For those looking − as the GP said, it's not fantastically organized − pigments information is available here: https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/waterfs.html. Top links yield access to pigments, organized by "color family".
Two other similar resources on pigments − always good to check what's in the tube before buying!
there's been, in 2025, 983 000 people receiving disciplinary sanctions[0]. then:
1. either there's no corruption, and people are getting sanctioned for no reason
2. there's corruption
> Less incompetency
one thing they seem to do correctly in China, is to select their leaders not based on pure political skills, but on actual thinking skills: many of them come from technical backgrounds, and have been trained to think rationally.
furthermore, in my experience, Asian people, and Chinese in particular, also have better working habits − stronger wills − than most Westerners.
I'd still be careful about assuming they're really _that_ more competent. intellectual theft, propaganda, rushed work, all could contribute to a temporary illusion of superiority.
> Less freedom for stuff like protesting
this is a watered-down description of the actual situation.
you can get jailed, beaten up, tortured, killed, etc. religious groups seem to be the main target of the most violent treatments[1]. there's really no reason to target peaceful people, via such extreme means.
> one thing they seem to do correctly in China, is to select their leaders not based on pure political skills, but on actual thinking skills: many of them come from technical backgrounds, and have been trained to think rationally.
>there's been, in 2025, 983 000 people receiving disciplinary sanctions[0]. then:
>1. either there's no corruption, and people are getting sanctioned for no reason
>2. there's corruption
> Less incompetency
You're just compressing reality so the logic becomes simple. But your analysis loses the nuance. First of all no one said there's no corruption in China. Corruption is everywhere... saying there's none is a practical impossibility.
Second. In 2025 983,000 people received disciplinary sanctions.... If what China claims is true or even partially true it means corruption was reduced on a scale that cannot be replicated in the US.
You analysis is valid, but inconclusive.
>furthermore, in my experience, Asian people, and Chinese in particular, also have better working habits − stronger wills − than most Westerners.
>I'd still be careful about assuming they're really _that_ more competent. intellectual theft, propaganda, rushed work, all could contribute to a temporary illusion of superiority.
First of all let me be frank. I am asian. I am genetically Chinese and culturally western. My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency and not at all about the competency of the population seperate from that.
That being said, average IQ in China is higher than the US, that is a statistical fact. I did not comment on how that translates into this argument or what IQ even means in reality. I'm going to avoid that argument because I have no opinion on it.
>this is a watered-down description of the actual situation.
>you can get jailed, beaten up, tortured, killed, etc. religious groups seem to be the main target of the most violent treatments[1]. there's really no reason to target peaceful people, via such extreme means.
You're right. I did water it down. But I still stand by my point. I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
The religious argument is valid. But what do you think of scientology? Cults. Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology. Ultimately these things are bullshit. I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
I would guess that corruption is probably tolerated as long as it's not too visible, nor undermine people responsible for holding you accountable.
But it's really difficult to understand what's happening in China, because of the difficulty to get factual data.
> My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency
I would agree then than centralized government are likely to be more efficient. We've had kingdoms and empires all around the world for millennia, probably not by chance. In my opinion, they can be quite beneficial, as long as there's a substantial amount of morality driving the leading forces. For otherwise, they're efficient in the opposite direction.
China's leader banned Winnie the Pooh from the Chinese Internet because someone said they look alike. That's − dare I say − quite a red flag on many levels.
> I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view. It might not affect you today, directly. But it may affect you later, or affect close friends, your children, etc. Genuinely upholding morality within society has a bunch of benefits for everyone.
> But what do you think of scientology? Cults
Agreed.
> Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology.
People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused. Why on Earth would it be justifiable to impose upon them something far worth? If one decides to take down some cults, one may suppose that it's to actually help their members, not to beat the hell out of them; it doesn't make much sense.
There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
> Ultimately these things are bullshit
I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Also, you know, there are things like [0] which really raises eyebrows.
> I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Religions are often caricaturally understood nowadays, which I believe is a cause for the increase of their rejection. Don't get me wrong, the caricatures are there for good reasons. But the caricatured things can't be reduced to their caricature − if one attempts to understand them thoroughly and accurately.
>People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused.
Not true at all. The only difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance. That's it. Some people suffer in christianity, just like how some people suffer in scientology. Many people in both religions don't suffer at all.
Tibet is a country with a religion that believes in serfdom and slavery. That's why China doesn't like them.
>There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
It's called a tradeoff. You can eliminate the disease now by excising it with some collateral damage or you can try to slowly excise it which can basically be completely ineffective. For example the US in order to avoid collateral damage of trampling on peoples freedsoms allows bullshit religions like scientology to exist.
