Working with the Chaos Monkey - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/04/working-with-the-chaos-monkey.html <comment><USER2> I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of Chaos Monkey.

CM is a form of active TDD at the system architecture level. This might evolve into setting up partition tests as a prerequisite to instantiating the deployment model (Translation: before you start putting something on a cloud instance, write code that turns the instance off and on from time to time) This assures that the requirements for survival are baked into the app and not something tacked on later after some public failure like the Amazonocolapse.

I was reading on HN the other day a guy talking about Google. He said he saw engineers pull the wires from dozens of routers handling GBs of data -- all without a hitch. The architecture was baked enough that failure was expected.

Many times failure modes like this are burned into hardware, but that kind of design is a long, long, long way from most people's systems.

<comment><USER3> As you say Google were one of the pioneers of the Chaos Monkey concept; they simply run at a scale where the Chaos Monkey occurs through normal failure rates. For sufficiently large MapReduce jobs you can expect one of the compute nodes to fail during the task. If the MapReduce jobs restarted any time this occurred the jobs would never actually complete[1]!

As we're allowed to comment on anything public, I'll focus on a paper about disaster recovery at Google which focuses on the Perforce version control system[2]. As Perforce is centralized and proprietary it even raises a few novel issues. As they can't modify the code themselves it's in fact one of the few vertically scaled pieces of software at Google (Perforce instances run on machines with 256GB of RAM[3]).

Of particular interest to me is the Annual Disaster Recovery Test that Google runs. They assume that the admins/engineers at Mountain View are entirely unavailable and that the fail-overs happen with no advance notice. The idea is that during an actual disaster your staff won't have time to answer queries as to which folder that documentation was in or the order that commands need to be run.

[1] - This is in one of the official Google MapReduce papers, I'll try and hunt it down

[2] - [http://www.perforce.com/perforce/conferences/us/2009/Present...](http://www.perforce.com/perforce/conferences/us/2009/Presentations/Wright- Disaster_Recovery-paper.pdf)

[3] - [http://www.perforce.com/perforce/conferences/us/2009/Present...](http://www.perforce.com/perforce/conferences/us/2009/Presentations/Wright- Disaster_Recovery-slides.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Why are Google using a centralised and closed piece of software? Does it bring many benefits that haven't been replicated in open alternatives? Or is it just that the cost of switching is high enough to become prohibitive?

<comment><USER5> The short answer is that when Google started, Perforce was the best kid on the block. Once you get as far down the road as Google, it's hard to change that incumbent, even if culture dictates the use of open-source software.

The other problem is that Google just has a whole lot of code. They've got engineers cranking out code all day all over the world. Working at that sort of scale rules out other alternatives (note that Google hired the Subversion guys, and Google isn't using Subversion... this should tell you something).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Netflix is turning out to be my favourite tech company. Just a week ago, in an extensive interview they mentioned that to provide a consistent interface across so many platforms we ended up porting our own version of webkit. And now the Chaos Monkey. It's amazing how technically sound they are considering they were just an online DVD rental company at the start.

<comment><USER7> There's nothing "just" about it. From day 1, they were handling real people's money, and moving real physical items around. They were not a typical web company which is really just a website with Adwords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Guiness World record for most steps in a Rube Goldberg device was just set at a competition at Purdue University. The device has 244 steps to water a flower! Now, if you saw the Mythbusters' Christmas episode with the Rube Goldberg device, you know it's really hard to make all those steps go right. But in this one, the engineers used a "hammer test": at any point during the operation of the machine, an engineer could tap the side with a hemmer. If it screwed up, that stage was redesigned. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/gonzo...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/gonzo/the- worlds-most-complicated-rube-goldberg-machine) The end result was the most complex machine of its kind, but it runs very reliably.

</comment><comment><USER9> When I first read about the Chaos Monkey, I had assumed it was used on their development/staging environment, but this article implies it is on their production system. Does anyone know which is correct?

<comment><USER10> I would think you'd have to run it on production for its results to be truly worthwhile.

<comment><USER11> Depends on how much risk/pain you are willing to accept while your systems are designed to adapt to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Chaos Monkey reminds me of some papers I've read about "crash-only software" and "recovery-oriented computing". With this approach, server software is written assuming the only way it would shutdown is a crash, even for scheduled maintenance. The software must be designed to recover safely every time the service is started. Instead of exercising recovery code paths rarely, they are tested every day.

[http://www.armandofox.com/geek/past-projects/recovery- orient...](http://www.armandofox.com/geek/past-projects/recovery-oriented- computing-roc/)

<http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/candea.html>

<comment><USER13> That approach is very interesting.

