> With the sole exception of one bootable tool vendor who added custom code to perform a signature verification of the grub.cfg config file in addition to the signature verification performed on the GRUB2 executable, all versions of GRUB2 that load commands from an external grub.cfg configuration file are vulnerable.
Perhaps the ability to sign grub.cfg should be added to GRUB2, and this feature should be enabled by default.
Though this would mean rather than allowing users to enter arbitrary kernel boot options (and being able to leverage buffer overflow exploits), a bunch of preset menu items would have to be present. Alternatively, this signed grub.cfg can have its boot menu password-protected. (If I recall correctly individual menu items cannot be password protected.)
Lowering the GRUB2 attack surface area is a good idea, so hopefully these suggestions get deeply considered.
How would that work? If the public key is baked into the signed grub, the only person who can sign the config is whoever built grub. If the keypair is generated locally and the public half put on the ESP, an attacker can just replace it. Signed config works if you never need to modify the config, but for a general purpose OS you need to be able to modify the config.
Sorry, I forgot that typical grub.cfg contains the root partition's UUID (and at least historically, the partition device node). While it is possible to configure GRUB to scan for a root partition rather than using a UUID, this is less secure (eg, GRUB residing on your hard drive could then accidentally select your root partition residing on a USB stick containing Linux live media).
Good point that in general, the operating system vendor does not know the grub.cfg on an installed system, and that an attacker with direct access to the ESP can modify the files that are present there.
A static grub.cfg that selects "the Linux root partition is the first partition on the device on which this GRUB bootloader is installed on" would work. I don't believe GRUB supports this kind of behavior (maybe it should). It seems worthwhile and possible to design a mechanism where a simple grub.cfg can be signed by the operating system vendor. Disabling the ability to arbitrarily modify kernel boot options on a general purpose operating system is not a big deal, and could be mitigated with extra GRUB boot menu items.
It's strange, because Nintendo has such good first-party game development skills, develops entire operating systems for their internet-connected consoles (including security architectures spanning hardware/software).
Even some of Nintendo's top brass have had strong software engineering skills: in the late 1990s, during the development of Pokemon Gold & Silver, the team was struggling so future Nintendo President Satoru Iwata developed and implemented a compression algorithm.
Developing software that fulfills functionial or gameplay requirements is going to require a very different skillset compared to fulfilling security requirements (user stories become abuser stories, and they aren't always easy to wrap your head around).
Corporate Japan has also lagged behind western companies in this area. The book Business Management and Cybersecurity by Shinichi Yokohama dives into this.
Due to decades of Deng Xiaoping's One Child Policy, China is a slow motion demographic car crash that's impossible to stop. China will "get old before it gets rich", and the days of 6% growth aren't coming back.
Chinese birthrates would have fallen anyways due to increasing education and prosperity.
The one child policy only accelerated the decline. When it was lifted, birthrates hardly budged.
Every developed country is a slow motion demographic car crash. China is in a bad position, I'll grant, because the CCP's legitimacy depends upon demographic dividend-scale growth rates when the dividend has already peaked. Democratic countries have pressure release valves built into their political systems that China lacks.
I think it's easy to say their "legitimacy" or "stability" depends on high growth rates, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I would love to hear even one genuine expert on the subject make the case for a revolution in even the 30 years following a drop from insane growth back to earth.
China growth rate during recovery was actually depressed compared to several developing nations. So even the basic premise doesn’t fit the actual data.
Long term compare the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) after the war based on per capita GDP and the mainland is still catching up. The CPP maintained power after completely wrecking the countries economy, so a period of stagnation seems unlikely to be a major issue. More recently you can see how the CPP is placing Hong Kong’s economy as a lower priority than increased control.
While dictatorships like China can fall surprisingly quickly, I doubt slower growth is that critical of an issue.
I think CCP legitimacy does depend upon a social contract of rising living standards, compared to the Mao era when political idealism had more purchase.
Moreover rising expectations beget rising expectations, and the genie is out of the bottle.
I don't foresee a revolution either, rather a perestroika movement that will be forced from below but embraced out of necessity from above. As the video said, all of the energy needed to address domestic unrest will drain from China's ability to project their national interest.
There is a chance that the Americans can change that in a few months though.
If so, Trump may become just a footnote in history, and hopefully a valuable lesson, at least for a few generations.
Meanwhile, we people in Hong Kong and China can choose between "strongly support", "reluctantly support", "disapprovingly support", etc... Xi to continue as the head of PRC.
Get out and vote. Ask the people around you to do so. Explain to them why it's important to vote. Discuss with them how it may affect them. Learn to discuss serious topics without a confrontational attitude.
Was responding to the OP that the "Trump administration who in 4 years totally managed to end the standing of the US on the world stage."
Have heard that Biden would be soft on China/Xi because of his commercial interest, but I haven't done enough research to justify this viewpoint myself.
It's kind of ironic for me, who identify both as a HKer and a Chinese, to hope that the world can get tougher on China, or Xi/PRC to be more exact. What they're doing is IMO damaging to the Chinese people in the long term, and let's not begin to discuss HK.
OTOH, I also understand that every country, including the US, has her own dark side as well. But then, when you put everything on a balance... It's just overall a complicated, difficult and sad situation, as life often is.
Aye, I respect your willingness to fight for China. I fear that it may be a lost cause but that's just from the outside looking in. The iron grip the CCP seems to have just looks like it's getting stronger. I hear that Britain will offer HKers citizenship in the UK. What are your thoughts on that?
If by "China" you mean Xi or PRC, no I'm not (willing to fight for them). Am just speaking on humanitarian terms I think, I support everyone's freedom in pursuing a better life and/or happiness without infringing someone else's rights, or, put in another way, I support or seek to defend people whose rights are being violated... something along that line.
As for the rumored UK offer, I guess that would be nice although personally I'm not keen on emigration. But if the situation keeps getting worse, who knows... Shall be thankful to the UK. OTOH it's going to be a problem for the UK on integration, if it comes true I hope HKers who leave for UK learn and do their best to contribute and integrate with the society... Also I'm concerned about the young people who're born after 1997 (the handover), they may not be qualified... Meanwhile, it seems Taiwan may accept political refugees from HK later.
FWIW, many many HKers were refugees or descendants of refugees to begin with.
I think the world more or less understands that American politics oscillates between periods of conservative control and liberal control.
I don’t think the world has forgotten about America’s massive military or its massive economy.
To say Trump has “ended America’s standing” is extremely short sighted... Whether you like him or not, he has not changed in any material way the military or the economy or the political systems that form the foundation of America.
Imagine the world in only 10 years from now. 2030. Will the American economy still be intact and humming along? Will the military still be well funded? Will the political system still be the same?
Am I the only one to consider US massive economy as a lightyear remain ? It really seems that US (politics or companies) lost their ways and can't handle their own power. Inertia is not good enough.
The US economy has produced multiple new world-changing businesses every decade in living memory. The idea that it's solely coasting on inertia just doesn't make much sense.
Probably, I have only shallow gut feelings about this, but the financial blunders, the changes in education and technological differences around the globe (asia is becoming more and more independant and creative), the very very strange political state.. I'm not sure the thing will hold itself. I have this model where everything is non linear and if you stop claiming your position on the ladder, everything else will evaporate under your feet.
But what Trump represents to allies is not just an oscilating to conservative control. It represents the willingness of the american public to put someone in charge of foreign policy that has a complete disrespect for America’s allies, and a strong willingness to turn America more isolationist and less supportive of free trade.
Ultimately, I don’t think Trump alone will really effect things long term though, no. If it becomes a pattern in the sort of person the conservative party elects, or even more so if the liberal part also swings that way, other countries could definitely start banding together more strongly against the American hegemony.
When Germans elect a Chancellor who doesn't make sure that Germany meet their NATO commitments are they being disrespectful to their allies? I understand that the comment may come off a bit incendiary, but I'm genuinely asking.
In as much as the other members of NATO (particularly the US, who is the primary funder of NATO) care about those commitments, yes. Which is to say, I’m not sure how much it maters historically when the US did not seem to particularly care. Now that the US has brought up the matter, to not make an effort to spend more is disrespectful to me.
(But the concept of disrespect aside, I would consider allies not fulfilling the agreements of a treaty made to lower my trust in them to fulfill the obligations of current and future agreements. And that trust is also quite important.)
We're in a cold war with China and our manufacturing base has eroded over the past 40 years thanks to free trade. Now we are in a relatively weak position to be fighting a cold war. Say what you will about Trump, but he did start calling out China with his 2016 run. I have no doubts about the U.S.'s adaptability but often times we have to get punched in the face before we really appreciate the gravity of the situation. Covid was that punch. If free trade costs you your autonomy and resiliency, then it's not worth it.
Functionally, I agree with you on China in many respects. Ultimately no trade with them is really free trade regardless due to the way they manage their own economy. The problem with Trump in this regard is that he didn’t just call out China. He called out everyone, starting trade wars not just with China, but Mexico, Canada, more general sweeping sets of tarrifs, and also weakening our alliances separately. And this is a big deal if one actually wants to take on China economically. A big block of allies all getting into a trade war with China would have a substantially higher chance of success than the US just going it alone. Instead it was just us vs them and nothing really came of it. The cold war was not just US vs USSR. It was the western bloc vs the eastern bloc, and all other allies those groups picked up along the way. And any geopolitical fight between entities the size of China and the US would need to be carried out similarly to be successful.
To the final point on whether free trade is worth it, that’s a decision that can be made. But it is a decision, and would have pretty extreme effects on the US’s standing on the world stage, along with tons of other knock on effects on how the economy works. Whether that’s a trade off that’s worth it is a much more complicated discussion, but certainly far from simple.
Don't insinuate shilling (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you read that comment again with more care you'll see it's not at all whataboutism (the "What about America doing xyz" type comment that tries to suggest criticism is invalid because behavior elsewhere).
As JCharante mentions, this statement was offered as a modernization of historical reaction to similar events, not a commentary on the parent comment. In that context the interpretation my statement basically turns on whether you believe the McCarthy was right or not and whether a similar person would be right or not today.
That report is one of the reasons why Zoom has such a poor reputation for security. The other being Zoom is largely Made In China software, so subject to the requirements of China's totalitarian government: to bolster domestic industries by stealing technology and R&D from around the world (by infiltrating companies, communication networks, computer servers and end-user devices using any software and individuals it has influence over, including hackers from Ministry of State Security and People's Liberation Army).
This is achieved through direct legal requirements to co-operate with Ministry of State Security corporate espionage (via China's 2017 National Intelligence Law), and more broadly through the China's attempts to switch the allegiances of all ethnically Chinese people through the overseas political interference organization called the "United Front Work Department" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXPxWtl8Zw), and also through the Thousand Talents Plan.
Also not yet possible to install a snap using a chroot yet : https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1609903 (the bug has been open for 3 years). Chroots are a key mechanism to building any customized Linux image.
I hope they smooth these rough edges further before they push more snaps onto the world.
Huawei is in large part built upon technology stolen from Cisco and Canada's Nortel Networks. In the latter case, there is strong evidence China was able to maintain access to Nortel's internal networks for over a decade (!!) which helped kill the 117 year old company. [1]
The government of China is systematically hacking corporations through the Ministry of State Security, and attempting to the switch the allegiances of all ethnically Chinese people across the world through the well-funded overseas political interference organization called the "United Front Work Department" [2]. In both the Australian and New Zealand parliaments, China has actually succeeded in installing individuals with undeclared links to government of China political interference and espionage organizations: Gladys Liu and Jian Yang. While there is no smoking gun that they are directly acting as spies, there is significant amounts of circumstantial evidence that they have been compromised by government of China influence operations. I don't need to explain the risk of politicians compromised by an adversarial government making key national defense decisions.
With this reality, why would any government risk allowing Huawei in their networks?
That kind of issue is solved in court with proofs and compensations. Cisco is no small bullied kid and should deal with it without us crying a river about it. They also infringe patents, get caught, pay up settlement fees and continue business as usual.
Not going down this route in this specific case makes it look way more dirty on US side IMO.
> hacking
Cisco has been caught countless times spreading NSA backdoors to the world, they shouldn’t get any moral pass.
I think it comes down to who’s wrongdoing you are willing to turn a blind eye on. If you’re not an US citizen nor don’t see US gov as a reliable ally, the whole Huawei vs the US feud has no clear moral or ethical split.
The US gov - despite all the terrible deeds in its short history - builds upon a very strong civil liberties foundation, whereas China is a one-party totalitarian dictatorship.
Sure, there's no "clear" ethical split, but just putting both of them into the naughty bin won't do anyone much good. Most of the people on HN don't want anyone spying on them, but that doesn't mean there is no point in clearly stating that Huawei products somehow represent a greater risk than Cisco's overpriced every-year-re-branded legacy junk.
It’s hard to argue an entity does terrible things while putting aside all their terrible deeds.
How would you judge if what they’re doing regarding Huawei is not one of them ? To my knowledge nothing of interest has been put on table as proof or objective justification of the ban at this point.
The point is not if the US gov is better than the Chinese one, it’s how other countries deal with the US gov having a beef against a foreign company.
If Nortel ever been killed by somebody, that was by financial engineers from hedge funds, and inexperienced managers that came to board after the bubble popped
Aren't certain Chinese people in China relatively open about this on a high level? I mean, to me it always sounded as non-believable but there have been some places (documentaries or texts) where a Chinese person would say that the goal of China is to get Chinese people in high places all over the world in a 200+ year time span and then rule it.
As I said, I never took it seriously. But maybe people should look into claims like that?
Unfortunately, I can't find a source for this because it didn't happen that often and I'm not that politically minded.
>With this reality, why would any government risk allowing Huawei in their networks?
Well firstly because the USA does the same thing. Being technologically ahead, it tends to work on giving it's companies an edge over regulators or competition rather than stealing tech. But no one is being fair here.
So you're not choosing between a good guy and a bad guy
I'm happy to agree the USA is morally less repugnant than China. I'm neither American nor Chinese but I'll take US hegemony over Chinese. But that's still picking the less bad option.
And either way, you lose some sovereignty. And both nations will be in your infrastructure whether you buy their kit or not, because most such espionage is software based, so it doesn't really matter.
So the question is really not the one your asking. A better question is, "how much will I lose to the security issue and how much will I gain from the tech I'm buying and how does this affect everything else I am doing including relations with both sides?"
Since China has better 5G tech, and the loss is the same, you buy Chinese based only on the first part of that question.
And that is the reason the USA is making so much noise: since the 70s, after the US got scared into pushing for technological progress by sputnik, the USA has been the leader in tech. Now Cisco etc have dropped the ball and the Chinese have edged ahead in this one product...
It's also worth noting how unfairly EU/Asian companies have been treated in US markets over the last decade. There might be value buying Chinese to dissuade US bullying given that the age of peaceful cooperation (economically) seems to be over (Deutsch bank fines, Toyota recalls etc).
Plus increasingly the EU wishes to deviate from us foreign policy and have its own policy. China doesn't care unless you're messing about in their back yard because they don't have much foreign policy beyond there. But the US expects compliance world wide. If you buy Cisco, and then refuse to sanction Iran for no reason, will you still be able to get Cisco spares?
You can disagree with my assessment of parts of this, that's fine. But the point is, this is 100 times more complex than buying a knock off version with security flaws or a proper piece of kit...
See William Barr remark on buying controlling share in SE & Nokia if Huawei dominance becomes real, it'll be Crypto AG round 2. Going with SE & Nokia just means maintaining status quo, aka giving US preferential access since they control much of the higher OSI stack. It's a disingenuous argument. In fact the Australian PM has recently confirmed the "conspiracy theory" that the primary concern AU intelligence over Huawei wasn't interception of intelligence by China rather denial of access to networks with Huawei hardware which compromises intelligence sharing, i.e. it makes it harder for FVEY agencies to spy on each other's citizens.
The US has unparalleled intelligence gathering abilities, intelligence agencies with privileged access doesn't want to lose intelligence sharing with them. Similar to countries under US military security umbrella, FVEY and other intelligence alliances aren't equal contributors. Which leads to situations in many countries where intelligence interests conflicts with trade interests, and you get situations like UK firing their defense secretary who leaked secret meeting info in order sway decision making.
As part of the exact employment contract, a researcher's work may be patented by the institute they work for (with the researcher being remunerated for this).
Biomedical patents are not trivial software patents. Billions of dollars of investment goes into developing a single new therapy. The molecular structure of medicine can often be easily replicated once discovered, so patents are a key part of commercializing new medicine and techniques. (See the CRISPR-Cas9 patent debacle.) Taking the right to patent some work away from the institute it was developed at means theft of the licensing fees derived from the patent, and an impact on an institute's ability to keep funding R&D.
Your typical research doesn't lead to billions in licensing fees. 99% of research produces nothing of direct monetary value at all, and research that does is generally done in startups or pharma/biotech companies, where the rules are far more stringent than in university-affiliated labs. Still, of course you are right that this is all a gray area.
While the vast majority of academic labs aren’t producing finished products like drugs, it’s not uncommon for researchers to obtain patents on certain promising leads.
Most universities have a “tech transfer” office that helps with this (the university usually gets a share) and tries to find licensees.
The risks of working with Chinese state-owned enterprises are well known. The risks of working with private companies (large and small) in China are are also great with CCP "party cells" officially embedded into at least half of private companies. Less discussed is the China's highly-successful "patriotic education" campaign implemented in response to the 1989 pro-democracy protests (the Tiananmen Square massacre). All school children since the mid-1990s have been indoctrinated from birth with a Chinese Communist Party's highly-exaggerated historical narrative called the "century of humiliation". This world view says the US and the European colonial powers held China down between 1839 to 1949, and that only the CCP's leadership China will regain its rightful place as global leader. Its false and highly-exaggerated for a number of reasons (China at its historical peak was never more than a regional power, never a global leader, and the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan).
Since the patriotic education system came into force in the 1990s, generations of schoolchildren indoctrinated. These students, now adults, have entered the workforce with the ideology continuing to be reinforced by state-propaganda and censorship.
This "century of humiliation" mindset is part of what helps justify the China's strategy of large scale technology theft (theft is a core component of the Made In China 2025 industrial strategy).
Interestingly enough, the CCP promotes its ethno-nationalist ideology far beyond its borders via the United Front Work Department to try and influence everyone, but especially overseas Chinese diaspora communities. It doesn't matter whether someone was born in China, or live as part of an overseas diaspora community, or have Chinese ancestral heritage but have lived for generations in another country, the Chinese Communist Party sees every single ethnically Chinese people in the world as owing allegiance to it, and wants to leverage these people to achieve its goals.
Defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda and highly-exaggerated historical narratives will be difficult, but understanding it is the key to fighting back against the widespread theft of advanced technology from developed countries to China.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? The "patriotic education" campaign, "century of humiliation" narrative, United Front Work Department and state-led technological theft are all core methods in the CCP's strategy (leading situations like the one in the featured article). If you think this comment is reasonable and meets the guidelines, please view it via the permalink and then 'vouch' it.
While I agree with much of your sentiment at least two things stand out as not quite right:
> China at its historical peak was never more than a regional power
This is entirely a matter of foreign policy. In terms of production/population/capability, during many periods ancient china would rival/surpass the greatest contemporary empires. I don't think it's appropriate to say "they were not that great" if the main thing that differentiates them from "great" empires is that they didn't pursue a program of unconstrained conquest (and often closely related enslavement/ethnic cleansing).
> the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan
This is also not very clear. India had opportunity to work with the west/open market/democracy earlier than China yet is clearly falling behind China in development. In fact, I think one of the main reason for such compliance on the part of Chinese populace is that the standard of living really did skyrocket all within single generations. In 2000 people lived incredibly better than in 1980; now entering 2020 people live much, much better than they did in 2000. To disregard the magical transformation in standard of living (especially in urban areas) is disingenuous.
----
At the same time I don't want to detract from what I believe is the main point. The deep ethno-nationalism and the sick man of Asia narrative that the government is instilling in the youths is truly troubling. It blinds seemingly educated people to obvious abuses by the government and casts the specter of "evil US" as a boogeyman justifying terrible Chinese actions. Even many of the Chinese I met in the US still believe in "US constantly acting nefariously to subvert China" story, despite living in the US for years...
As far as China at its historical peak goes, the sentiment I was trying to express is the PRC's goal is for China to regain the world's most powerful nation and the worlds most powerful military with all nations recognizing this and being tributaries (and that this position is an exaggeration from historical truth).
On the second point, the CCP certainly deserves a lot of credit for Deng Xiaoping's reforms and the economic expansion since 1978. Though much of the early gains was to undo the Mao's collectivization of rural lands.
> Though much of the early gains was to undo the Mao's collectivization of rural lands.
This is simply not true. In 1978, start of reforms, GDP per capita was >50% higher than 1966 (start of cultural revolution) [0]. In current dollars it was $104/per capita in 1966 and $155 in 1978 (although there is something funny going on as it was ~$180 both preceding and succeeding years). More important is the miracle streak starting in 1988 where every year was positive.
I think it is important to not diminish Chinese achievement while criticizing China, because by denying their achievements you allow the unconvinced Chinese readers to say "ha, clear US bias and propaganda" and ignore the much more troubling truth about their current government (such as china running literal concentration camps, disappearing dissents, crushing demands for freedom, overtly trying to force other countries to bend the knee, etc). I have many friends dismiss valid criticisms of China with this exact excuse. If you deny to a Chinese person that they had a massive improvement in their life quality they will laugh at you, because you are denying an obvious lived experience for hundreds of millions of people (basically people in cities).
