1999 NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia event series

 

The 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia and, in particular, the shoot-down of the U.S. F-117A stealth fighter by the Serbian forces, followed by the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, significantly impacted Sino-U.S. relations and broader international dynamics.

Impact of F-117A Shoot-down

1. Technological Revelation: The downing of the F-117A stealth fighter by Yugoslav forces was a significant event because it was the first known loss of a stealth aircraft in combat. The F-117A’s vulnerability to Yugoslav surface-to-air missiles highlighted limitations in stealth technology and raised questions about the U.S.'s technological advantage in warfare.

2. Perception of U.S. Military Superiority: The incident revealed that even advanced American technology could be countered, which may have emboldened countries wary of U.S. military power, including China. It underscored the possibility of developing countermeasures to U.S. stealth and precision-guided weaponry.

3. Technology Leak: There were unconfirmed reports that Chinese and Russian officials obtained parts of the F-117 wreckage, potentially providing insight into U.S. stealth technology. This incident possibly accelerated Chinese military modernization, as China may have used the acquired knowledge to improve its own stealth and radar systems.

Chinese Embassy Bombing in Belgrade

1. Public Outrage in China: The bombing of the Chinese Embassy by NATO, which resulted in civilian casualties, triggered widespread anti-American sentiment in China. The U.S. government claimed it was an accident, attributing the bombing to outdated intelligence, but many Chinese saw it as a deliberate attack, fueling suspicions and protests.

2. Diplomatic Crisis: The incident sparked a diplomatic crisis between China and the U.S. Chinese officials demanded a thorough investigation, an apology, and reparations. The incident severely damaged trust, as many in China believed the attack was an intentional act of aggression.

3. Impact on Bilateral Relations: The incident pushed China to reassess its diplomatic and military posture vis-à-vis the United States. Tensions between the two nations escalated, and Chinese officials adopted a more cautious approach in their dealings with the U.S., emphasizing the importance of sovereignty and non-intervention.

4. Military Modernization and Strategic Shift: The embassy bombing incident intensified China’s resolve to modernize its military. It was a wake-up call that reinforced China’s drive to develop indigenous military capabilities, enhance its own intelligence network, and seek parity in terms of both diplomatic influence and military capabilities with Western powers.

Long-term Implications for Sino-U.S. Relations

• Increased Skepticism: The events of 1999 planted seeds of skepticism between the U.S. and China. China grew wary of U.S. military intentions, and this suspicion has influenced strategic thinking in China, leading to long-term efforts to counter U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

• Greater Military Investment in Stealth and Anti-Stealth Technology: Both events highlighted areas for improvement, with China particularly focusing on radar and missile technologies to counter stealth capabilities, as well as its own stealth aircraft program.

• Global Perception: Internationally, the incidents raised awareness of the potential risks and collateral damage associated with high-tech warfare. For China, they marked a turning point in its diplomatic and military posture, signaling an era of increased assertiveness on the global stage.

In summary, the F-117A shoot-down and the Chinese Embassy bombing were catalysts that strained Sino-U.S. relations, influenced China's military modernization path, and solidified China’s focus on building resilience against perceived U.S. military and political threats. These events remain symbolic of the complexities and sensitivities in Sino-U.S. relations even today.

余华英死刑之唏嘘

 

余华英案的死刑让我十分唏嘘。判死刑容易，对其幼小时父母双亡，小学就辍学过程中的政府和社会失位进行反思和改进则十分困难。抛砖引玉，并非是没有对原告的共情或者鼓励对政府指责或与其对抗。或对读者有心理冲击之处，多多谅解。

职业和教育背景统计

首先，数据显示，拐卖儿童犯罪者的职业分布以农民和无业者为主。例如，在大量拐卖案件中，不少犯罪者是农民，生活在教育和经济资源匮乏的农村地区。此外，有些案件还涉及利用职务之便的医务人员，他们通过所在医院的职权或便利条件，非法操作儿童的“身份转移”。浙江省嵊州市人民法院2017年审理的案件就涉及3名医务人员，这种情况更为复杂，加剧了社会对医疗体系和法律监督的信任危机。

从教育背景看，拐卖儿童犯罪者的文化水平普遍较低，多集中在小学和初中水平。整体来看，这类犯罪者多来自教育条件落后、经济状况差的家庭背景，生活贫困，缺乏合法就业机会与基本的法律意识。这些因素使得他们容易因生活困境或利益诱惑而走上犯罪道路，逐步形成一种社会结构性的犯罪现象。

政府责任与社会公正

余华英案中，犯罪行为固然恶劣，但从她的成长背景看，政府在其成长过程中的教育支持和社会保障显然不足，这直接或间接影响了她的人生轨迹。这一类案件中，家庭贫困、教育资源缺乏、社会支持不足等因素常常交织在一起，构成犯罪发生的潜在原因。因此，政府有责任加大对农村地区和贫困家庭的教育投入，提供更多的社会保障，以帮助处于弱势的个体获得公平的发展机会，避免因资源缺失而产生的“生存犯罪”现象。

同时，在司法量刑上，如何体现公平与人道是一个值得反思的问题。虽然余华英的犯罪行为极其恶劣，但司法机关在量刑时应综合考量犯罪情节、社会背景等因素。如果政府在其成长过程中确有失职，应在量刑中适当体现，以避免简单的严惩模式，使公正的实现不再片面。这样才能在追求社会正义的同时，实现刑罚的人道主义。

历史教训与社会和解

历史上，中国的土地改革曾通过“斗地主”的方式进行财富再分配，以暴力对抗旧有的社会不公，造成了普罗大众之间的对立和伤害。毛泽东曾经指令，“减租是农民的群众斗争，党的指示和政府的法令是领导和帮助这个群众斗争，而不是给群众以恩赐。凡不发动群众积极性的恩赐减租，是不正确的，其结果是不巩固的。在减租斗争中应当成立农民团体，或改造农民团体。政府应当站在执行减租法令和调节东佃利益的立场上。”

这种斗争哲学或者有其历史合理性的一面，不过本文不在此处探讨，只是做一个论证的假设。但即便如此，没有相关的人文精神，歧视地主及其子女，甚至杀人，让其合理性的一面丧失在失去人性的悲哀中。这种手段不仅未能促进社会和解，反而激化了阶层矛盾，留下了深刻的历史伤痕。余华英案以及拐卖儿童犯罪的结构性特点提醒我们，社会变革不应仅依靠惩罚性手段，而应加强对普通民众的社会支持，以和平方式推进公平。这里也不是要求原告对被告的谅解，而是审判者正视一些事实，多一些人文关怀。

未来的反思与行动

未来，政府应在教育、就业、法律意识等方面为社会普通人群提供更好的支持，建立健全农村地区的教育体系，鼓励社会力量自发建立教育机构，提升贫困地区的文化水平和法治意识，保障每个人享有公平的成长机会。只有这样，才能有效遏制因社会贫困而引发的犯罪，预防未来类似的悲剧发生。

司法体系也应在量刑时综合考量个体的社会背景与成长环境。一个公正而人道的司法体系应与社会的和谐发展相契合，在维护法律尊严的同时也关怀每个公民的境遇。

通过余华英案的反思，我们应该认识到个体犯罪行为背后往往存在复杂的社会因素。政府与社会各界共同承担责任，不仅能从源头上消除导致犯罪的社会根源，还能促进社会各阶层的理解与和解，共同追求社会的公平与正义。这将为建设一个包容、和谐的社会奠定坚实的基础，让犯罪现象的发生更少，推动社会向更加美好的方向发展。

The Ethics of AI: U.S. vs. China – Who can hold the Bottom Line?

 

In today’s rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), we’re seeing explosive advances that raise critical ethical questions: Will future success in AI ultimately be defined by sheer computational power, or by ethical principles that shape human-centered technology? As AI systems grow more sophisticated, a recurring question emerges: which country, the U.S. or China, might push ethical limits further in the race to technological dominance?

