There’s nothing wrong with being proud of a specific province/city/community, but any differences in human society can be used for reactionary division. Flags can be used for other purposes than as a symbol of national sovereignty, but a flag is also probably the most identifiable symbol of independence or separatist movements precisely because it can be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty. I think the political significance of flags outweigh any other aspects, if any.

At the end of the day, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having regional flags, but I oppose it.

In China, only the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau have regional flags. We’re not like the US where each state has their own state flag, and I do not appreciate the idea of each province of China having its own provincial flag. If there could be provincial flags, there could be flags for every city/town/district/village, for every administrative region at each level, and if we want to be extreme, there could be flags for each family and for each individual.

While I am using a slippery slope argument of extreme individualism to oppose provincial flags, you can probably understand why this “individuality” has to stop somewhere.

Thanks for cross-posting this, so that I could point this out to the original author, which I left as a comment there:

Is that the flag for the “East Turkestan independence movement” in the third panel? As a Chinese I’m asking you to not use the flag of a separatist movement as though it is legitimate, especially when you’re comparing it to Israel and Palestine, where Israel is a genocidal settler state and Palestine is a sovereign state.

Xinjiang (what the separatists claim to be “East Turkestan”) is a part of China, the ETIM flag does not represent the people of Xinjiang and thus should not be used in this context.

PSA: Comrade Nguyễn Phú Trọng’s surname is Nguyễn, not “Trong”, his first name is Phú Trọng, not Trong.

NYT also made the same mistake, by referring to him as “Mr. Trong”: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/world/asia/nguyen-phu-trong-dead.html

This would be like referring to Mao Zedong as “Dong” or “Mr. Dong”.

I thought this was a mistake, but according to Vietnamese customs “Mr. Trong” or “Trong” is indeed a valid way to refer to Comrade Trong. This is a humiliating display in lack of investigation by myself.

The point about Mr. Dong still stands for Chinese names.

Mr. Trong

American “journalism” folks.

I thought this was a mistake, but according to Vietnamese customs “Mr. Trong” or “Trong” is indeed a valid way to refer to Comrade Trong. This is a humiliating display in lack of investigation by myself.

I put the whole speech through DeepL and found the second part of the speech to be the interesting part:

Well, I’d like to tell you this: my ministers have quoted all the figures they could quote, so I’m not going to tell you. I’m just going to give you one thing. Just one thing for you. This country has spent four years. In fact, since the coup against President Dilma, this country has been like an old truck going downhill without control. This country stopped making social policy. How many houses were built after we left government? How many houses for the poor? Today we build houses for the poorest people and people on Bolsa Família and BPC don’t pay for the house, because the state has the right to guarantee people the right to housing. It’s in the Federal Constitution of this country. If we want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don’t have to read a book by Marx. We don’t have to be Leninists. We don’t have to be Mao Zedong. We don’t have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian Constitution and let’s regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people that are there. And that’s what we’re doing.

I’ve found hundreds and hundreds of paralyzed hospitals in this country. Hundreds and hundreds of paralyzed UPAs. Almost 6,000 kindergartens paralyzed in this country. I found 87,000 Minha Casa, Minha Vida houses abandoned. The other day I went to Ceará to inaugurate a house that should have been inaugurated in 2018. Because this plague of locusts that has swept through this country in recent times has only come to destroy, not to build anything.

When we came into government, they sent away the More Doctors that Dilma had brought in. They sent them away. Do you know how many doctors there were when we arrived in this country? Anyone who works in healthcare here should know. There were only 12,500 doctors. Today we have 26,000 doctors covering the health of the poor people of this country, in cities that often can’t even afford a doctor, because doctors are expensive. So I said to you: I want to be president again. I had already been president. I had already been, you know, it was like, but I wanted to come back to teach a lesson to the people who don’t like us.

