Time wouldn't be on their side though. China would need to effectively complete the invasion before the US navy had time to react. Even if it was considered unlikely the US would react, I doubt China would commit to an invasion they weren't certain they could win.
Not everything is for sale, especially at this ridiculous price. Why would you think the taiwanese people are so poor that they would all betray their country for 100k?
> the taiwanese people are so poor that they would all betray their country for 100k?
You'd be surprised. I'm not saying that all of them (or even most of them) will accept the payment, but there have been multiple cases of espionage committed by Taiwanese military personnel for extremely trifling amounts of monetary reward from the Chinese. Here's just one example: https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121222/8572208
"According to the investigation by the police and prosecutors, Li Huixin's younger associate, surnamed Chen, was involved in lending money to military personnel in the Zhongshan District of Taipei City. In June 2023, Li traveled to Macau under the pretense of religious exchange and as the head of Ruixian Temple in Luzhou District, New Taipei City. From there, she went to mainland China and made contact with national security intelligence personnel. Upon returning to Taiwan, she used money to lure financially struggling military personnel.
Li and her associates required military personnel to submit their military identification cards for verification. Afterward, they were asked to wear uniforms and film surrender videos while holding the Chinese five-star flag, chanting slogans such as "Chinese people do not fight Chinese people, I oppose war." These videos were then transmitted via Telegram with a self-destruct feature. The group also stole official documents and provided information such as flight paths and military exercise schedules. Bribes were paid based on the confidentiality level of the data, and recruiting fellow soldiers could increase rewards.
The case involves active and retired military personnel with the surnames Zhang, Lin, Liu, Wu, Peng, Li, Yao, and two individuals surnamed Chen. The suspects come from various military branches, including the Army, Navy, and Military Police, spanning officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted soldiers. The highest-ranking officer involved was a lieutenant. Among them, only Liu received illicit gains amounting to NT$150,000 (approximately USD 4,500), while the others had not yet received any criminal proceeds."
There are two significant points to make about instances like this.
Finding someone who meets Criteria X is a long way from finding either a Majority or even just enough of a minority to make a difference.
When people believe their action will not make a difference, they pay less heed to the consequences of their actions. People will take money to do things if they don't think it will change much.
There are probably plenty of gun runners who sell guns to rebels that would should they succeed in their rebellion it would be detrimental to the gun-running business. Nevertheless they would happily sell them guns to them while they think the rebellion is doomed.
It's not always that simple though. Significant strategic decisions can involve projecting ineffectiveness to obtain the support of those who do not want you to be effective. Because of this, people have committed betrayals that have turned out to be far more significant than they imagined. I suspect this happens more often in fiction than real life, but fiction more frequently focuses on the significant. Real life produces the significant by having millions with the one in a million chance of being significant.
> When people believe their action will not make a difference, they pay less heed to the consequences of their actions. People will take money to do things if they don't think it will change much.
So in a completely hypothetical scenario, if the CCP surreptitiously offers 10,000USD (or pick any other amount you want) to each Taiwanese citizen who votes in favour of reunification, might we not potentially end up in a situation where >50% of Taiwanese voters accept the deal because each of them labours under the erroneous assumption that he or she is in the minority?
In another completely hypothetical scenario, if trump offers 10.000USD to each canadian citizen to vote to become the 51st US state, might we end up in a situation in which >50% canadians vote yes? Food for thought.
Would you subject your family to a Cultural Revolution in exchange for 100k? Add several zeros and assurances of safe passage out of the country and maybe you'd be onto something, but that's not going to happen for numerous reasons.
The PRC already buys the loyalty of who they can in Taiwan, but Taiwan nevertheless remains resolute.
I think the GP meant "a" cultural revolution, not "the" cultural revolution. But yes, the CCP taking over Taiwan would erode and then try to erase the beautiful and diverse culture of Taiwan. Schools will teach obedience to the CCP. History will be rewritten. Free media and foreign media will be censored. The entire set of democratic institutions of Taiwan will be dismantled. And you can go on and on.
I think this strategy could possible work with the US taking Greenland (although I think that plan has been abandoned) but there is no way that Taiwan would accept such a small amount.
If the US stops support would the war end? I don't really think so, but maybe. If it did, though, I would guess lives would be saved. That doesn't seem like a delusion.
How? If all support for Ukraine crumbles and russia just plows ahead, do you think the ukranian population would be safer?
The only "less lives" approach would be if russia retreats in an agreement to keep the previous separatist regions they annexed while accepting some sort of buffer inside Ukraine from them on, which Zelensky would agree in the form of bases or nato membership. Which Russia will never go for.
On the flip side, they are absolute flavour bombs, and often on a budget you are short on flavour-enhancing ingredients.
Forage them (safely!) in the fall, dry them out (I stick them on a wire rack over a radiator for a few days), then into an airtight jar. Toss a few into soups/sauces the rest of the year.
I'm assuming the mushrooms are for micronutrients not calories. A couple of cremini (just the mushroom I buy most and speak to) have all your copper needs for the day
It's not something I've ever seen, but I certainly believe it given their incredible noses. And of course pigs are often used for truffle hunting. If you are gathering mushrooms to eat, it's not too hard to learn which are toxic anyway.
Once you know where patches are (at least for mycorrhizal fungi which are some of the best) it is easy to go back and get them each year. But, it still takes time to find all the locations and there is competition from other foragers, humans as well as other animals.
> And of course pigs are often used for truffle hunting.
Actually this is a bit of a myth. Pigs aren't very good truffle hunters. Dogs are used to find truffles. I suspect this is what the GP was thinking of.
Rice and beans - been my staple for most of my life - isn't too much more than this. Two cup dried rice + two can beans is around $4 and that is generally enough for me. Although it is much better with a few eggs and some hot sauce or salsa as well.
It’s extremely expensive to be poor. Often you wind up paying a lot more over time because you never accumulate the necessary up-front capital to pick the option that will cost less over the long term. Terry Pratchett had a perfect example of this involving boots, look it up.
In the United States, it used to be that only the poorest people lived paycheck-to-paycheck, but now most people do. This means ever more people are subject to this “poverty trap” at every level of society: They can’t make rational long-term choices because they only have the capital and credit to make rational short-term choices.
Of course, since the least expensive options in most spending categories provide the least value for the money, someone is getting that surplus value—which Wall Street just loves, since it makes numbers go up.
The majority of people aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Consumer surveys that purport to show that conflate those who are actually poor with those who are affluent but choose not to save any money because they prefer to spend it on investments or luxury car leases or private school tuition.
There are better options than airbnb if money is the concern, though - it just seems really dumb. Airbnb is like eating out at restaurants instead of buying from the grocery store and preparing your own food. There's subletting, crashing at friend/relative, sleeping in the car, etc. Personally, I'd choose van life over blowing all my money on over priced accommodation.
Sure, but a lot of poor people get stuck in situations where they pay far more over time because they either can't get good loan terms or can't save up enough money (like rental deposits) to avoid higher-cost rental items. See also: "rent to own", the trailer park industry, payday loans, buy-here/pay-here car lots, etc. Being poor can be very expensive.
Anectdotally, I've also been getting in a bad habit of staying up 2-3 days and agree there are similarities to being drunk - certainly in terms of cognitive ability and reflexes - but I even experience similar loss of inhibition (although not in nearly as fun a way).
The first serious cognitive effect I've encountered is struggling to find a word I'm searching for (or recalling a person's name) in conversation. On the third day, I also start having significant vision impairment, reminiscent of hallucinogenic effects, where objects seem to be swaying slightly when I focus on them.
It also quite apparent to me that it is much harder to retain information learned after being up for a day or two.
> you can't say the solution is simply "just don't do drugs, duh"
But that is obviously the solution at the individual level, and it is always productive to put the burden of solving your own problems on yourself like OP suggests.
But it's not an individual problem! Me not doing drugs doesn't prevent me from being impacted by people who do, and the same goes for people who consume poisoned information sources.
Sure, it is both. And in this type of situations I think the more important one to tackle is the systemic one, so that putting the burden on the individual is made manageable.
To give another analogy, if you want people to recycle, you need to create recycling stations in their area, and not force them to drive 50 kilometers to recycle a plastic bottle. That burden of infrastructure is on the government unfortunately in some part.
The individual solution is insufficient in this case. Once a problem like this becomes a strong signal at the level of population statistics, it means there's a systemic cause that's stronger than most people's willpower.
I imagine it is more of an exponential decay mixed with poisson since strikes were far more common back in the day. Also, I'd guess an exponential decay in the expected size of impactors over time as they've been smashing themselves into pieces.
A society that encourages people to off themselves because they are a burden doesn't sound nice to me. I think anyone should have the choice (legally) to end their life, but it would be gross if people actually started talking about how that would be good for everyone else.
Nice or not, the numbers are the numbers. A society that dedicates too many of its resources to servicing old people who cannot provide anything back to society will not fare well on the global scene.
How much productivity can one expect to transfer from young people to old people if the total fertility rate is too low? Surely the cracks start to appear when there are 2 old people for every 1 young person? Absent sufficient automation, of course.
That is up to Canadians to decide. A common effect is decreasing purchasing power of currency, which typically causes political turmoil because young workers want to be able to buy things they want if they are going to be incentivized to work.
Typically, this causes asset price inflation, where the government tries to keep the most active voters (old people) happy, and to do that, they try to keep old people’s purchasing power from diminishing too much. And since older people have more assets than younger people, it effectively results in a transfer of the fruits of the country’s productivity from young to old.
I don’t know how accurate a picture the media and the rhetoric on the internet paints, but this seems to be a growing issue in Canada, at least from changes in their real estate prices relative to income.
At the end of the day, people who don’t work need people who work. But people who work don’t need people who don’t work. Presumably, if people who work never received anything in exchange, then they would not be incentivized to works.
And so the implied contract is people work now and give to people who don’t work, and in exchange, in the future, they will be the people who don’t work and receive from people who work.
But if there will be fewer people who work in the future, and not sufficient automation, and people who work now see perhaps their parents getting less than they expect, and they see TFR trends, and put two and two together and realize they are not going to get what they put in, then they may choose to opt out of this contract.
I don't think Canada behaves like a rich and prosperous nation, honestly
The way Canada operates me reminds me of people I know who have poverty mindset. Spending money on longterm investments seems unthinkable here
I think it's a side effect of politicians only really caring about the next election cycle. Any investment that won't pay off before the next election is sidelined
But that mindset is pervasive. If we don't have the resources for old people, then what about chronically ill? Everything gets optimalized away, then we end up with inadequate care for children...and if society is not even capable to provide that, why have it at all?
That’s just stupid. Even at its most evil, a policy optimized for cold economic efficiency with no ethics would have more resources for children because children are a valuable investment.