This article delves into the underlying motivations, cultural contexts, and ethical constraints that may shape AI development in these two global powers.

---

Ethics vs. Power: A Battle for the Soul of AI

In the early stages of AI, power was king. The nation or corporation with the most advanced chips, the most vast datasets, and the most powerful computers set the pace for the rest of the world. Now, however, we see a paradigm shift where ethical considerations could become the ultimate rule determining long-term leadership in AI.

A sophisticated AI doesn’t necessarily require exponential computation. While vast computational resources can propel AI forward, humanity’s collective intelligence and ingenuity can guide AI to be truly advanced without unlimited hardware. This means that smaller groups of elite developers and researchers could still wield considerable influence without enormous computational power – and with this power, they can also influence the ethical landscape of AI.

But there’s a catch. When small elite groups or nations race to advance AI without strict ethical guardrails, the potential for harm grows. Each country, particularly the U.S. and China, has approached AI ethics differently, creating unique risks and trade-offs that could shape the global AI landscape for years to come.

---

U.S. Approach: Democracy, Regulation, and Public Scrutiny

The United States traditionally upholds values such as human rights, transparency, and accountability in its AI development. Companies and government agencies are urged to follow ethical guidelines, such as those outlined in the U.S. AI Bill of Rights and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, which advocate for human-centered AI that is safe, transparent, and fair. Additionally, there is a general consensus in the U.S. that AI should align with democratic principles and avoid actions harmful to humanity.

However, AI is a double-edged sword, and the intense competition for AI leadership has led to significant U.S. investment in defense and security applications. Here, ethical considerations can become more flexible, especially when national security is at stake. The regulatory environment and public scrutiny can serve as a check on the ethical boundaries of AI, but in the competitive defense sector, corporations may still operate close to ethical limits.

A key factor in U.S. AI ethics is public opinion. Citizens and advocacy groups play a significant role in pushing for responsible AI, especially in areas like privacy and surveillance. Government bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Congress, are often called to oversee AI development and ensure it serves public interest, helping to keep corporate and military applications accountable.

---

China’s Approach: State Control and Social Stability

China has publicly committed to developing “human-centered” AI, publishing guidelines that echo Western notions of AI ethics. However, China’s AI is deeply intertwined with state priorities and is largely driven by government-sponsored initiatives. The Chinese government’s AI ethics framework may uphold general principles of safety and fairness, but it often emphasizes national sovereignty, security, and social stability.

This environment allows Chinese tech firms and researchers to push ethical boundaries more flexibly in certain contexts, especially around data privacy and citizen oversight. Surveillance technologies developed and deployed within China reflect this ethic, often focusing on social control mechanisms such as facial recognition and behavioral analysis for public safety and stability. Chinese AI elites, operating within this framework, may be more inclined to prioritize state-aligned goals even when ethical concerns could arise, creating a model where the ethical “bottom line” can shift based on state interests.

A key distinction in the Chinese model is the government’s central role. The state can adjust ethical standards as needed to align with national priorities, allowing Chinese AI developers to work with greater flexibility, especially where privacy or other human rights concerns might conflict with state interests.

---

Who Holds the Bottom Line?

Both the U.S. and China are racing to lead in AI, yet their approaches reflect unique ethical trade-offs and cultural values. The United States prioritizes a democratic and public oversight model, but competition pressures, particularly in defense, mean that companies and government entities may still push ethical limits. On the other hand, China operates within a model that prioritizes national interests and stability, where ethical guidelines may be adjusted by the state as necessary to achieve strategic objectives.

The defining question is which model – the U.S.’s regulatory and public-focused approach or China’s state-prioritized model – will shape AI’s future direction. While the U.S. may uphold ethical values more consistently due to regulatory and public pressures, China’s flexibility in adapting ethical standards for state-driven goals could mean it pursues AI advancements with fewer constraints, especially in areas like surveillance and social control.

