826
China Is Banning Tesla-Style Retractable Door Handles Over Safety Concerns (www.autoblog.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •