The majority of Taiwanese people do not even consider themselves partially Chinese and none of the major political parties have any interest in political unification with China.
Some people in Taiwan might wish the people of China well because they have family there, but this is no different to how members of the Chinese diaspora around the rest of the world feel about the country.
The pro-China political parties in Taiwan are primarily right-wing parties, which is to say they are much more interested in the Chinese market than in Chinese politics.
There's an issue in how these polls are being conducted and it's hard to tell what's happening especially with Western articles that don't fully give all information or give the polling questions. The word "Chinese" have many different ways of stating it in Chinese. So when they ask in polls e.g. are you "Chinese", it really depends on which word they use. They can use 中国人, which does mean Chinese, but it also has a much stronger political connotation related to the mainland. So most people in Taiwan will say no they aren't 中国人, since they have their own government. However if you were ask, e.g. are you 华人 also a word for "Chinese", etc, they will more likely say yes. After all the official country's name is 中華民國. Mainland Chinese people will also say they are 华人 too.
For other readers, please note that 华 is the simplied form of 華. Outside of mainland China in Southeast Asia, most ethnic Chinese will refer to themselves as 華人/华人 -- roughly "Chinese descent". Most Chinese language speakers (and readers) in the region understand 中国人 to mean citizen of mainland China (and much more rarely Taiwan).
Making the 華人 distinction is like asking white Americans if they consider themselves ethnically European or Irish or Italian or whatever. Just as people in the US with European heritage may have an interest in what is happening in the nation of their ancestors, people in Taiwan with Chinese heritage may have an interest in theirs. But in neither of these cases do the majority of people see the nation of their ancestors as the country that they call home.
The context of these surveys in Taiwan is trying to determine if Taiwanese people see their own country as a different or perhaps more legitimate version of China, and the contemporary answer - unequivocally - is no. The only people pushing the myth that most Taiwanese people see themselves as citizens of China is the ruling party of China.
I don't think 华 is necessarily the same as ethnicity as it's interchangeable with the concept of "China" itself. 中華民國 translates into Republic of China the official country's name, of which Taiwan is mere province of. It's the same "hua". I think most Chinese historians recognize that China as a concept has often been "split" in the past, with different governments each stating their legitimacy. It happened e.g. during the Three Kingdoms period, the North and Southern dynasties period. It happened during the Song dynasty, etc., etc. It's happened an awful lot for long periods of time. To Westerners the Taiwan and China situation seems a bit odd, but not really in the context of Chinese history and the Chinese mindset. Regardless each government still saw themselves as the "legit" Chinese government with all that entails, e.g. mandate of heaven, etc..
If we are talking about ethnicity I believe that the large majority would say they are 漢人, which is more equivalent of an America saying he's Irish, Italian, etc. Huaren is more equivalent to saying you're Chinese, culturally, ethnically, etc... 华裔 is basically saying you have Chinese blood, which may be also different conceptionally.
中国人 used to not have such a huge political connotation to mean only PRC people but was more interchangeable with 中华, 华人, etc., but that's now not the case, and the polls reflect that change in mindset.
I don't disagree that there are many different overlapping terms and identities related to the concept of "China" and the people who have an ancestral connection to it. However, I think it is incorrect to blend all of these together and come out with the conclusion that at the end of the day there is only One China and One Chinese People and these concepts are immutable, inescapable and eternal.
The CCP and other historical leaders have used these concepts to try lay claim to every land that a Chinese person ever walked across, every sea they ever sailed and every fen they ever earned, but that has to be understood as the imperialism it is. Inside the empire it behooves the subjects to not publicly challenge that narrative, but outside of it people have the freedom to define themselves as they see fit.
Polling shows that the vast majority of Taiwanese people today do not consider themselves Chinese citizens (中國人), nor do they support Chinese unification (中國統一). If you put a Taiwanese person on the spot and ask them "well, in the context of the last five thousand years, could there ever be a scenario in which the island of Formosa is ruled by the same leaders as the region of East Asia along the Yangtze, Yellow and Pearl rivers?" they might say yes, because in those last five thousand years there were a couple of hundred when that was indeed the case. But that doesn't mean that they see themselves right now as having any deeper connection to the PRC than the Chinese diaspora in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, US, Canada or anywhere else.
I'm pretty sure at this point we are just talking pass each other. Taiwanese people don't consider themselves 中国人, because zhongguoren is now considered to mean a PRC citizen (although historically this was not necessarily the meaning). This is of course true, because Taiwan has their own government that runs pretty much independently from the mainland government. However, I don't think this means they don't see themselves as "Chinese", but simply that POLITICALLY they see themselves as not citizens of the PRC, but not necessarily that they aren't "Chinese".
