China launches test runs for world’s largest plant that can convert coal to ethanol::undefined

  • cyruseuros@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ok, now I get the link you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fully adress my question.

    The one thing that’s still leaving me prickly is simply saying Wikipedia is wrong because it’s editable by anyone. That’s like saying FOSS is insecure because it’s editable by anyone. Neither the conclusion nor the premise is correct in either case. There are hierarchies & access controls in both that often yield better results than the traditional alternative.

    Wikipedia is a treasure, and while it is still vulnerable to brigading (far more so than FOSS), this is far from the norm (especially nowadays) and should be backed up with specific sources and rectified.

    While I do agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited directly due to this vulnerability, it acts as an excellent contextual citation aggregator, and quite frankly I’ve often found it more up-to-date and less biased than some of the crap that made it past the peer review process in my college days.

    For instance, if what you’re saying is true (shortsightedness), people may over the years still populate those areas (the claim of the Wikipedia article is that a lot/most of the ghost cities did). If you have sources stating otherwise, please report the article for manipulation and include them there. If you don’t feel like it, post them here and I will do so, despite knowing absolutely nothing about Chinese ghost cities, because I believe this is important.

    Please don’t dismiss such a shining example of human collective action so lightly. It’s one of the few things that makes me believe there’s still some good left in the world.

    • Jin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Never said Wikipedia was wrong I’m just saying be careful because people can edit to fit their narrative, which has happened with like Russian and Chinese topics.


      Sadly a lot properties are unfinished and left to rot away and will get demolish.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/04/investing/evergrande-stock-gain-resume-trading-intl-hnk/index.html

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=Om6b0_ffyFQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=tj0-6am9cMY

      • cyruseuros@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m starting to believe this is a bad faith argument. Do you have anything addressing the specific point of ghost cities actually (not) being populated now?

        For those that are too lazy to read:

        • link 1: 39 buildings demolished for illegal construction
        • link 2: 50 second clip of 7 buildings that were never finished being demolished (no context, other than the buildings being there for some years)
        • link 3: luxury mansion development stalls due to missmangement/lack of funding, leaving people that paid for those homes without a property
        • Jin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          https://youtube.com/watch?v=UPwtUTrwKRI wasted time and resources because everything is shortsighted and mostly affect the buyers.

          How could they?

          • Unfinished buildings.
          • Housing market collapsing.
          • Everything on build on ponzi scheme.
          • Youth Unemployment has never been higher.
          • Biggest real estate players are in huge debt.
          • cyruseuros@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No one is arguing any of the points above. But to quote the Wikipedia article:

            While many developments failed to live up to initial lofty promises, most of them eventually became occupied when given enough time.[6][16]

            Citation 16 is a Bloomberg article from 2 years ago in case you’re wondering.

            Put yourself in my shoes, I can’t exactly propose edits to that statement based on a single youtube video of a ghost town existing.

            Your conclusion ("How could they? ") does not follow from your premises, much as I agree with them.

            • Jin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              https://youtu.be/BkReVej9xqA

              China is all about face. Anything putting them in a bad light gets censored or spin to something else.

              Xi Jinping eradicated poverty in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China There is no way, I could show video and pictures poor Chinese people. But can I find the numbers to prove it? Nah

              Here is an example of data being censored https://youtube.com/watch?v=uA7VK5CbS8k

              I’m sorry I can’t directly link you something 😭

              • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

                In China today, poverty refers mainly to the rural poor. Decades of economic development has reduced urban extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms, which still stands in 2022.The Chinese definition of extreme poverty is more stringent than that of the World Bank: earning less than $2.30 a day at purchasing power parity (PPP). Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, growth has fuelled a substantial increase in per-capita income lifting people out of extreme poverty. China's per capita income has increased fivefold between 1990 and 2000, from $200 to $1,000. Between 2000 and 2010, per capita income also rose at the same rate, from $1,000 to $5,000, moving China into the ranks of middle-income countries. Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and was largely responsible for the world reaching the UN millennium development target of dividing extreme poverty in half. This can be attributed to a combination of a rapidly expanding labour market, driven by a protracted period of economic growth, and a series of government transfers such as an urban subsidy, and the introduction of a rural pension. The World Bank Group said that the percentage of the population living below the international poverty line of $1.9 (2011 PPP) fell to 0.7 percent in 2015, and poverty line of $3.2 (2011 PPP) fell to 7% in 2015.At the end of 2018, the number of people living below China's national poverty line of ¥2,300 (CNY) per year (in 2010 constant prices) was 16.6 million, equal to 1.7% of the population at the time. On November 23, 2020, China announced that it had eliminated absolute poverty nationwide by uplifting all of its citizens beyond its set ¥2,300 per year (in 2010 constant prices), or around ¥4,000 per year in 2020. The World Bank has different poverty lines for countries with different gross national income (GNI). With an GNI per capita of $10,610 in 2020, China is an upper middle-income country. The poverty line for an upper middle-income country is $5.5 per day at PPP. As of 2020, China has succeeded in eradicating absolute poverty, but not the poverty defined for upper middle-income countries which China belongs to. China still has around 13% of its population falling below this poverty line of $5.50 per day in 2020. In 2020, premier Li Keqiang, citing the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said that China still had 600 million people living with less than 1000 yuan ($140) a month, although an article from The Economist said that the methodology NBS used was flawed, stating that the figure took the combined income, which was then equally divided.

                article | about