You're probably being downvoted because this is a nationalistic counternarrative its own right, and we're looking for thoughtful conversation instead of flamewar rhetoric here.
I was hoping it was carefully written enough to not be flagged. I think it's an important debate for the technology community to work through. I do recognize it's a sensitive issue especially (with the risk of racism if not handled carefully).
I hoped it would count as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon", especially since the United Front Work Department (and the post-1989 patriotic education system) is rarely discussed. In contrast to the featured article, which by itself does not really meet the guidelines for being on-topic (especially since it similar articles have been posted the last few months). Alas.
It's written in the style of a rhetorical diatribe ("indoctrinated from birth", "defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda", etc.) This isn't thoughtful conversation, it's nationalistic battle, which the site guidelines ask you not to use HN for.
> All school children since the mid-1990s have been indoctrinated from birth with a Chinese Communist Party's highly-exaggerated historical narrative called the "century of humiliation"
I suggest reading about the chinese history under european/american colonialism. To call it "Highly-exaggerated" is like saying the holocaust was highly exaggerated. It's absurd and makes it hard to take your comment seriously.
> and the CCP has done more to hold China's development back than western colonialism and the war with Imperial Japan).
That's simply an absurd statement. China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an insignificant one. Now, china is the 2nd largest economy (nominal) and largest economy (PPP).
> This "century of humiliation" mindset is part of what helps justify the China's strategy of large scale technology theft (theft is a core component of the Made In China 2025 industrial strategy).
No. IP theft is justified because that's the history of business. US did it in the 1800s. Japan did it. South Korea did. Israel did it. Everyone does it until they themselves produce IP worth protecting. It's just the natural cycle of development. Go read about the history of trying to steal silk, porcelain, fireworks, etc tech from china. It's simply a natural development.
> Interestingly enough, the CCP promotes its ethno-nationalist ideology far beyond its borders via the United Front Work Department to try and influence everyone, but especially overseas Chinese diaspora communities.
So does israel, germany, japan, korea, turkey, russia, etc. Not only that we have ethno-centric alliances ( Five Eyes ).
> Defeating the CCP's ethno-nationalist agenda and highly-exaggerated historical narratives will be difficult
It will be difficult because their historical narratives are true.
If you want to see what colonialism did to china, india, etc...
Before colonialism, china and india accounted for more than 50% of the world's GDP for millenia. After colonialism, china and india accounted for 5% of the world GDP.
There certainly are things to worry about when it comes to china, but outlandish lies aren't going to help anyone.
> China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an insignificant one.
That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.
Of course the Qing emperors realized that they wouldn't be able to resist Western armies without owning similar weaponry. Their biggest mistake was simply buying them. In comparison, Japan suffered similar humiliation, complete with Western battleships forcibly opening ports for trade. The deciding difference was that they decided to not only import Western weapons, but to learn how to make them themselves, industrializing quickly. That was so successful that halfway through China's "century of humiliation", Japan became one of the humiliators.
> IP theft is justified because that's the history of business.
Agreed, and the humiliation would have lasted a lot shorter than a century if the Qing had realized this. Ironically, if they had done so, foreign Manchu would likely still hold an outsized influence in Chinese politics today.
> their historical narratives are true.
The facts of the narrative can be true while the evaluation and implied causal relationships can be misleading. For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.
> That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily.
This is one of the most outlandishly false things I've read. China and india's economic significance is the reason why western powers wanted to colonize china and india in the first place. Their economic importance is why europe first sought out india and china. It's why columbus "sailed the ocean blue".
> The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.
The colonization of india and china started before western industrialization. And it was colonizers who prevented india and china from industrializing like Japan. Funny how colonization ended and china ( and india though more slowly ) started industrializing huh?
> For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.
Because the former was for the benefit of foreign merchants to loot a nation and the latter was for the benefit of china. Surely, even you can see the difference of a territory conquered by a foreign power to loot a nation vs a territory a nation sets up itself for trade?
No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and that was pretty much their fault.
Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really, honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And that's what led to the century of humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a modern army.
> The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s.
We can argue about when industrialization began til the cows come home, but the benefits of industrialization weren't materialized until the latter half of the 1800s - after the opium wars when britain used stolen chinese capital and stolen indian resources.