The idea of having a constantly persisted state is something I think would be massively innovative if applied right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here is an erlang version of the chaos monkey:

        potential_victim(Minions) ->
            fun (Pid) ->
    	        not(pman_process:is_system_process(Pid))
    	    	    and not lists:member(Pid, Minions)
            end.

        death_from_above(Minions) ->
            Pids = lists:filter(potential_victim(Minions), erlang:processes()),
            case Pids of
    	    [] -> none;
    	    _ ->
    	        Victim = lists:nth(random:uniform(length(Pids)), Pids),
    	        Name = pman_process:pinfo(Pid, registered_name),
    	        exit(Victim, kill),
    	        {ok, Victim, Name}
            end.

The idea is to run it during load tests. Afterwards run your normal unit tests to check that nothing got permanently broken. It's good for finding broken supervisor trees.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I've been playing around with the idea of Chaos Monkey at the code level, rather than at the systems level, but you can only truly do it with independent actors. I'm hoping to have something to show soon, probably on Akka/Scala.

There is a similarity with mutation testing, but mutation testing is trying to throw things too far up the chain; it wants your program to crash and die so the test fails. Really, we want it the other way: proof that the test would have failed, but the program is still running effectively.

I've worked with runtime repair in the past, which is also sort of similar, but, IMHO, less effective than Erlang-style Let It Crash. [1]

[1] <http://www.zenetproject.com/pages/lakitu>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design [1], law no. 2:

To design a spacecraft right takes an infinite amount of effort. This is why it's a good idea to design them to operate when some things are wrong.

[1] [http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/akins_laws....](http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/akins_laws.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Wow cool idea, but I don't think I'd be able to convince my company to do this.

</comment><comment><USER17> argh! so why was the server crashing? you can't leave me in such suspense....!

<comment><USER18> [http://serverfault.com/questions/104791/windows- server-2008-...](http://serverfault.com/questions/104791/windows- server-2008-r2-network-adapter-stops-working-requires-hard-reboot)

Broadcom networking card and Windows Server 2008

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Building things this way strikes me as expensive. At Netflix's scale, it pays off, but for systems that don't serve as many requests I'm forced to wonder whether just avoiding the cloud might be more cost-effective.

<comment><USER20> Well, you really have to figure out how much it would cost your site/service to be down for 2 days straight. Or maybe a week (PSN). Would this design pay for itself in preventing that loss?

<comment><USER21> ...and then multiply that cost by the probability that this will happen to find the expected payoff. If the work costs substantially more than the payoff, don't bother. If substantially less, you're negligent if you don't do it. (The Learned Hand Rule <http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/523.full>)

<comment><USER20> And 6 months ago, what WAS your perceived probability that an entire AWS location would be down for several days?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Even linux has a chaos monkey of sorts. <http://linux-mm.org/OOM_Killer>

<comment><USER23> Sort of, although in the case of the OOM killer, the goal is actually to kill the "right" process. Of course choosing the "right" process in code turns out to be exceptionally hard over a lot of different workloads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A decade or so ago, I heard computer programming described as a very good occupation for a person who had Asperger syndrome or perhaps limited social skills. I also recall reading then that some surveys of programmers working in that era suggested that those programmers were much more introverted than the general population. But I used to notice when I installed new programs on my Microsoft Windows computer, even after installing Windows 95, that sometimes installing one program would disable another program. That made me wonder if maybe social skills are an essential element of good programming skills. Now when software may have to run in the cloud, interacting with other software hosted on other hardware, all attempting to operate synchronously, wouldn't "software social skills" be rather important for any developer to understand?

</comment><comment><USER25> > And that's why, even though it sounds crazy, the best way to avoid failure > is to fail constantly.

This is my biggest concern with things like large nation-states, large banks, large reinsurance companies, large RAIDs, and large nuclear plants: we centralize resources into a larger resource pool in order to reduce the chances of failure, but in doing so we make the eventual failure more severe, and we reduce our experience in coping with it and our ability to estimate its probability. In fact, we may not even be reducing the chances of failure; we may just be fooling ourselves.

Consider the problem of replicating files around a network of servers. Perhaps you have a billion files and 200 single-disk servers with an MTBF of 10 years, and it takes you three days to replace a failed server.