This country has always been governed by only 35% of the population. It never reached 40%. It has always been governed. The poor were only seen at election time, because at election time, every candidate speaks ill of bankers and embraces the poor. When the elections are over, to hell with the poor and they go and look after the bankers they despised during the elections. And I wanted to prove that politics can be different. I, for example, think that bankers have to make money, because if they don’t, the government is obliged to do what Fernando Henrique Cardoso did with PROER. Twenty-something billion to save the banks. I want businesspeople to earn money, because if businesspeople earn money, they’ll invest, they’ll hire workers, they’ll pay wages, wages will turn into consumption, consumption will go to commerce, commerce will grow, stores will buy more things, industry will produce and people will eat more. That’s the country I want to build. And it can be built.

Now, as this country was governed with only 35% of the population in mind, we decided to include the people in this country. In other words, the people have to be taken into account, because the people who are poorer are not poorer because they want to be poor. Nobody chooses to be poor. I choose to be a doctor, I choose to be an engineer, I choose to be a lawyer, I choose to be a teacher. The only thing we don’t do is “I want to be poor, I want to eat badly, I want to live badly, I want to dress badly”. There’s no such thing. We want to eat well, we want to dress well, we want to live well. We want to have the latest television, we want to have good cell phones, we want to go on vacation, we want to go to the beach, we want to eat meat like people who eat meat. Why do we have to be trampled on all our lives?

Then someone asks me, a journalist: "But, Lula, don’t you think they’re spending too much? The minimum wage has already been increased twice. Good heavens, the minimum is the minimum. The name says it all. There’s nothing lower than the minimum. Now, how can I discuss, make a fiscal adjustment, over the minimum of the minimum. What I wanted to do was make a fiscal adjustment to the profitability of this country’s bankers, who make money speculating on the stock exchange, speculating, you know, every day. I’m not going to touch the humblest people. The humblest people, the state has to take care of them, because a middle-class citizen doesn’t need the state. The guy who has a house, the guy who has a car, the guy who is well married, the guy who has a family, his children studying at a good school, he doesn’t need the government. The government needs to look at those who need it, like a mother. I always say this: governing is about putting a mother’s heart in our heads so that we learn to take care of everyone, on equal terms, and to take more care of the most fragile, the most dependent. This is the country we’re going to build, people. This is the country I’m proving it’s possible to build.

I’d like to say to the deputies and senators. I wanted to say something to you. I’d like to say to the vice-governor, to my companion who is perhaps the oldest person here, apart from me. I want to say the following: I doubt, and the press is here, there must be a lot of intellectuals here, I doubt that there was a day in the state of Minas Gerais that a President of the Republic came to announce the number of things that I came to announce here. I doubt it. I doubt it.

And we’re going to build the BR-381, because we’ve already tried to hold an auction once, and the auction was empty. There’s a stretch near Governador Valadares that’s very complicated. So I said to my minister: “Minister, here’s the deal: whatever the businessman doesn’t want to do, which is to gnaw on the bone, the government will gnaw on the bone and we’ll make this road”. That’s what’s going to happen in Minas Gerais.

And so I forgot to tell you, but there’s going to be an institute in Barreiro. There’s going to be an institute. All that’s left is for the mayor to sign the document. I hope that Camilo and the mayor agree to sign it, because what I want is to educate these people, because people who are well educated, people who have a profession, go ahead and nobody needs the state. And that’s what I’m going to build. And I’ll say it again, I said it here: I want to be president again to prove that we can take care of poor people. And I want you to know: I’m going to take care of you the way I take care of my son, the way I take care of my granddaughter, the way I take care of the things I love, because I’m only where I am, I’m only what I am, an illiterate northeasterner who’s only trained as a lathe operator, to become president of the Republic. There are two things: the work of God and the work of the courage of those of you who had the pleasure of electing me.

Video subtitles:

If you want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don’t have to read any book by Marx, we don’t have to be a Leninist, we don’t have to be a Mao Zedongist, we don’t have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian constitution and we will regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people.

