Do you think the type of abuse that EA received was appropriate?
The answer is: Absolutely not. Remember when Mass Effect: Andromeda came out and the facial animation system was broken? Some enterprising players looked through the game credits, found a woman they thought was responsible for said animations, and personally harassed her about it.
If you think this abuse is limited to complaining about loot boxes, you're wrong; it isn't.
Being only part chinese, I can tell you unless you are full han chinese, you will have a hard time on the mainland, regardless of how much chinese/mandarin you know.
Edit: Im not going to share personal stories, I dont want my relatives there to suffer for anything that gets reported back.
I heard the other side of the story that ABCs could have a hard time in China, because they look just like full han Chinese, but when people find out you are not really "Chinese Chinese", attitudes/expectations/behaviors change.
Edit: I guess I should say "attitudes/expectations/behaviors change, for the better or worse"
This doesn't seem super true in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I think that a lot of native Chinese actually lower their expectations around ABCs and are pretty interested in asking questions about American culture.
I think what you said just confirmed my point: Is "Lower their expectations" necessarily a good thing? Especially when we are talking about under a professional environment. "He's really an American, he doesn't really understand how to be a good manager for a team of native Chinese" doesn't sound like an advantage to me.
Unless you are a 6 foot plus black guy with a wicked three point shot... do not go to China to make your fortune if you are not Chinese. Go to China to ASSIST someone ELSE in making a fortune instead. You'll be a good deal more successful.
Caleb Cohoe is associate professor of philosophy at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Samantha Cohoe is a Latin teacher, writer of young adult fiction, and frequent contributor to twitter.com. The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.
Being (perceived as) healthy has been a factor in social status since antiquity. For every status competition, you are going to find people who are willing to pay for high perceived status.
While the product categories differ, the exorbitant price asked makes this 'raw water' target the same demography: those who have more money than sense and those who use these products for the purpose of affluence signalling.
They also ruled the world last year, and will rule the world next year. "Person of the Year" awards tend to highlight people that have had a particularly atypical effect in one particular year. They'd be pretty boring if they didn't.
Another way to look at it: while Bezos has done plenty with Amazon in 2017, it's a continuation of what he was doing in 2016. And I suspect 2018 will continue this year. It's not that his achievements aren't notable, it's that they didn't dramatically change the course of this year's events, or inspire a dramatic change of direction. By comparison, 2017's awakening to sexual assault/discrimination claims is an absolutely huge deviation from existing patterns.
You are getting clobbered, I will join you in this one.
There is no rhyme or reason for the basis for selecting a Person of the year. None what so ever. They are primarily focused in a specific part of the world. Forget Asia, Africa and other so called Third World.
Selecting a person of the year is not more substantive than sitting in a drum circle and passing the beer and talking stick. Especially since the newspaper business is now shadow of itself.
Honestly, I really do not know who the person of the year should be. The world does not revolve around a person, 10 years from now when one would have to think about 2017, Susan Folwer's Uber takedown will be very unlikely thing many would remember.
If you just make a tiny grammatical change it will eliminate all that unease. Change it to "A Person of the Year", rather than "The Person of the Year". :)
My guess is that when people look back on this era, Macron will by far be the most influential of that list. But it's hard to explain why now, and Fowler is very much the start of this year's zeitgeist.
> The other people have a extraordinary larger impact on global economics and politics.
That would only make sense if the primary criterion for selection were raw power. I don't know FT's criteria or the MO behind their Person of the Year designation. My hunch, however, is that it might be more nuanced, and they might be interested in people who stand up against established power, especially given the current sociopolitical climate.
I'm not sure that they were that interesting, really. Macron was arguably inevitable unless you assumed that for some reason France would abandon its tendency to reject the far-right candidate when it came to a one-on-one vote. While there was a lot of talk that it might do this, there wasn't that much evidence. Xi continues to exist; there'd definitely have been a year where it'd make sense for him to get it, but it wasn't this year. Bezos ditto. Musk ditto. MbS is the only one that I'd argue of these as being truly significant _in this particular year_.