One approach you can use is to pair up the servers into 100 mirrored pairs and put 10 million files on each pair. Now, about 20 servers will fail every year, leaving ten million files un-backed-up for three days. But the chance that the remaining server of that pair will fail during that time is 3/3650 = 0.08%. That will happen about once every 60 years, and so the expected lifetime of the average file on your system is about 6000 years.

So it's likely that your system will hum along for decades without any problems, giving you an enormous sense of confidence in its reliability. But if you divide the files that will be lost once every 60 years (ten million) by the 60 years, you get about 170 thousand files lost per year. The system is fooling you into thinking it's reliable.

Suppose, instead, that you replicate each file onto two servers, but those servers are chosen at random. (Without replacement.) When a server fails (remember, 20 times a year), there's about a one in six chance that another server will fail in the three days before it's replaced. When that happens, every three or four months, a random number of files will be lost --- about 10 million / 200, or about fifty thousand files, for a total data loss of about 170 thousand files a year. You will likely see this as a major problem, and you will undertake efforts to fix it, perhaps by storing each file on three or four servers instead of two.

This is despite the fact that this system loses data at the same average rate as the other one. In effect, instead of having 100 server pairs to store files on, you have 19,900 partition pairs, each partition consisting of 0.5% of a server. By making the independently failing unit much smaller, you've dramatically increased your visibility into its failure rate, and given yourself a lot of experience with coping with its failures.

In this case, more or less by hypothesis, the failure rate is independent of the scale of the thing. That isn't generally the case. If we had a lot of half-megawatt nuclear reactors scattered around the landscape instead of a handful of ten-gigawatt reactors, it's likely that each reactor would receive a lot less human attention to keep it in good repair. When it threatened to melt down, there wouldn't be a team of 200 experienced guys onsite to fight the problem. There would be a lot more shipments of fuel, and therefore a lot more opportunities for shipments of fuel rods to crash or be hijacked. And so on.

But we might still be better off that way, because instead of having to extrapolate nuclear-reactor safety from a total of three meltdowns of production reactors --- TMI, Tchernobyl, and Fukushima --- we'd have dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller accidents. And so we'd know which design elements were most likely to fail in practice, and how to do evacuation and decontamination most effectively. Instead of Tchernobyl having produced a huge cloud of radioactive smoke that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people, perhaps it would have killed 27, like the reactor failure in K-19.

With respect to nation-states, the issue is that strong nation-states are very effective at reducing the peacetime homicide rate, which gives them the appearance of substantially improving safety. Many citizens of strong nation- states in Europe have never lived through a war in their country, leading them to think of deaths by violence as a highly unusual phenomenon. But strong nation-states also create much bigger and more destructive wars. It is not clear that the citizens of, say, Germany are at less risk of death by violence than the citizens of much weaker states such as Micronesia or Brazil, where murder rates are higher.

</comment><comment><USER26> I would love to be a developer on a Chaos Monkey.

"Oh no, CM is down, everything's working!"

</comment><comment><USER27> The blog post seems to imply Stack Exchange is working with the Chaos Monkey when it really isn't. They didn't really build a system that randomly shuts down servers or services. The difference is subtle but important.

<comment><USER28> The point here is that when you know that you're living with the Chaos Monkey, your systems become very fault tolerant. Living with a monkey does that.

But even you don't embrace the concept, the Chaos Monkey is likely going to become a uninvited house guest at some point in time. In StackOverflow's case, they bought a mainstream server with a mainstream OS, and discovered that that server came with a monkey.

Think of it another way. My brother and sister in law never worried about the failure characteristics of dinner plates, so they had lots of nice stuff. Then they had a baby. All of the sudden, falling plates and glasses became something that they had to think about.

<comment><USER27> Right, I agree that is the main point of the post. However, generalizing Netflix's naming of their fault-inducing system into unexpected failures dilutes the meaning of such name. Jeff's introduction to Netflix's system is what made this post interesting (if you disagree, take the mental exercise and rewrite this post in your mind without mentioning Netflix's system). There's a disconnect between the main point of the post and the most interesting point of the post.

<comment><USER29> It's perfectly OK for people to draw inspiration and find parallels from other sources, especially when they are both inspiring and timely.

Jeff had something happen on accident that Netflix was smart enough to engineer on purpose. Once again, _Jeff learns an important lesson_ and shares with everyone. No need to give grief over that.

<comment><USER27> I'm not trying to give grief here. I respect Jeff highly and found this article to be insightful. If people dislike my comment for its tone, I accept it. It was probably a bit overly antagonistic.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Elastic Byte – Managed DevOps and cloud infrastructure as a service - <AUTHOR> https://elasticbyte.net <comment><USER2> From my understanding of DevOps, it's one of those things that is impossibly difficult to outsource, just like Product Management. On surface the output is merely specifications, and product sketches but there are plenty of things including foreseeing execution, customer development, and measurement that needs to be covered to add real value.