---

Conclusion: Navigating the Ethical Landscape of AI

The future of AI may be shaped not just by raw computational power but by the extent to which countries are willing to adhere to or bend ethical norms. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. The U.S. model reflects a commitment to accountability and citizen rights, though this can sometimes limit how far companies push AI capabilities. China’s approach, while efficient and aligned with national interests, raises concerns about individual rights and transparency.

Ultimately, it’s possible that an optimal balance – where ethical AI is also innovative and robust – could emerge as global leaders collaborate on shared values for AI. Yet, as the competitive landscape intensifies, this balance may be tested. The extent to which elites are willing to uphold, bend, or discard ethical guidelines could define the future AI landscape and determine which country emerges as the leader in the coming AI age.

---

As we watch the AI race unfold, we should remember that the ethical “bottom line” will ultimately shape the technology’s long-term impacts. The question of who will lead – those with the fastest chips or those with the strongest ethical principles – remains open, and how we answer it will determine AI’s role in shaping humanity’s future.

Binance vs Coinbase and Kraken

As the cryptocurrency market evolves, understanding the dynamics between Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken is crucial, particularly for US residents. Here’s a detailed look at their differences, regulatory pressures, and potential geopolitical impacts.

Binance vs Coinbase vs Kraken: Key Comparisons

1. Market Share and Compliance:
   • Binance dominates globally, with 44% of the market but faces intense scrutiny in the US. Binance.US, its compliant arm, offers fewer features and assets than its global counterpart.
   • Coinbase leads in the US, focusing on regulatory compliance, institutional adoption, and user-friendly services, though with higher fees than Binance.
   • Kraken, known for security and advanced trading features, competes on compliance and stability, operating legally in the US and Europe but with smaller market share than Binance globally.

US Regulatory Pressure on Binance Global

For US residents, using Binance Global directly is illegal, and US regulators have increased scrutiny on Binance's global operations, especially around sanctions compliance. The US government could push Binance to exclude trading in currencies like the Russian ruble (RUB), which Binance Global still supports. If Binance doesn't comply, it risks legal action and regulatory penalties.

Geopolitical Implications: BRICS and Binance’s Role

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are working on alternative payment and settlement networks to reduce reliance on the US dollar. Pushing Binance too hard could backfire by:

• Encouraging the rise of new trading platforms that operate outside of US influence, especially in countries interested in de-dollarization.
• Undermining the USD’s position in the global crypto market if alternative platforms gain traction, reducing the US’s leverage over the global financial system.

CZ’s Influence and the China Connection

While Changpeng Zhao (CZ), Binance’s founder, was born in China, there’s no strong evidence of direct influence with the Chinese government. Although his family connections in China may raise speculation about his potential role as a bridge, Binance operates globally and distances itself from any single government. However, geopolitical shifts might still lead to collaboration or leverage between Binance and China, particularly as China navigates its crypto stance.

Conclusion: What’s at Stake?

The future dominance of Coinbase or Kraken over Binance in the US depends largely on regulatory outcomes. Pushing Binance Global out of certain markets might lead to the emergence of new platforms, particularly from BRICS nations, challenging the USD’s position in global cryptocurrency trading. The evolving landscape suggests that regulators must balance enforcement with strategic oversight, as squeezing Binance too tightly could accelerate the growth of non-USD crypto trading hubs globally.

GlobalProtect VPN login automation in an enterprise client -- stupid but simple python code

'''

This code is provided "as-is" without any express or implied warranties or guarantees. 

The author of this code assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, 

or damages resulting from its use. 

It is the user’s responsibility to determine the suitability of this code 

for their specific needs, 

including but not limited to ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The author is not liable for any abuse, misuse, or misapplication of this code. 

Users are solely responsible for maintaining and updating the code as required. 

By using this code, you agree to indemnify, defend, 

and hold harmless the author from any claims, damages, or liabilities arising from its use.

''' 

'''

The piece of code is generally able to automate the login vpn process. The capability makes

me confused for a while that sometimes, certain level corporate security configuration 

disables the usage of keyboard by library like pyautogui etc. Any way, it works in my

employer. May be you want to further check the window visibility to make the script 

works for stable. 

