▲ 826 ▼ China Is Banning Tesla-Style Retractable Door Handles Over Safety Concerns (www.autoblog.com) submitted 9 months ago by dantheclamman@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (23 children) Must be nice having a functional government permalink fedilink source hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (3 children) Americans are going to mandate retractable handles in response permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] determinist@kbin.earth 13 points 9 months ago (1 child) extra handles, 2 handles per door, bigger handles, bigger extra handles permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] djdarren@piefed.social 9 points 9 months ago And all of them retractable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] santa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago* Cool I’d love to see less of these handles in America if they are flush. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phar@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (16 children) I don't think China or the US would be called nice in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (15 children) Well, the US is very nice to corporations which is why they’re often left to self regulate, are regulated by former industry insiders, or are barely regulated through fines and settlements So yeah I suppose in this regard China is not being nice but being nice doesn’t effectively regulate corporations. This is in fact a good example of a functional government doing its job permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] phar@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (14 children) Your original statement said must be nice as in it must be nice for the governed. Not that the country was being nice. The governments of both countries are complete garbage. Must be nice to have this one thing work is different than either being a functional government for its people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (13 children) Well it is in fact nice for the governed when their governments enforce good regulations. I’m not sure what’s in dispute here, do you not think it’s nice to have a proper regulation in place that will be followed? Your original statement called the US and China not nice so I just followed your grammar logic 🤷♀️ Are you just desperate to have us acknowledge that these countries have serious flaws too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent [–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) There is a large demand for Teslas in China believe it or not. Very possible this is just motivated by trying to favor Chinese automakers more so than out of genuine safety concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago I don't think this have anything to do with Tesla, because a lot of chinese car does have this sort of door handle, and more and more are ready to follow the trend. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (3 children) Americans are going to mandate retractable handles in response permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] determinist@kbin.earth 13 points 9 months ago (1 child) extra handles, 2 handles per door, bigger handles, bigger extra handles permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] djdarren@piefed.social 9 points 9 months ago And all of them retractable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] santa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago* Cool I’d love to see less of these handles in America if they are flush. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] determinist@kbin.earth 13 points 9 months ago (1 child) extra handles, 2 handles per door, bigger handles, bigger extra handles permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] djdarren@piefed.social 9 points 9 months ago And all of them retractable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] djdarren@piefed.social 9 points 9 months ago And all of them retractable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago* Cool I’d love to see less of these handles in America if they are flush. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (16 children) I don't think China or the US would be called nice in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (15 children) Well, the US is very nice to corporations which is why they’re often left to self regulate, are regulated by former industry insiders, or are barely regulated through fines and settlements So yeah I suppose in this regard China is not being nice but being nice doesn’t effectively regulate corporations. This is in fact a good example of a functional government doing its job permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] phar@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (14 children) Your original statement said must be nice as in it must be nice for the governed. Not that the country was being nice. The governments of both countries are complete garbage. Must be nice to have this one thing work is different than either being a functional government for its people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (13 children) Well it is in fact nice for the governed when their governments enforce good regulations. I’m not sure what’s in dispute here, do you not think it’s nice to have a proper regulation in place that will be followed? Your original statement called the US and China not nice so I just followed your grammar logic 🤷♀️ Are you just desperate to have us acknowledge that these countries have serious flaws too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (15 children) Well, the US is very nice to corporations which is why they’re often left to self regulate, are regulated by former industry insiders, or are barely regulated through fines and settlements So yeah I suppose in this regard China is not being nice but being nice doesn’t effectively regulate corporations. This is in fact a good example of a functional government doing its job permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] phar@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (14 children) Your original statement said must be nice as in it must be nice for the governed. Not that the country was being nice. The governments of both countries are complete garbage. Must be nice to have this one thing work is different than either being a functional government for its people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (13 children) Well it is in fact nice for the governed when their governments enforce good regulations. I’m not sure what’s in dispute here, do you not think it’s nice to have a proper regulation in place that will be followed? Your original statement called the US and China not nice so I just followed your grammar logic 🤷♀️ Are you just desperate to have us acknowledge that these countries have serious flaws too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[+] phar@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (14 children) Your original statement said must be nice as in it must be nice for