Can you really implement processes, see response of team towards them, enforce practices, monitor everything without being part of the team?

<comment><USER3> You bring up great points, and I think it really depends on the organization and how far along they are. Typically we like to focus on smaller companies (let's say handfuls of employees), heads down in product development. Usually for them, outsourcing infrastructure scale, uptime, performance, and security makes sense.

Second, we've found another good vertical are design and website agencies. Almost always they don't have anybody doing professional ops, yet they have contracts to build and host large websites with millions of pageviews a month. They tend to also be good fits.

<comment><USER2> Targeting small teams seems to be a good idea. I can concur that there are many teams for whom setting anything on servers can be an excruciating experience. But, in my opinion, your offering is too broad. When should a team call you? Should they rely completely on you to set their servers? Should they contact you when something gets broke? What happens when you are not around? What happens if you (in extremely unlikely scenario) 'rm -rf' some important stuff?

But best of luck with your venture!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, contract work for running infrastructure? "Managed DevOps and Cloud Infrastructure As a Service" is a very buzzywordy and bloated way to describe that. It almost sounds like a parody.

Why not just: "We build and maintain IT infrastructure for your company"

<comment><USER3> Well, the general IT term include services like printers, faxes, office phone systems, WiFi, etc. I wanted to clarify we specifically focus on cloud infrastructure.

<comment><USER5> It's not "as a service", it's "as a contractor"

<comment><USER3> I actually intentionally structured and publically list pricing which is against what nearly every other consulting or enterprise sales company does. Pricing is uniform across all clients, and each client belongs to a given plan. I'd say our model fits a service more than traditional consulting.

<comment> wc- On one hand I think price transparency is nice to see.

But on the other hand this really is a consulting business, they are tough to run, and there might be something important to learn from why consultants do not publicly list prices. The difference between feast or famine might be making sure to capitalize on one fat client in a quarter or even year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Founder of Elastic Byte here. Happy to field any questions or feedback.

<comment><USER6> I would guess a fair amount of your potential sales would be from organizations that want to move things to the cloud.

You might consider adding some information for potential clients looking for things like "AWS migration" or "Moving CI to the Cloud", etc.

That may also be at odds with your plans. That sort of activity usually has a big hump of hours up front that scales down when a migration is done. Your biggest plan is one person for a week out of a month.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback. Migrations to the cloud is indeed a vertical we see as in demand. I made a note to create a page dedicated to migrations on our site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Devops is not a role or team. It is a culture.

You can't outsource that.

</comment><comment><USER8> The wrapping of your tagline (We build...) could use some work. Sometimes the words "Term" and "Contract" will be on the second line and sometimes on the third, it's super hard to read.

</comment><comment><USER9> You're not really showing HN anything. Only one of your links at top of page work.

Reads simply as a contractor looking for clients and spamming HN.</comment>


Tu and Twitter: Is it the end for 'vous' in French? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19499771

<comment><USER2> Germany also has a formal (sie) and informal (du) pronoun and even though the latter is generally used over the internet, to the point that using the former can be insulting, there is no impact on "real life".</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best Covid-19 data visualization sites? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://coronavirus.arik.io](https://coronavirus.arik.io)

[https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries](https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries)

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a really good one for Germany: [https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823...](https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4)

<comment><USER4> Johns Hopkins University is using the same map to convey global data as well: [https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594...](https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6)</comment></comment>


You'll never be Chinese - <AUTHOR> http://www.haohaoreport.com/l/37198?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook <comment><USER4> "A China that leads the world will not offer the chance to be Chinese, because it is impossible to become Chinese. "

Of course. The British led the world and did not offer (at the time) anyone the chance to be British either. In fact, they actively discouraged interbreeding. It is a dogma of the modern Occident that it is stronger to be multi-ethnic, and that national identity should be open to anyone. History shows us, however, that that is hardly a necessity for world empire.

Full disclosure: I was once in love with a Chinese woman from an elite family, who I am fairly certain loved me but rejected me because I did not belong to the appropriate stock (with influence from her family). Lesson learned: if love is strong, kinship bonds are often stronger.

<comment><USER5> Of course, that we speak of "the British" is a testament to a certain level of success of melding English/Scottish/Welsh identities, much of which happened in the context of imperial endeavor. And certainly many other groups (Sepoys, say) found their interests aligned at times with the imperial project, in a way that outweighed their ethnic background.