''' 

import pyautogui

import time

import sys

from pywinauto.application import Application

from pywinauto import Desktop

def call_method_if_exists(obj, method_name):

# Step 1: Check if the object exists

if obj is None:

return 'None object ' # Return empty string if the object is None

# Step 2: Check if the object has the method with the given name

if hasattr(obj, method_name):

method = getattr(obj, method_name)

# Step 3: Check if it's a callable method and takes no parameters

if callable(method) and method.__code__.co_argcount == 1:

# Call the method and return its value

return method()

else:

return 'not callable ' + method_name # Return empty string if the method has parameters

else:

return 'No attr ' + method_name # Return empty string if the method doesn't exist

time.sleep(0.5)

pyautogui.hotkey('win')

time.sleep(0.5)

pyautogui.write('globalprotect', interval=0.1)

pyautogui.press('enter')

time.sleep(0.5)

pyautogui.keyDown('enter')

pyautogui.keyUp('enter')

time.sleep(1)

# backend possibilities ula, wind32... May be do not use any parameter?

wins = Desktop(backend='').windows()

user_input = None

pass_input = None

sign_in_button = None

input_hold1 = None

input_hold2 = None

i = 0

for w in wins:

i = i + 1

s = w.window_text()

if s.find('GlobalProtect Login') >= 0:

print("---", i)

print(w.window_text())

controls = w.descendants()

j = 0

  for control in controls:

j = j + 1

control_type = call_method_if_exists(control, 'control_type')

win_text = call_method_if_exists(control, 'window_text').lower()

contrl_name = call_method_if_exists(control, 'name')

auto_id = call_method_if_exists(control, 'automation_id')

help_text = call_method_if_exists(control, 'help_text')

# print("i, j: ", i, '--', j, ", control_type: ", control_type, ', win_text', win_text, ',contrl_name: ', contrl_name, ', auto_id:', auto_id, ', help_text: ', help_text)

if j == 2:

input_hold1 = control

# if j == 2:

# input_hold2 = control

if win_text == 'sign in' or win_text == 'sign in ':

sign_in_button = control

user_input = input_hold1

pass_input = input_hold2

print("====Input user name and password now===i, j: ", i, ",", j)

user_input.set_focus()

time.sleep(1)

user_input.type_keys('user_name')

time.sleep(1)

pyautogui.keyDown('tab')

pyautogui.keyUp('tab')

time.sleep(1)

pyautogui.write('password!', 0.1)

time.sleep(1)

pyautogui.keyDown('tab')

pyautogui.keyUp('tab')

time.sleep(1)

print("===Username and password input done ===")

# sign_in_button.click() # the button is not visible. click_input() does not work as well.

pyautogui.keyDown('enter')

pyautogui.keyUp('enter')

# time.sleep(1)

# pyautogui.press('escape')

print("sign_in_button called click_input. shall login to VPN")

sys.exit()

BRICS, SWIFT, LONG ARM jurisdiction, International Trade, ..., WWIII

**1. Does SWIFT support payment and settlement in Non-US dollars?**

Yes, **SWIFT** supports payments and settlements in multiple currencies, not just U.S. dollars. SWIFT facilitates international transactions in a variety of currencies, depending on the agreements between banks and financial institutions.

---

**2. How does SWIFT exclude Russian currencies then?**

SWIFT does not directly exclude a currency but can restrict access to specific banks based on **sanctions** (legal penalties imposed on countries or entities to limit their access to financial and trade systems). For example, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, several Russian banks were excluded from SWIFT, which limits their ability to conduct international transactions, including those involving Russian rubles.

---

**3. How is the SWIFT decision on operation made? Is there a vote system in board? If so, what is the rule forming the board?**

SWIFT’s operational decisions are made by its **Board of Directors**, composed of 25 representatives from its member institutions. Decisions are often made through **majority voting** (a decision is made if more than half the members agree), with members elected by SWIFT shareholders (banks and financial institutions). The board ensures geographic diversity and represents the interests of the global financial community.