the governed. Not that the country was being nice. The governments of both countries are complete garbage. Must be nice to have this one thing work is different than either being a functional government for its people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (13 children) Well it is in fact nice for the governed when their governments enforce good regulations. I’m not sure what’s in dispute here, do you not think it’s nice to have a proper regulation in place that will be followed? Your original statement called the US and China not nice so I just followed your grammar logic 🤷♀️ Are you just desperate to have us acknowledge that these countries have serious flaws too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (13 children) Well it is in fact nice for the governed when their governments enforce good regulations. I’m not sure what’s in dispute here, do you not think it’s nice to have a proper regulation in place that will be followed? Your original statement called the US and China not nice so I just followed your grammar logic 🤷♀️ Are you just desperate to have us acknowledge that these countries have serious flaws too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago* (12 children) I apologize if my original statement was not clear, I was also following suit and meant nice for the individual. Essentially I was saying one governmental nicety doesn't make up for the country's govt being a cluster fuck. Having the government perform one thing functional is not the same as a functional government. That was my point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (11 children) China and America are perfectly functional governments despite their flaws. Are you just looking for an opportunity to dunk on them? In the area of automative regulation America is the only developed nation to have increased traffic deaths over the past decade or so. You can go verify that fact. So when it comes to seeing China implement a basic automative regulation, it is indeed a “must be nice” situation. The problem with your original statement is that it’s stupid and patronizing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (10 children) No it seems the problem is you appear to think because there are a few positives, the governments are functional. So I guess it depends on what you mean by functional. You are welcome to disagree, I was just clearing up what I meant. There are people that say at least Hitler made the trains run on time. I wouldn't say functional though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (9 children) Would you say that a government is functional if a highly biased university research project spanning 15 years determined that over 95% of people approved of their government, even accounting for the possible ways these numbers could be skewed? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (8 children) I would not trust any research that states 95% of people agree on almost anything, that's extremely unlikely in any situation ever. Any study saying 95% of people approve of their government of all things sounds like coersion, faking, or simply a culture that fosters saying something regardless of truth. If you asked thousands of people in Russia if they approve of the government, they'll say yes. But they aren't being truthful. I'm betting they didn't interview certain groups as well, as those folks are being killed by the Chinese govt. So yes one study saying one thing is definitely not enough to overcome the hurdles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (7 children) You just blindly reject Harvard research because deep down inside you know better, right? It must actually boggle your mind that people can honestly approve of their government even when that government isn’t doing anything special Did you know around 80% of republicans support Trump? That’s about the same % of Russians who agree w Putin. You can go look that up. Your intuitive knowledge is worthless permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (6 children) Yea, I'm sure all those folks in Hong Kong that were rioting approve of their new government overlords. I'm sure the Uyghurs would say they're doing just a fine job. The article even mentions they didn't ask laborers. I don't disagree that they asked those people and they did respond that way. However whether people answer truthfully about their authoritarian government is a completely different thing. So yes, I do question this one single survey done of a small sample size and there's really no way for them to account for everything. How many other peer reviewed studies do you have besides this one? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (5 children) There are 1.3 billion people in China and you can read the report to see their satisfaction with a variety of metrics from the indifference of local officials to their participation in public health programs, over the past however many years I hope you understand that even a 5% disapproval rate for something in China is still somewhere near 70 million people. There are only 11 million uyghurs in China. Do you not see how if you add up all the people who approve and disapprove you get the same ballpark numbers the study is claiming? Just do the math lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (4 children) Likewise 30,000 people out of 1.3 billion is not going to be representative. Again do you have any other peer-reviewed studies or are you just basing your entire beliefs of one small sample study? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children) That’s not how statistics works at all. A sample of 30,000 people out of 1,300,000,000 is in fact highly representative. Please go look up how sample sizes work because there is no way to have a meaningful conversation if you don’t understand basic statistics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children) So no other peer reviewed studies then? You're a one article is absolute kind of guy? Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) I suppose that makes you a 'doesn't understand statistics and ignores the evidence' kind of guy 🤷♀️ Good luck out there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phar@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago I recommend you actually look up statistical relevance And what that means Compared to proof permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) There is a large demand for Teslas in China believe it or not. Very possible this is just motivated by trying to favor Chinese automakers more so than out of genuine safety concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago I don't think this have anything to do with Tesla, because a lot of chinese car does have this sort of door handle, and more and more are ready to follow the trend. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago I don't think this have anything to do with Tesla, because a lot of chinese car does have this sort of door handle, and more and more are ready to follow the trend. permalink fedilink source parent