Being open to a flexible interpretation of identity/citzenship (Brits, Romans) or having a nominally universal ideology/religion (Americans, Islamic caliphates) seems like it be a large help in successful world leadership, even if it's not a prerequisite.

<comment><USER6> > a certain level of success

From the outside. On the inside, I think most Britons identify more as English, Scottish, or Welsh than British. Scotland and Wales live under the semi-official delusion that they are actually "countries" in some meaningful way, not just autonomous subdivisions of the UK, and even compete separately in international sporting events outside of the Olympics. Even forming a unified soccer team for the Olympics that the UK itself is hosting was a source of significant controversy.

<comment><USER7> The controversy mostly stemmed from the potential effects of running a British football team, particularly regarding the UK's status within FIFA.

The home nations each have a representative within FIFA, UEFA and IFAB, as well as being able to compete individually, and collectively enter more club teams into the UEFA Champions League. This causes some tension with other countries, who see the UK as a single country that wields undue influence in the global game.

If the UK establishes its own football team for the purposes of the Olympics, then there is a fear that FIFA would use this as an excuse to shut down the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish FAs and force them to fold into the FA. This is the reason Scotland refused to allow its players to be picked for the Olympics.

<comment><USER6> The Scottish FA never had the power to "refuse to allow" anything, there just weren't any Scottish players worth calling up. The Welsh FA made the same statements but that didn't stop Welsh players from being called up.

Britain's status in FIFA demonstrates just how poorly the notion of a "British" national identity has taken hold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is definitely one of the better (and more accurate) articles on the subject. I have been doing business in China and definitely see his view - it's easy to see why most of China's elite send their children abroad. I wouldn't live there for an extended period.

I'd say their education system (and society) tends to hammer the creativity out of people. I see strong evidence that who think differently are ridiculed. Only the strongest personalities could withstand this, and it is obvious that they often leave for greener pastures. Nurturing the free thinkers is not easy.

Superpower & housing bubble aside, first they have to figure out things like why having seatbelts in cars is important - that the individual is in fact valuable.

<comment><USER9> When I was in China, i often ride in friends' cars. The first thing I do when I get in cars is buckling up, and I'm often ridiculed for fearing of death (i really am). Twice I sit on the passenger side and tried to put the seatbelt plate into buckle but I couldn't, because there's already a key holder in there. I learned since no passenger wear seat-belt, the driver just put the key holder there to silence the warning noise, they already have key holders in on driver's side.

<comment><USER10> This isn't just a Chinese thing. I've experienced it personally in Russia, and I've heard of it in other countries too.

<comment><USER11> It's an everywhere thing. Before seatbelts were compulsory in the UK, people used not to wear them there either. You'd have to talk to somebody who was an adult at the time - probably not many of those round here - to get the definitive answer, but I distinctly remember being confused by adults often failing to put their seatbelts on, even for quite some time after seatbelts became compulsory.

<comment><USER12> Yes thats true. I think the warnings in cars have gradually changed this and there are few holdouts now. (I didnt realize it was only 1983 they were made compulsory, so I was 14 then)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Take a moment and conciser how a similar piece, written of the United states around the turn of the last century, might read.

Remember the 'roaring 20s?' Materialistic society, ambivalence about foreign affairs, widespread corruption, distrust of foreigners. A Chinese who owned a tea shop in a small town may well have to beg for a renewed lease, yes?

Well, China is not the United States, but lets put things in perspective. At the moment neither the leaders nor the people of China want to be a 'world leader' so why do we keep talking about it as if they do? China has its own problems and most Chinese are well aware of it.

China is not yet a rich country. Its Per Capita GDP (PPP) is about the same as Ecuador or Belize.

Right now things in China are not so great. It seems the Conservatives are back in power and so there has been some increased restrictions of freedom after a couple decades of improvement. Corruption continues to be a problem. The price of groceries, as well as property, has been increasing.

But the overall trend is upward. The author of this piece has fallen afoul of the Guanxi networks of business and politics in China. Sorry, yes, they don't play fair. But I am hopeful at the turn of the next century China will be as prosperous and egalitarian as my own United States of America.

<comment><USER14> >Sorry, yes, they don't play fair. But I am hopeful at the turn of the next century China will be as prosperous and egalitarian as my own United States of America.