For reference: Brazil’s constitution

Did some searching and found the full speech: https://www.gov.br/planalto/pt-br/acompanhe-o-planalto/discursos-e-pronunciamentos/2024/pronunciamento-do-presidente-lula-durante-anuncio-de-investimento-do-governo-federal-para-minas-gerais

Here’s the entire paragraph that includes the part shown in the video at the end:

Bem, eu queria dizer para vocês o seguinte: os meus ministros citaram todos os números que poderiam citar, então não vou dizer, não. Vou apenas dar uma coisa para vocês. Apenas uma coisa para vocês. Esse país passou quatro anos. Na verdade, desde que deram o golpe na presidenta Dilma, esse país parecia um caminhão velho descendo ladeira abaixo, sem controle. Esse país deixou de fazer política social. Quantas casas foram feitas depois que nós saímos do governo? Quantas casas para o pobre? Hoje a gente faz casa para as pessoas mais pobres e as pessoas do Bolsa Família e o BPC não paga a casa, porque o Estado tem o direito de garantir o direito de moradia para as pessoas. Está na Constituição Federal desse país. Se a gente quiser fazer uma revolução nesse país, Pacheco, a gente não tem que ler um livro de Marx. A gente não tem que leninista. A gente não tem que ser Mao Tsé-Tung. A gente não tem que ser Fidel. Leia a Constituição Brasileira e vamos regulamentar todos os direitos do povo brasileiro que está lá. E é isso que nós estamos fazendo.

(DeepL translate) Well, I’d like to tell you this: my ministers have quoted all the figures they could quote, so I’m not going to say it. I’m just going to just give you one thing. Just one thing for you. This country has spent four years. In fact, since the coup against President Dilma, this country has been like an old truck going downhill, with no control. control. This country has stopped making social policy. How many houses were after we left government? How many houses for the poor? Today we build houses for the poorest people and the people on the Bolsa Bolsa Família and BPC don’t pay for the house, because the state has the right to to guarantee people the right to housing. It’s in the Constitution of this country. If we want to make a revolution in this country, Pacheco, we don’t have to read a book by Marx. We don’t have to Leninist. We don’t have to be Mao Zedong. We don’t have to be Fidel. Read the Brazilian Constitution and let’s regulate all the rights of the Brazilian people that are there. And that’s what we’re doing.

Press Statement of Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK Kim Yo Jong http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2024/202405/news29/20240529-13ee.html

Pyongyang, May 29 (KCNA) – Kim Yo Jong, vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, issued the following press statement under the title “The ROK is not entitled to criticize the freedom of expression of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” on Wednesday:

As already warned by the DPRK vice minister of National Defence, a large amount of waste paper and rubbish are being scattered in the border and deep areas of the ROK from the night of May 28.

According to the ROK media, waste paper and rubbish were found not only in the border area with the DPRK but also in Seoul and other parts of the ROK.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the ROK puppet army said that the DPRK is scattering a large number of balloons over the ROK from last night. It urged the DPRK to stop such an act at once, claiming that it is a clear violation of international law, an act of seriously threatening the security of ROK people and an unethical and lowbrow act.

We have tried something they have always been doing, but I cannot understand why they are making a fuss as if they were hit by shower of bullets.

After all, they hoisted a white flag just one day after they themselves have been exposed to the despicable article-scattering which the DPRK has called into question and demanded a stop for years.

I doubt whether those in the ROK could only see the balloons flying southwards without catching sight of the balloons flying northwards.

Scum-like clans of the ROK are now blatantly claiming that their leaflet-scattering towards the DPRK is “freedom of expression” and that the corresponding act of the DPRK is an “obvious violation of international law”.

Are the “freedom of expression” and “international law” defined according to the direction in which balloons fly?

It is the height of impudence.

It is an opportunity to reconfirm how clumsy and brazen the ROK clans are.

