China has a history of stealing technologies if it can. Fine, but don't expect the world to LET china steal these technologies.
And if China doesn't like it, it can reinvent the wheel. Here is the fun part. I think China can absolutely do so in a technical sense. But I know the people absolutely won't do it, because they don't want it/aren't incentivized to do it.
To further add to the parent, think about how stupid it is to turn off an money printing machine. China did exactly when it mismanaged Hong Kong. Hong Kong USED to be financial titan.
First, Taiwan sees HK and knows what's up. You don't sleep next to an elephant all your life and not know when they will roll over.
Second, even if Taiwan didn't rig for sabotage AND (big AND) just straight up surrendered (it won't); People will slowly leave, turn over will happen, machines will age out, the right investments will not be made, etc. Taiwan may not shatter (immediately), but it will rust and dull. Look at HK and I believe that is the BEST case scenario for the China.
For Taiwan, semi-conductors represent a poison pill/porcupine defense. But that is all that is, defense/poison. It won't stop China if the leaders decide that it would just eat the consequences. I hope Taiwan can find a creative solution to their woes.
For China, they have to realize they are on a timer. They can't keep "turning off money machines", or "crushing jewels". At some point they are going to run out of "resources" to extract and I hope they figure out how to work with countries in their region instead of antagonizing them. Why? because 1+ billion people will suffer if they don't figure it out.
The RCMP, reports of the Country of Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police). And the RCMP is "a police service for the whole of Canada to be used in the enforcement of the laws of the Dominion, but at the same time available for the enforcement of law generally in such provinces as may desire to employ its services."
The most important part is the RCMP enforcement in provinces is at the DESIRE of the provinces, in this case The Ontario Provincial Government.
Additionally regardless of formal "powers", no legitimate leader in any democratic govt wants to be seen "giving orders" to police forces -- that's entirely outside of democratic norms.
The federal govt sets standards and expectations and framework for the RCMP. It should not, and does not (hopefully), tell them what to do on specific case files.
There is a giant chasm between "F* Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad".
Some people would like you to believe it's close, and they would be wrong. Stalin murdered/tortured people en masse. Trudeau oversaw a government (democratically elected mine you) through a once in a century pandemic.
The convoy of protesters made a point, was allow to make it for sufficient period of time, and was told to go away when a majority of Canadians didn't agree with their stance.
When faced with reality of their unpopular nature and their inability to build a momentum or consensus. They dug in.
At some point, enough is enough. The Pandemic ended, public heath was restore, and none of what the protesters did mattered. None of the protesters continue to be persecuted by the Government of Canada, Ontario, or the City.
>There is a giant chasm between "F* Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad".
There might well be a giant chasm between Trudeau and Stalin, that's a matter of proper objective measurement which I don't think is easy and certainly has never been done. There is no chasm whatsoever between "fuck Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad". Not even much semantically. In choosing one politician/bureaucrat/whatever over another, I do not agree that anyone ever need justify their choices. Someone saying "I've stopped supporting this politician" whether don't politely or rudely, is valid. Protesting need not have any more message than this.
If protesting did require something more sophisticated than the assertion that one no longer supports them, then the weaseliest politicians and other charlatans could abuse that requirement (in fact, they already try to do so, and apologists make that easier for them to attempt it).
>and was told to go away when a majority of Canadians didn't agree with their stance.
It's unclear that a majority disagreed. It's unclear to me that there remains a majority at all in Canada.
>When faced with reality of their unpopular nature and their inability to build a momentum or consensus. They dug in.
Again, I'm not sure that's reality. If they could be deluded into thinking there were more of them than there were, what makes you immune to the reverse?
>and none of what the protesters did mattered.
We at least agree that it didn't matter in the ways that they hoped. But it mattered otherwise, when we saw the Canadian government use unjustifiable tactics to punish them even before they had been convicted of any crimes.
>None of the protesters continue to be persecuted
Well gee. When you put it like that, that "none *continue* to be persecuted" the complaints do sound kind of silly.
Encanto's villain is the concept of generational trauma and manifested by grandma. I believe she isn't evil, just traumatized and passing it on to the next generation unwittingly. Others believe her to be evil because real life people don't stop being who they are after a song number.
I think it's a really innovative villain because generational trauma is real and lots of people have to deal with it. It some times takes more than one generation to leave a vicious cycle.
Also, "We Don't Talk About Bruno" serves the role of a Villain Song in Encanto and roughly the place in the story where the Villain Song fits, but beautifully subverts expectations and illustrates the generational trauma as its consequences in gossip and hearsay in a rather strong way, while also being the kind of "banger" and preternatural earworm that a good Villain Song can be.
No, the parent comment should experience them in the way I love dystopian fiction, at arms length. They should also make sure it never makes it to their corner of reality.
Judging from the chef's response -- linked twice in the comments on the OP -- they're quite serious; the chef regards himself as an avant-garde artist.
As to how they got, not one but IIRC three, Michelin stars I can only speculate:
* They got them a while ago, and weren't quite as avant-garde back then. (In order to stay avant-garde, you have to get constantly more outré?)
* The menu fluctuates depending on availability of ingredients and the chef's mood; the Michelin reviewers just got lucky and arrived on a better day.