Everything you've written are nonsense repeated over and over again. It does get exhausting correcting them, but I'll give it another shot.
> It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats.
That was the case everywhere. Steamships didn't become truly relevant until the latter half of the 1800s because of how much coal was needed for these ships. Think about it. When the british were trying to blockade the US, it wasn't with steamships. It was with sail ships. Hell most of the naval ships decades after the opium war were still powered by sail.
"sail was still the only solution for virtually all trade between China and Western Europe or East Coast America. "
> The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost.
Is that why the US beat britain in the american revolution? Because our economy was so much superior to Great Britain? Is that why the mongols were able to conquer china, russia, middle east? Because their economy was so much larger? Is that why the barbarians were able to overrun the roman empire? Because their economy was so much larger? Britain economy had nothing to do with opium wars. Do you know why? Because britain started the opium wars because china produced so much goods britain wanted while britain produced very little that china wanted. So the trade deficit was so skewed in favor of china that capital flowed exclusively from britain to china. The opium wars was britain's attempt to remedy it. Since britain's "amazing economy" produced nothing of value to china, they wanted to peddle drugs to china.
I won't bother with the rest. Figure it out yourself. If britain's economy was so great ( as you implied ) there wouldn't have been any opium wars because britain could cost-effectively produce stuff for china. They couldn't. Hence why they needed to peddle drugs. Why do you think the corner drug dealers are dealing drugs? Because they can't produce or do anything else of value. That was britain.
I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far from it. But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.
Britain had ulterior problems than the trade imbalance with China. Throwing out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about it as you denied an embassy, because you saw yourself as a higher form of civilization than those pesky barbarians in the east of the world did absolutely nothing to help, which is why incidentally Russia France and the US were supportive despite not having the same problem as Britain. Refusing to consider a peace treaty, torturing POWs, killing messengers and so on is also a good part of why the opium wars actually went through, there were quite a few times parliament almost shut it down, and I'm pretty sure were it not for the insult that Qing China kept imposing due to their frankly stupid feudal bureacracy and It is true that opium had a large part in it and the British did like the tax revenue it gave. But, as it happens, the fact that China wasn't particularly interested in British manufactured goods isn't relevant to that question, because the fact that China wasn't interested in industrializing its vast worker base has nothing to do with the benefits of industrialization.
Your analysis of steamships is incorrect, by the way. 6 British steamships sunk hundreds of Chinese ships, and were able to manoeuvre in ways that Chinese didn't know were possible at all. They also single handedly destroyed hundreds of artillery pieces and by virtue of being able to access shallower waters and going against wind and current so easily they were able to attack Naval fortifications from a side they weren't designed to protect from, destroying them, and were able to carry firepower comparable to entire Chinese fleets. Read about the individual Naval battles in the first Opium war, it's actually incredible just how efficient steamships were since the very beginning of the Opium Wars. They were literally a hard counter to the entire Chinese arsenal, except for land-based artillery of course.
My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only. And it works pretty damn well, actually, if you take into account morale and readiness. Not realizing it at the time is a mistake that Hitler made invading the USSR, costing him his life, and a mistake Hirohito made despite the warnings of Yamamoto, which lead to Japan losing WW2. Its pretty damn accurate assuming two stable nation states and factoring in the monetary equivalent of throwing bodies at the enemy.
Yes, the Naval blockade of the US couldn't use steamships because they didn't have enough of them to block the entire shoreline of the US while keeping them supplied. The geography of the Chinese blockades were incredibly different. Chinese logistics were centered around the main rivers, since, you know, no real infrastructure. The British only had to blockade rivers in order to cripple the Chinese economy.
China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation. The fact that that simple proposition had to lead to a war is a good insight on why we got rid of the gold standard.
Also, even before the industrial revolution, I can think of about 10 counter examples to production capability being the main driving force behind military victory, actually. Logistics and keeping your armies fed was possibly the biggest factor behind pre-industrial empires.
Saying that the industrial revolution brought no benefit to warfare until the later half of the 18th century is positively ridiculous. Using industrial weaponry European powers were able to impose disgusting imperialist régimes in a flash, because it was a huge advantage. To most of their enemies, it simply was economically and technologically (two sides of the same coin) impossible to fight back. But you can figure this one out yourself :)
> I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far from it.
I never said you did. My comment specifically debunked your assertions about "britain's superior economy", etc.
> But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.
Agreed.
> Throwing out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about it as you denied an embassy ...