The ROK clans must be subject to due pains as they tried to scatter leaflets, the political agitation rubbish slandering the idea and system of the DPRK regarded by all its people as sacred, and inject their mixed ideas raised at cesspools to the DPRK, and made a serious mockery of our people by scattering the cheap money and trifles which even mongrel dogs wouldn’t like.

If they experience how unpleasant the feeling of picking up filth is and how tired it is, they will know that it is not easy to dare talk about freedom of expression as to the scattering near border area.

Today, I will get the following stand into shape:

“As the leaflet-scattering to the ROK belongs to our people’s freedom of expression and provides the people in the ROK with the right to know, there is a limit for the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately stop it. I courteously seek the ROK government’s consent. …”

The ROK clans cannot deprive the DPRK people of their righteous “freedom of expression”.

They should continue to pick up rubbish scattered by our people, regarding them really as “sincere presents” to the goblins of liberal democracy who are crying for the “guarantee for freedom of expression”.

We make it clear that we will respond to the ROK clans on case-to-case basis by scattering rubbish dozens of times more than those being scattered to us, in the future.

@[email protected]: I’d like to recommend the whitepaper published by the State Council Information Office of China in 2021, “Tibet Since 1951: Liberation, Development and Prosperity”: http://www.news.cn/english/2021-05/21/c_139959978.htm

It’s a long read but most of the questions brought up in your comments here can be found in the first 3 sections. Maybe it will clear up some of the inaccurate presentation of history like “Tibet was separate from China before 1720”, “Then it was independent 1912-1950”. Feel free to question the Chinese government if you believe that certain facts presented in the whitepaper are wrong, and bring your relevant authoritative sources to refute them.

the professor explains that a party reportly bluntly states that development in china has been rather uneven, unbalanced and lopsided. There are significant issues with party loyalty and corruption. Gaps between rural and urban areas are large. Many cadres don’t promote scientific innovation well and so on. It might not be correct to pin all of this on rightist errors by one man, but these are errors.

Maybe you could further explain how uneven development or any of the other issues are “rightist errors”, there is a fundamental divide between people who outright reject Deng Xiaoping’s policies and those who accept them with criticism. The policy of 一国两制 (One China, Two Systems) is probably the most suitable example that can be viewed as “rightist”, letting Hong Kong and Macao continue to operate their capitalist system. Other less “egregious” examples are 经济特区 (Special Economic Zones) like Shenzhen and Hainan, there’s also the “infamous” 社会主义市场经济 (socialist market economy).

once a country has been made independent of imperialists, nationalism becomes an obstacle to socialist development

China’s policy of peaceful coexistence would be helped by promoting a more internationalist stance in culture.

From Mao era’s 世界人民大团结万岁 (Long live the great unity of the people of the world) to Xi era’s 人类命运共同体 (community of shared future for mankind), China has always been advocating for internationalism.

Nationalism’s call to unity is collectivism at the national-level, I agree that collectivism at different levels can be in conflict with each other, for example when family interests conflict with national interests. There is a Chinese saying “舍小家、为大家”, which means something like “for the greater good”, to describe putting the interests of the greater collective (nation) before the smaller collective (family/self).

Similarly, national interests and international interests can also be conflicting, but China doesn’t choose nationalism or internationalism exclusively, it depends on the situation. When assisting the development of Global South countries, is that not internationalism at work? When handling disputes in the South China Sea, China defends its legitimate claims to the islands for national interests.

Nationalism can be reactionary when used at the expense of other nations (invasion, chauvinism, xenophobia), internationalism can be reactionary when used in disregard of legitimate national interests (like contributing to underdevelopment of the current nation, sounds familiar? That’s what some people say when China provides cheap goods at the detriment of Chinese workers). Until world communism has been achieved, there’s no simple “choice” between nationalism or internationalism, even then there will be new problems in the new world order.

