jdw

waveparticle said:

lkrupp said:

waveparticle said:

This is frivolous to the lowest level. TikTok is an entertaining tool. Government building is for working. Of course it is inappropriate to use TikTok. But making it a national security issue is a plot by China haters to silence democracy. 

Maybe the NSA, CIA, and the U.S. Military know something you don’t. But then you’re just a Chinese government operative spreading disinformation and propaganda. And who are you to be talking about democracy when your leader is a vicious despot.

You are a liar! I have said here many times that I have nothing to do with Chinese government. And you China hater keeps making lies about me. And would you bet that every word I posted here have been recorded by CIA? US government has the world's largest network of spying. It is much larger than China or any other country. Can you deny it? NSA, CIA, and the U.S. Military know how to spy on every one. This is why they worry TikTok will spy on US. US has far more superior military power than China. I believe this is the simple reason CCP feel it is useless to spy everything on US. Of course they want to know what the US Congress is planning on Taiwan. And this is the reason US Congress don't want CCP to know. And this is democracy? I thought democracy is for peace like Jesus do.

I personally believe you DO NOT have direct ties to the CCP.  However, based on your written defenses of anything pertaining to China, I would say that your wording is quite similar to other posts outside this forum authored by what are known as Chinese Nationalists.  Nationalists are average Chinese citizens who are extremely patriotic and defensive of China in general.  And while these nationalists are not affiliated with the CCP, they basically do precisely what the CCP wants insofar as the nationalists spread the same pro-China propaganda, and leave the door closed to anything negative about China.

Overall, I would say your posts defending China here in this forum tend to be more defensive of China than just about any other person in the forum.  That shouldn't make you a target of hate, but it will attract the attention of people who strongly disagree with your largely pro-China stance.

Personally, I wish we could all get along without strife.  But the only way to achieve that is to stop watching the news, stop being nationalistic/patriotic, and just view life in mostly optimistic terms.  Not everyone can do that.

And so, because we are all different, the best we can do is just debate and fight for a time, then shake hands and agree to disagree in the end.  I think that's really the best way to settle matters of strong disagreement.  There's nothing wrong with even heated debate as long as it doesn't result in us hating each other.

coolfactor said:

jdw said:

JP234 said:

So, a lawyer sues a company.
Why?
Money. It's about the money. It's always about the money.
Maybe she'll start a class-action tort and really cash in!

Here's a quote from her written statement...

"In 2010, I became the Head of Patent Litigation and was compensated commensurate with the job's stress level. I soon found myself making over $1 million a year."

She goes on to say she couldn't handle all the travel required, so she deliberately changed positions, and I must assume that reduced her salary.

She admits to having an unusual relationship with her Apple co-worker and explains it got very bad by saying "by this point we had become adversaries" yet then says she agreed to make their relationship public: "So I finally agreed, and we posted a picture on social media."

The whole tale is so strange, one would be hard-pressed to imagine even Hollywood creating it.  Read her statement in full.  

Gah! I couldn't even get through the full statement. Can't help but think that she invited this chaos into her life, and then is blaming Apple for her own mistakes.

I tried to stay fairly neutral in my previous post because none of us know all the facts.  But reading her statement is like reading through a surreal novel, and I do know she chose to stay in that relationship despite all the shocking claims.  Supposedly, many women in domestic violence situations stay in them for multiple reasons, but (1) since we don't know the truth we cannot say if that really applies to her, and (2) ultimately a woman does bear a hefty amount of responsibility for remaining in such a relationship (if real), regardless of a long list of "reasons."  I have a 19-year-old daughter, and I have ever confidence I raised her to make prudent choices to avoid not only getting involved in such horrible situations but also having the common sense to get out if ever she was in one.

So with that in mind, it boils down to the specifics of this lady's firing, about which we only have a small taste.  Apple is a pretty left learning entity, so I don't think they fired her for shallow reasons.  I would like to know if the man accused of these atrocities has been investigated?  And what opportunities did Apple give this lady to retain her job in despite of the drama?  