And I think you're quite wrong that people in Taiwan don't have a deeper connection to Chinese in China. Diaspora in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc., have largely mixed with the indigenous cultures in those areas. Most of the later generations often speak a broken form of Chinese, or Singlish, etc., and if they do speak Chinese, perhaps they speak a Chinese dialect (brokenly) and probably practically illiterate in Chinese. In Taiwan this is simply not the case, by and large they all speak Mandarin and by and large all share the same history, know the same legends, pray to basically the same deities, can watch and read each others films/media, still uses the same flag as the one that represented China 80-100 years ago, often have close enough relatives still in China that aren't e.g. 5th removed since Taiwan's population double in size post '49, etc. Although there's a difference in traditional and simplified characters, it's not enough that someone who is fluent in one or the other and spends maybe a few months trying to learn the other would have much difficulty. Not to mention I believe most people say that if they already know traditional characters, it's easier to learn simplified, with simplified characters often being the running or grass script form of the traditional character. Moreover because there's actual communication between mainland China and Taiwan, Chinese spoken in both areas won't drift like it did between N.K. and S.K.
What makes you "pretty sure"? Clearly not the polling, which as I have pointed out does not support your view of the situation. Do you have personal experience that provides anecdotal evidence contrary to the polling?
I am not Chinese, but I lived in China for several years and now I live in Taiwan. Anecdotally, I have not met or spoken to a single Taiwanese person who sees China as their true and native home. Many Taiwanese people have never visited China and don't have any close family living there. Of course, some do, but even those have spent far less time in China than a migrant worker like me, and are less in touch with the contemporary culture of the country.
Sure, Taiwanese people still have a lot in common with Chinese people. Nobody disputes that. But Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Canadians and Brits all watch the same shows and listen to the same music and eat the same food and speak the same language and pray to the same god, and yet nobody would suggest that they are a monolithic people, destined to inevitably unite under a single flag. That's not how emigration works. People emigrate and then they find a new identity, and that's just as true of Chinese people as every other people.
Taiwan as a country is in an unfortunate situation of having been under a military dictatorship for 40 years, and by the time the first democratic elections came about, the die was already cast. The constitution cannot be changed, the flag cannot be changed, the official name of the country cannot be changed - any of these things are likely to trigger a Chinese invasion, because of some politicking that happened between China and the US while the people of Taiwan were still under the jackboot. This status quo is not liked by anyone, but most Taiwanese people have made peace with it. Three decades ago. No candidates in the recent election stood on a platform of uniting with China. Nobody cares about that. The idea that Taiwanese people are all secretly holding on to a dream that they could one day be part of a Greater China is a fantasy held mostly by people who live in present-day China.
Just pointing out, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, UK all have the same monarch. And perhaps the situation between them and e.g. the US, with its five eyes program, is actually closer to something that could occur between China/Taiwan.
On this, we agree. Perhaps some day the governments of China and Taiwan could find themselves congenial enough to have a "special relationship" that builds on the shared history of the people. I think that best describes the hopes of the pan-Blue parties and their supporters in Taiwan today. Unfortunately, the current Chinese government have staked out such an extreme position on Taiwan that it would be hard for them to walk it back and accept a sovereign but friendly neighbor without losing face. I think this mixed messaging is a big challenge for pan-Blue parties who want to convince voters of their vision on cross-Strait issues.
The same way you can be pro-Korea and anti-communist or, in the past, pro-Germany and anti-communist...
'China' does not mean the People's Republic of China, which is the communist state that occupies mainland China (from KMT's point of view). Taiwan is China, too.
They didn't print brain tissue, they kinda printed scaffolds for it to grow.
"The researchers aimed to construct layered neural tissue in which neural progenitor cells (NPCs) mature ..."
Don't trust this kind of source for titles.
About cartilage. That is a very specific configuration of materials in not a random shape. Also, it must want to attach to the bone by itself, and source its nutrients from synovial liquid.
Sounds too complicated for what I know we can do.
About human cells growing in a petri dish. Thats pretty much cancer right there. In such an alien environment, healthy cells expect something to kill them, and if enough changes happen without that, they will suicide.
Growing hearts in pigs is much closer to something viable.
Do you have an expectation of privacy when you broadcast signals out of your house using the public electromagnetic spectrum?
FWIW, I'm on the side of privacy being an overrated concern. I've been hearing people yammer on about it since the Slashdot days. It's well-tread territory and I've heard every argument in support of privacy on forums like these.
What I don't see very often is an examination of the negative sides of privacy and the positive side of public information. After decades of privacy, dare I say extremism, we have people who would, eg, do away with public records for private property ownership, which seems anthemic to the very notion of a republic.
EDIT: I'm serious, just downvote away, I know that this is an unpopular opinion, but I would appreciate if at least one person engaged in this dialog beyond clicking a button!
> What I don't see very often is an examination of the negative sides of privacy and the positive side of public information.
If you feel that way, feel free to explore and examine that. The down votes are most likely because you brought it up without actually examining it.
> After decades of privacy, dare I say extremism, we have people who would, eg, do away with public records for private property ownership, which seems anthemic to the very notion of a republic.
Privacy is popular in HN comments, but the only thing I've seen, in terms of government policy and corporate policy, is a massive all-out-war against the right to privacy.
Dude, downvotes are a popularity contest. If I had posted with the exact same style and substance but aligned with popular sentiment, I would have gotten upvotes.
What benefit is there to society or really, anyone to public records for private property ownership?
In my city, you can go to a website, type the first three characters of a name, and instantly get the full names and addresses of anyone who matches and owns a home.
To my mind, this is beyond absurd. This is a major safety risk with no benefits whatsoever. It's also the #1 reason I continue to rent.
You have it exactly backwards. Why should anyone on the whole Internet have access to my physical address? I reject someone's pull request on github and now I have to worry they might show up at my door? Fuck everything about that.
You have yet to give a single reason why it needs to be public
If you need to sue me for dumping chemicals, you can pretty well be bothered to go down to the clerk and show your own ID. It's not a problem. There is no need for my home address to be searchable by the whole Internet
There is a world of a difference between us looking after each other and them looking after us.
Put this in the context of the liberal democratic republic as it was born from monarchy: we must leave the “benevolent”, God-graced structure of government behind. In its stead is the common man governing himself, and with all the faults and warts, it is still more conducive to our expected freedoms.
There is not much more of an argument than I can offer other than the hundreds of years of actual practice.
"Some experts caution that these tools can never substitute for the judgment clinicians hone through years of experience — but should instead augment it"...
Good luck with that. Tools can't have responsibility. (Bad for customers, good for organizations)
Elaborating: What % of autist people kills someone out of aggressive behavior? I am quite sure we don't know, because, I suspect, it is low. Compare that to the general population.
The only reason they want to put tracking devices on autists is because. unlike healthy people, autists can't fight back.
Once the technology is mature, you try to enforce it on (sell it to) exconvicts, immigrants and jaywalkers.
> The only reason they want to put tracking devices on autists is because. unlike healthy people, autists can't fight back.
It could also be to keep attention away from where it should be: neurotypicals. A lot like politics, journalism, marketing, Transformer Models, etc: Attention is [Almost] All You Need.
And the beauty of it: it doesn't even have to be a conspiracy, it could be pure culture / emergence- perfect plausible deniability, especially if no one starts asking inconvenient questions.
On iOS, Rain Rain is my favorite. It’s a free with limitations app, but I don’t find the limitations too bad.
But honestly, we have a HomePod mini that does 99.999% of the work in the house. The HomePod has half-a-dozen or so background noises including rain, ocean and white noises
"Courtesy with customers is forced on them? My god!"
I worked in a call center for two years, for three different companies. Yes, (fake) courtesy is forced. The customers of one site were so difficult that courtesy was scripted (there were scripted interactions for frustrated and for rude customers)
Well you have clearly missed the point of my comment.
Yes, it's "forced" on them, in the same way that many many other behavioural expectations are "forced" on a worker. They're "forced" not to abuse their co-workers. They're "forced" to treat their workplace with respect. They're "forced" to dress in a certain way.
That's called "having a job", and it's all stuff I've had to do, too, in every job I've ever had.
Is it "having a job" to be required to say "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm dedicated to meeting your needs. Let's see what we can do to help you!" in cheery tones after the customer says "you stupid [racial slur], your mother should've aborted you, why can't you get it through your [explicitive] [racial slur] head that I want [thing that was never mentioned, and is, in fact, illegal]"
Economic hardships cause emotional distress, and you can't rationalize feelings. Your civil expectations probably match your income level, but not that below you.
E.g. Not getting enough sleep because your poor neighborhood is a ruckus provokes bad mood, chronically.
My civil expectations match what I expect from other people and how I treat people in the world. Has nothing to do with my income and is based on how I was raised by my parents to treat people you interact with in the world.
I've done hard labor (construction, landscaping), I've done food service (sandwich shop) and I've done lots of white collar office work. Wealthy people can be nice and decent to people who have a much smaller income AND vice versa.
"reflexively engage their skepticism/critical thinking muscles upon hearing Save-The-Children-and-Stop-The-Terrorists rhetoric"
Not part of human nature. Save the children/Rethoric is embedded. Reflexive thinking has variying energy requirements and for most requires external kickstart, when possible at all
Forcing tor in all new network adapters is more feasible, which is saying much.
> Not part of human nature. Save the children/Rethoric is embedded.
This is ahistorical. Childrens' rights are a late-19th Century creation. We have become child worshipers, we are not naturally child worshipers.
There's a quasi-Christian doctrine that states that children are born virtually unstained, and that being unstained makes you more deserving of life. As you grow older, you are stained by the demands of the world, which makes you less deserving of life. However, the idea that a child's life is more important than an adult's life would seem moronic to people much before the 20th Century. It just takes 6 years to make a 5 year-old. It takes 51 years to make a 50 year-old. 5 year olds know almost nothing, and need to be taken care of. Every 50 year-old has a bunch of knowledge that can't be recovered, and generally can take care of themselves.
You know we used to send them into the mines... and we used to value them because of how deeply they could get their little hands into factory machinery.
Sounds like a strawman for them