---

**5. Does currency trading settle finally through SWIFT?**

No, **currency trading** (foreign exchange, or FX trading) does not settle directly through SWIFT. SWIFT is a messaging system for payment instructions, but actual **settlement** (the final transfer of money or assets between two parties) happens through specialized systems like **CLS (Continuous Linked Settlement)** or through bilateral arrangements between banks.

---

**6. How does SWIFT strengthen USD position if true?**

SWIFT strengthens the **U.S. dollar** by facilitating **global dollar-denominated transactions** (international deals where the U.S. dollar is used). As the U.S. dollar is the world's primary reserve currency (money held by central banks as a guarantee of value), SWIFT’s widespread use for these transactions reinforces its centrality in global trade and finance, particularly through **petrodollar** transactions (oil trading in U.S. dollars) and dollar reserves.

---

**7. Does BRICS payment system allow USD instructions?**

The **BRICS payment system** primarily focuses on reducing reliance on the **U.S. dollar** and promoting the use of local currencies (currencies of the member countries like the Chinese yuan or Russian ruble). While it may not outright exclude USD transactions, the goal is to create an independent system that minimizes the role of the dollar in favor of non-USD currencies.

---

**8. Is there any existing or potential Act of US to prohibit the usage of BRICS payment system for US companies and alliances?**

Currently, there is no specific U.S. law prohibiting the use of the **BRICS payment system**, but the U.S. can impose **sanctions** or issue guidelines through agencies like **OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control)** to limit or restrict transactions with entities using alternative payment systems if they are seen as violating U.S. foreign policy or sanctions.

---

**9. Is it more difficult to enforce US law compliance such as export control, sanctions, audit etc., for US companies in international trade?**

Yes, it has become more difficult to enforce U.S. law compliance in international trade due to **geopolitical tensions** (political struggles between nations), **alternative financial systems** (new payment networks developed by other countries), and **technological advancements** like **cryptocurrencies** (digital currencies that operate independently of central banks). Global supply chains, conflicting local laws, and evasion tactics also complicate enforcement.

---

**10. In the case of missing US law-mandated terms/regulations in contracts between US companies and foreign ones due to the conflict between local laws and US laws, is there any example that a US company is charged/punished?**

Yes, U.S. companies have been charged or penalized in cases of non-compliance, even when local laws conflict with U.S. regulations. Examples include cases like **HSBC** (sanctions violations), **Microsoft** (FCPA, or Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, violations), and **Volkswagen** (environmental law violations). U.S. law often has **extraterritorial reach** (applying U.S. laws to activities outside the U.S.), enforcing compliance even when local laws differ.

The Role of Public Discourse in Shaping China's Future

Recent debates in China, sparked by Mr. Hu Xijin's comments on public versus private ownership, have highlighted an important topic concerning the future of the country's governance. Despite Mr. Hu's subsequent ban on public media within China's censorship network, the discussion remains relevant and crucial to the nation's development.

While the debate over public versus private ownership is significant, it is not the sole foundation of China's future governance. Even in capitalist systems where private ownership dominates, private capital is still regulated by various laws and regulations. For instance, property owners must pay property taxes, and failure to do so can result in the government seizing the property. Although theoretically, this process is not about ownership, in practice, it can lead to actions against the owner's will. Thus, the key issue is the public process, which includes laws and regulations designed to protect the interests of different groups.

The formation of a fair and effective public process requires public involvement and debate. It is essential for diverse voices to be heard so that the interests of all groups can be considered. In this regard, freedom of speech is the true foundation of any top-down design for governance. A genuine top-down design is logical rather than bureaucracy hierarchical and must involve thorough public participation to be considered legitimate and effective.

However, in China, the definition and rules surrounding freedom of speech are effectively monopolized by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This reality presents a significant challenge, as the lack of open discourse hinders the development of a well-rounded and inclusive governance model. It is a true sadness that such a critical aspect of governance is limited in this way.

I support Mr. Hu's right to continue expressing his views, regardless of whether I agree with him or not. Open discourse and diverse perspectives are vital for China's growth and progress, and every voice should have the opportunity to be heard.