Another consideration is that most of us really don't have any love for "blood sucking lawyers."  So that makes us naturally biased against anyone with attorney credentials.

Let's open our minds, take a wild leap, and assume her statement is both (1) 100% accurate and (2) she was squeaky clean perfect in all this.  How would we go about proving that to clear her name?  Certainly, it is not our job to do that, but still.  Some of that will have to play out in court UNLESS Apple considers it too costly to litigate and decides to settle instead.  Lawyers know more than the rest of us how common it is to "just settle" and a liar walks away with hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.  So it could be that most of the story was made up in order to sue with the understanding as a lawyer that Apple probably would settle and she would receive a reasonable profit, even after legal fees were paid. But that is merely a guess on our part.

The "Not the only one" line in the article somewhat convolutes this new story because it makes us think they are somewhat related, when in reality they mostly likely aren't.  We really ought not to compare and just ponder each case individually.

I've long been an advocate for freedom here on the forum when it comes to comments under all articles, not just a select few.  So naturally, I found it interesting to see comments finally allowed under a clearly POLITICAL post.  However, I'm not getting too excited because I've seen such freedoms inconsistently applied before, with one political article allowing comments and another (no more or less controversial) disallowing comments. 

Perhaps 2023 will bring a consistent level of comment freedom under all articles for a refreshing change.  

Why "refreshing"?  Because I enjoy reading the comments about as much, and sometimes more, than the articles under which the comments are found.  It also reflects positively on AppleInsider who isn't scared by freer speech.  I think it has the potential to bring more people into the forum dialog, which in turn could enhance readership.

Anyway, thank you AppleInsider for comment freedom under this article.  Keep it up!

 – – – – –

Now for those of you who actually like TikTok, I am guess you must either be much younger people or new tech thrill seekers.  I believe in staying young at heart, but not much really appeals to me about short videos of mostly young females dancing around or lip-syncing to current music on TikTok.  Probably why YouTube's copy-cat "shorts" or FaceBook "Reels" don't really interest me either.  Those short videos basically boil down to a modern way to waste one's time.  At least with a full length YouTube video or a FaceBook group about vintage Macs I have the potential to learn something new and practical such that it really DOESN'T waste my time.

As to the US government security implications, well, I don't trust the US government a whole lot more than the Chinese government, although China does crack down on its people far more and do even more stupidly outlandish (and horrific) things.  The consistent CENSORSHIP of speech upsets me most, which makes China lower on the scale of trust than the US government.  Even so, all governments need to come under scrutiny by individual citizens.  Indeed, citizens need to have the power and right to throw out a bad government and replace it with a new if they ultimately find a system is broken beyond repair.  But when two super-power governments are rivals, spyware and other tactics will often be used.  In the end, average people are always caught in the middle.  It's sad that humanity is so fragile and imperfect so as to need the iron fist of government.  And I am no anarchist either.  Because governments are basically the creations of average people, we average people are basically our own demise.  We ultimately just float along through life trying to make something reasonably good of an overall bad situation.

JP234 said:

So, a lawyer sues a company.
Why?
Money. It's about the money. It's always about the money.
Maybe she'll start a class-action tort and really cash in!

Here's a quote from her written statement...

"In 2010, I became the Head of Patent Litigation and was compensated commensurate with the job's stress level. I soon found myself making over $1 million a year."

She goes on to say she couldn't handle all the travel required, so she deliberately changed positions, and I must assume that reduced her salary.

She admits to having an unusual relationship with her Apple co-worker and explains it got very bad by saying "by this point we had become adversaries" yet then says she agreed to make their relationship public: "So I finally agreed, and we posted a picture on social media."

The whole tale is so strange, one would be hard-pressed to imagine even Hollywood creating it.  Read her statement in full.  

lkrupp said:

 according to four anonymous sources

Fire Johny Srouji NOW!

Just getting ahead of the gang. /s

I suppose he is fully responsible, but I found this quote from the WSJ article on Srouji to be of interest...

"Mr. Srouji is known for demanding hard truths with the axiom that his meetings focus on problems, not successes."