China before Xi’s reforms was pretty much a capitalist hellhole. Corruption, environmental degradation and poverty were rampant

Those issues do not justify calling China during that period a “capitalist hellhole”.

even the CPC’s official stance is that Deng made some rightist errors

Could you provide the source for this?

The CPC has also made errors in recent years by becoming more nationalistic and has moved slower on LGBTQ rights than is expected of a socialist country.

China’s nationalism is controversial to some, probably because they think it’s like the toxic “America First”, or that it is not a very communist stance, but I do not see it as a mistake. Nationalism is fundamental for the survival of any nation that wishes to be independent and not controlled or invaded by foreign powers.

LGBTQ rights are important in the sense that they are treated as normal people, not “special” people. China is certainly lacking some LGBTQ rights that are available in other countries like same-sex marriage.

The Bloomberg article cited (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-09/china-says-cracked-apple-s-airdrop-to-identify-message-sources or https://archive.is/XnvO8) once again doesn’t mention the relevant institute by name, but here’s the Chinese article from Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice: 2024-01-08 司法鉴定：司法鉴定揭开“隔空投送”匿名传输的神秘面纱 https://sfj.beijing.gov.cn/sfj/sfdt/ywdt82/flfw93/436331732/index.html

This paragraph reveals how they found out the AirDrop sender’s email and phone number:

北京网神洞鉴司法鉴定所的司法鉴定技术专家们通过深度解析iPhone设备日志，明确传输原理，找出了与AirDrop 相关的记录。经检验发现发送者的设备名、邮箱和手机号相关字段，其中手机号与邮箱相关字段是以哈希值的形式记录，且哈希值部分字段被隐藏。为实现快速破解该字段，技术团队制作了一张详尽的手机号与邮箱账号“彩虹表 ”，能够将密文转换成原始文本，快速锁定发送者的手机号与邮箱账号。

Basically the sender’s phone number and email addresses were stored as hash values, but the hashes were just partial values. The judicial appraisal institute “北京网神洞鉴” created rainbow tables (precomputed table for caching the outputs of a cryptographic hash function, usually for cracking password hashes) to bruteforce the information.

As Chinese mobile numbers follow certain formats (11 digits, starts with 1, known list of prefixes etc.) it is probably very easy to generate a rainbow table for this. Though the article doesn’t mention if the phone numbers and email had separate hash values so this is just one way to do it.

From Apple’s “AirDrop security” page we can see that this matches up: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/airdrop-security-sec2261183f4/web

AirDrop uses iCloud services to help users authenticate. When a user signs in to iCloud, a 2048-bit RSA identity is stored on the device, and when the user turns on AirDrop, an AirDrop short identity hash is created based on the email addresses and phone numbers associated with the user’s Apple ID.

When a user chooses AirDrop as the method for sharing an item, the sending device emits an AirDrop signal over BLE that includes the user’s AirDrop short identity hash. Other Apple devices that are awake, in close proximity, and have AirDrop turned on, detect the signal and respond using peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, so that the sending device can discover the identity of any responding devices.

This article is about the AirDrop receiver finding out the sender’s information, but doesn’t mention if the reverse is possible. But if we look at the same AirDrop security page, it is probable that in AirDrop “Everyone mode” an attacker could find out the information of Apple devices around them:

In Contacts Only mode, the received AirDrop short identity hash is compared with hashes of people in the receiving device’s Contacts app. If a match is found, the receiving device responds over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi with its identity information. If there is no match, the device doesn’t respond.

In Everyone mode, the same overall process is used. However, the receiving device responds even if there is no match in the device’s Contacts app.

For people using Apple devices or even other brands, especially in the US, take caution as this is a finding one Chinese local government published, who knows how many vectors of attack the US intelligence agencies is aware of.

The graph is about energy capacity, for energy production numbers (found https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Jul/Renewable-energy-statistics-2023), Canada actually has around 12.0 MWh/person, as opposed to China’s 1.7 MWh/person.