>I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Does beautiful architecture equate with truth? Does being great equate with reality? Scientology is bullshit as much as christianity. It's just you PREFER the christianity bullshit.
Additionally all of the things you mentioned are not rational or logical. Being a great man is orthoganol to religion, beautiful architecture is orthoganol to religion. Think critically.
>Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view.
How is how or where I choose to live my life self centered? I am simply saying I prefer China's way. If you don't prefer it, then don't live there.
I think the problem with you, is that you think I'm self centered, but I'm not. You are. Think about what you're asking for. You're saying that my OPINION on China is wrong and self centered and that my thinking needs to be adjusted and you imply all of China and it's government must adjust themselves to the same style of governance as the west. You are imposing your view on others and declaring that if one doesn't hold YOUR view, they are self centered. Ironic.
>Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Well it depends. Cults are responsible for mass genocide in the US, so one positive way the crack down on religous bullshit will affect me is that there is less mass genocide from cults. Scientology just won't exist in China. But it does in the US and it's the long term consequence of many freedoms.
>Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
Or it can indicate corruption is massive and pervasive and that the clean up will need to be equally massive and pervasive.
> The only difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance.
That's typically caricature. I encourage you to study things more thoroughly before allowing yourself to form an opinion. One simply can't know a subject before having thoroughly studied it.
> It's just you PREFER the christianity bullshit.
I'm not Christian.
Regardless, Christian teachings are freely available. Anyone can practice on their own. You'd be right to critic the church − the institution: people have done it for a while, hence in particular the fair amount of subsects.
Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.
Which one promotes social stability?
> How is how or where I choose to live my life self centered? I am simply saying I prefer China's way. If you don't prefer it, then don't live there.
I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.
> Does beautiful architecture equate with truth?
Not what I was hinting at.
> Additionally all of the things you mentioned are not rational or logical
They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research
Apologies, I assumed such from the way you described architecture. Few western religions have influence on architecture as much as Christianity.
>Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.
That's your assumption. I can easily assume that Catholicism primary purpose is to hide a ring of people who engage in rape and pedophilia. There are different angles to every religion, you're just indoctrinated with the most populist angle. In the same way much of the west doesn't realize the religions of tibet and falun gong have cult like aspects FAR worse then scientology.
>Which one promotes social stability?
Both. Morality is not required for stability.
>I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.
You're just twisting and manipulating the logic so you can maintain the moral high ground when in actuality you're twisting everything.
The first problem is I'm not talking about mass slaughter. When the fuck did that become the topic? Are you saying I promote mass slaughter because China promotes mass slaughter? You're under this western propaganda where you seem to think China is some futuristic cyberpunk city on top but underneath the system is bathed in blood, torture slaughter and evisceration. Nothing is further from the truth.
When China tortures, when china executes someone, it is for crimes that fit punishment. They won't execute you if you're in a cult. They will execute you if you stole millions of dollars. The debate is about degree but the overall severity is reasonable.
I'm sick of talking to people with a misguided view of China. It's like talking to a clown. Somehow people like you are convinced that it's just blood and evil underneath.
>Not what I was hinting at.
Speak in english please, don't speak in hints. I said religions were not true, you countered with architecture. Now you claim it was a hint. Hint: don't speak with hints.
>They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research
No they aren't. I don't need to do research for a country I'm highly familiar with and even lived there for quite some time. I'm going to be utterly clear: You are ignorant and you are illogical and you need to do research. I'm Chinese. And I was born in the states. I know both cultures intimately, you only know one through the lens of US propaganda.
Good faith my ass. If you were talking to me in good faith you'd concede your lack of knowledge.
I directly know people who lived in China, have been jailed and beaten there, and have literal scars to prove it. Hard to brush this away easily from my mind.
Not all people who express negative views on China are alike.
I don't mind you expressing your (ignorant) opinion, and I wouldn't stoop so low as to call it rude. It's just you're not knowledgeable.
>I directly know people who lived in China, have been jailed and beaten there, and have literal scars to prove it. Hard to brush this away easily from my mind.
I directly know people from prison in the US who have similar if not worse injuries and scars. They have also told me of people who have died due to prison violence. I understand how it's easy to selectively brush away the atrocities done in the US while only focusing on the Chinese. If I were like you, I would label it as "self centered" because you don't give a shit about prisoners in the US, you only care about your Chinese friends because they serve as evidence for your biased views against China. I'm so sorry but there's no other way to look at it.
>Not all people who express negative views on China are alike.
No, I never claimed this. But I did claim that you're wrong and ignorant. That being said... You do fit a typical trope that does often come from people who have negative views against China and it's selective focusing on certain things without looking at the big picture.
You have to know that I know people in the US who were in prisons where the prison guards allowed rape and violence to occur and turned a blind eye to it because it served their ulterior objectives. Does that action characterize the entire US? No. It doesn't.
depends where; in France you can get unlimited SMS/MMS/calls, plus 350Go of data, for 20€/month [0]. it's surprising the market hasn't developed likewise in other (European) countries; I (genuinely) wonder why − perhaps legal issues of some sort?
edit: okay, sending MMS isn't always free, depends on the countries[1]. still free for USA, Europe, Canada, etc.
I think it’s more historical at this point. 20 years ago SMS was expensive in Europe as we had cheap plans and expensive calls/texts vs US which had expensive plans but free calls/texts. That made things like WhatsApp take off in Europe while Americans would just SMS.
(Although most Americans have iPhones so just transparently avoid SMS for most of their conversations.)
> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me
the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji:
> 道可道，
> 非恆道；
> 名可名，
> 非恆名。
given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say
amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
> It subtly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding
and that's still one interpretation ^_^
> Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty
I can't say for sure about ancient texts, but famous wise men certainly (always?) encouraged a fair amount of humility (e.g. Shakyamuni, Socrates, Jesus, Confucius). But few actually wrote.
however, in general, their followers − and popular interpretations − embarrass themselves much less with humility.
in case this isn't known to you − I find this delightful − note that the (respectful) "子" suffix used in names (e.g. Lao-tseu is 老子, Confucius is 孔夫子) means "small thing", "seed", "child".
This one is a copy (Bargue plate − a famous set of plates designed to train students efficiently). And to be fair, it's not _that_ great of a copy.
The paintings really aren't impressive either: compare them to student works from e.g. the Angel Academy[0] (yes, they are older than 15). Incidentally, they also use Bargue plates a little to train students, and are far, far more demanding with themselves than Picasso in terms of accuracy and cleanliness.
Picasso wasn't terrible − he's definitely better than a non-painter − but he's genuinely far from having ever reached the level of his peers.
It's like comparing a food truck with historical French cooks.
They are 18+ at Angel Academy, right? I would say they are a lot older than 11, 14, and 15. One year I think is a lot of development in the teens. Doesn't seem a fair comparison
> I decided to use the slowest language on the planet, Python (thanks to the visionary genius of Ross van der Gussom).
given the article, it's fair to assume the author was joking around
that being said, the way the language is used and its ecosystem do contribute to the executable's efficiency. yet, given C's frugality, or the proximity between its instructions and the executed ones, it's not unfair to say that "C is fast"
A few years ago, a journalist went to Duralex, after they restructured (to be own by the employees), and show off the glasses's solidity, live. Every single one of them broke:
In addition to people believing weird things, such views are often highly tied to an environment.
Levitation is pure non-sense for people "in-doctrinated" (literally: ~ to have a doctrine within) by the contemporary, science-oriented environment.
Similarly, dismissing the existence of God(s) − or thinking about it, of levitation[0] − would have been unthinkable for people genuinely "in-doctrinated" by many (all?) historical religions.
Amusingly, contemporary science, which is often defined in opposition to blind religious ways, essentially operates like your garden-variety religion: faith practically required (among others, who can reproduce/prove (beyond a doubt) well-established results), hierarchy(ies)/rating system(s), esteemed texts, key public figures, etc.
Usually, the deeper people understand their own in-doctrination, the more prudent they are regarding what they may consider true or not.
Yet, it might be reasonably true: as stated in the Wikipedia page, Le Monde Diplomatique is read mostly by educated people, who probably are 1/ less susceptible to/more aware of coarse manipulation 2/ much less numerous.
That's to say, influencing (too much) the redaction might have too low of a costs/benefits ratio.
Personal anecdote: I've read it a few times about a decade ago. At that time, I perceived some of the articles to be more emotionally grounded than rationally, and the prose to be at time needlessly heavy, "sophisticated".
Those are the main reasons why I didn't kept reading it more often.
I had the same experience as you with Le Monde diplomatique. The language used in some of the articles felt a lot like propaganda ( hyperbolic language, us vs them, anger/emotional language, basic facts being ignored etc ). I was very surprised since the paper had a good reputation , and gave up. Maybe ( hopefully) this has changed.
Two other similar resources on pigments − always good to check what's in the tube before buying!
https://www.kimcrick.com/pages/blue-art-supply-pigment-datab...
https://www.artiscreation.com/Color_index_names.html
reply