, or sold. All your examples are just describing the same thing - misuse of data. Arguing that ethical cleansing based on misused data from a for-profit organization is a bit far-fetched as an article headline if he ment that). If it comes to a point where ethical clashing is on the menu, it will happen regardless of the existence of DNA data.

All these unforeseeable events seem quite far-fetched.

I understand if the argument was that under very specific circumstances, DNA data can be misused to identify people who might not want to be found, such as through family members who sequenced their genome, especially if the family members are in contact with or have any information regarding the target.

Or, if the argument was similar to the gun argument, like in the last paragraph you wrote, stating that it is a tool that can be misused, and now we must decide whether it is worth using as we do today and how we want to regulate it. The tool is not the problem; some humans are.

But none of the examples are truly applicable to our reality today. The regulation and control of these entities and datasets is an important question, but I think there are better ways to discuss it than the strategy the author chose.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, instead of concocting convoluted theories about potential outcomes, we should focus on the core issue, not just the symptoms. This article ignites wild theories about possible scenarios, rather than addressing the problem of our inability to effectively regulate companies and corporate entities. The issue remains unsolved even if these DNA companies cease to exist, but they certainly highlight the fundamental problem of somewhat unregulated data markets.

Oh, okay, thank you. So, that's it? Just clickbait? - edit: By that, I mean the title could mean something like he found something unexpected or unforeseen and therefore wrote this article with this headline. Or, it could mean nothing if there's nothing unforeseen or unexpected written about in the article, which I call clickbait here.

Just for clarification - my comparison was between the business models of an ISP and a DNA company - having a primary product sold to the consumer which is then used to collect and accumulate data, and subsequently making money by selling this data. It was not my intention to "rate" or value them against each other or to trivialize one. This business model is well-known and should not be unexpected from a company in today's data-driven economy.

Whoa, lol. I never said whatever you're paraphrasing. My question is, what are these unforeseeable ramifications the author is talking about? My point is, none of these things are surprising, unforeseeable, or unexpected. Did we expect anything different from these companies? No one I know did.

I'm not debating if data collection and selling is ethical. My question again is, what are these unforeseeable ramifications? Everything he's telling me is very well known to the public and quite foreseeable. In other words, am I missing something?

Even with a full DNA sequence, recreating it (how even?) and placing it at a crime scene without police or lab involvement is highly complex and unlikely. Using hairs or other physical evidence is more feasible for framing someone?

Bro, nah, that's borderline Black Mirror writing. It's possible something like that might happen, but let's be real, the chance of it happening to a person is almost zero. Even if you're a public figure - because if that's happening, someone wants to sabotage you whether they have some DNA information from you or not. And sloppy police work is sloppy police work, no matter what tools might be used or not. I get the privacy concerns and the not knowing part. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a for-profit data accumulation company, that will sell to anyone with the right money. Sure, some data might be misused to frame someone, or by regimes or institutions and, of course, by other for-profit companies to create products. But that's neither unexpected nor surprising.