Oh I see, now you are going to justify britain's behavior. Typical.
> 6 British steamships sunk hundreds of Chinese ships
Simply not true. There is a reason why almost all of britain's navy were powered by sail even decades after the opium war. It was britain sail powered ships that destroyed chinese ships.
> My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only.
Industrialized warfare didn't really start until ww1, nearly 100 years after the first opium war.
> China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation.
You are mistaking today's china with china from 200 years ago. There is a reason why "fine china" is called "fine china". Chinese goods ( tea, silk, porcelain, etc ) were considered luxury items.
> Using industrial weaponry European powers
Oh god. The muskets the british and the europeans were using were inferior to the bow and arrow. "European" weaponry didn't really separate itself from the rest until the American civil war when we started using gatling guns, ironclad ships, etc and then down the line oil for trucks, ships, etc.
Anyways, this is getting boring as I know you'll continue with your lies about the most basic of history. My goal isn't to convince you, it's to make sure people who read your lies are aware of it.
Saying that industrialization is why britain won the opium wars is like saying nuclear weapons is why the US beat britain. Strange how the amazing "industrialized" british couldn't beat the US in the american revolution nor the war of 1812.
Here's a hint. British/American industrialization took off AFTER the opium wars because the opium wars provided the capital necessary for british and american industrialization.
And if you really want to know how the british "won" the opium wars, it's simply a weak "foreign" central government and perfidious mandarins in southern china. Similar to how france took over vietnam. And how britain took over india. But you won't read about that in the history books. You have to look "behind" the history books. Hope you enjoyed the lesson.
> It was britain sail powered ships that destroyed chinese ships.
They were sail-powered steamboats. It's true that travelling all the way from Britain to China using only steam power was impossible at the time. But the very first British steamboat [1] also had sails. That way, they only had to feed the steam engines when a maneuver required it, e.g. going against the wind. That was evidently enough to win battles.
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. China was 20% of overseas tax revenue for the British Empire, and the US wasn't selling any notable amount of opium
Pointing out that there were more casus belli than what you think doesn't mean I believe any of them justified the wars. But, Qing China objectively saw the British Empire as lower than them, and objectively refused diplomatic channels that might have avoided this mess due to their perceived racial and cultural superiority. As in many things, it wasn't completely one sided. And yes, the flayed and tortured British Officiers for no reason but to see them suffer.
You are completely clueless as to naval military technology of the time. Steamships did in fact have sails. They only used their steam engines in war situations.
The steamships used in the Opium Wars were literally iron ships. The were superior in every single way to Chinese ships, which literally could not counter them at all. It was total naval domination due to technology, nothing else.
Yes, the fact that the Chinese central government had terrible intel due to the nature of their terrible feudal bureaucracy played a role. However, the British were able to beat down fleets and armies far far far bigger than their own, repeatedly, in enemy territory. Plainly, they won because they had iron ships with the steam engine. That is the product of industrialization.
Your perceived notion of the industrial revolution is wrong, that what you say is the start of the industrial revolution is actually after the end of the industrial revolution.
Also, tea, porcelain and fine china are either raw resources, in the case of tea, or artisan work. They aren't industrial goods at all, and are the hallmark of a poor economy. China in the last 50 years is absolutely not that. While a lot of their goods are of lower quality, they are industrially produced goods, not artisan goods. That's because the CCP, even since Mao, for all their faults, recognized the mistakes of the Qing and began to mass industrialize.
Change in relative GDP is a very weak argument. A massive productivity boom in other nations (via the Industrial Revolution) doesn't necessary effect a nation's existing production (except when workers they are placed out of work by, eg. the cotton gin)
Theft is theft no matter how justified it may seem and whoever the perpetrator is.
Also the alliance you mention is certainly anglophone, but certainly not limited based on ethnicity.
In the age of industrial warfare, economic output matters a huge deal to winning. China was overtaken by the West massively before it got subjugated. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't have let it happen.
Perhaps the ability to sign grub.cfg should be added to GRUB2, and this feature should be enabled by default.
Though this would mean rather than allowing users to enter arbitrary kernel boot options (and being able to leverage buffer overflow exploits), a bunch of preset menu items would have to be present. Alternatively, this signed grub.cfg can have its boot menu password-protected. (If I recall correctly individual menu items cannot be password protected.)
Lowering the GRUB2 attack surface area is a good idea, so hopefully these suggestions get deeply considered.