Why would a one-party system evolve into being egalitarian? The US has devolved into being more or less ruled by lobbyists. The egalitarian phase in the US was largely due to workers being economically valuable and hence useful to maintain physically and mentally. China, however, has a surplus of workers.

<comment><USER13> False. Factories are having increasing difficulty in retaining workers and are therefore having to either raise wages, improve conditions, or bully them into submission. Supply and demand, no?

Demand is currently high.

Things are not great for workers, but there is hardly a surplus anymore.

<comment><USER14> Good to hear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "The pressure makes children sick. I speak from personal experience. To score under 95 per cent is considered failure. Bad performance is punished."

I grew up in that culture in America having a Chinese mother and belonging to the local Chinese community. The interesting aspect to it, is that it represents a curve as everyone gets a 97+ on their tests. It felt like 97 was the median in the class. It just happened to be instead of having scores from 50-100, you had them compressed from 90-100. Scoring below a 90 is equivalent to getting an F in the local Chinese community as only a few ever scored that low.

I personally appreciate having gone through that and all the brainwashing that occurred with that mindset. I know one of my strengths is the ability to work well under pressure, where often my motivation is correlated with pressure. While I never made the connection in college, I innately understood the curve and how to play the game due to being curved at a young age.

The worry I have at times with correlating motivation with difficulty is whether I am creating an invalid proxy for value. Sometimes the work leads to something of value, but they are not directly linked as there are plenty of difficult things out there that generate little value to society and oneself.

That said, bringing it back to the OP's concern about his children's education, I don't know what it's like to go through a full Chinese system as I highly appreciate the mixture of Western education in my upbringing. I had a nervous breakdown in high school after realizing the falseness of my quest I had around accomplishments and achievements. If it weren't for the liberal arts of Western culture (arts, music, and literature), I don't know how I would have came out of that mental breakdown. I began to value the Renaissance man who was balanced in a variety of topics and sought the balance of academics, the arts and social skills. I wonder if it weren't for those concepts, if I would have trained myself to seek higher and higher goals in mastery over academics as I saw with some of my childhood friends who had a stricter Chinese upbringing.

</comment><comment><USER16> Direct link: [http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto- youll-...](http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto-youll-never- be-chinese-leaving-china/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Bitterly biased.

The China that the author describes is not the China I've seen. Housing prices may be high, but he neglects to mention that it's common for companies to provide housing to their employees. Yes, people will ask you about your money - but that's culture, and it's not impolite.

There are a lot of untruths in his article, but it's too long to pick apart. A big one, though, is about appreciation for foreigners. China does in fact have laws about foreigners, but most are designed to protect them and avoid international incidents. For example, several schools around the Shaolin Temple offer practical training in everything from hand-to-hand combat to spears to swords. Only three, however, have passed safety regulations to accept foreigners. The Chinese also likes to tell you that you're special, because they think it endears you to them, whether it's true or not.

I'll end by saying: it's hard to judge China through a western perspective.

<comment><USER18> Companies still provide housing? Are you serious? That went out with the 90s in the big cities! And even then, how many people actually work for the government or an SOE qualify for this housing provided by the company?

Its very easy to judge China through a western perspective; you just say "it was judged through a western perspective." Judging is always relative to a perspective and is useful to evaluate your situation. The author's article is not meant for Chinese, perhaps, but for other foreigners, and therefore its useful and not "bitterly biased."

Foreigner laws in China are designed to protect us? Ya, by not letting our kids go to any but the most expensive international schools? By making us re- register with our local PSB whenever we go on a business trip? By limiting how we can spend our money..which we earned in China and paid (high) Chinese taxes on? By making us pay social security taxes and then telling us we will only see that money at all if we work here for 15 years?

Why do Chinese always take criticism on China so personally as a face problem? Its common western practice to criticize something that you don't think is working right, we just treat China as an equal topic in that regard. Its not an attack, its just commentary.

<comment><USER17> I'm not taking offense in a patriotic stance. I'm offended because it's plain incorrect. I don't know if we're arguing the same thing, but I'm saying looking at China from a western perspective is misleading, and leads you to formulate judgments that are based on slanted information. It's much like how the average citizen believes he's knowledgeable about the economy.

It's still commonplace for companies to provide housing. I'm not sure how I can prove this to you, other than asking you to go to China, or read it in Chinese.

 _"Foreigner laws in China are designed to protect us? Ya, by not letting our kids go to any but the most expensive international schools? By making us re- register with our local PSB whenever we go on a business trip? By limiting how we can spend our money..which we earned in China and paid (high) Chinese taxes on? By making us pay social security taxes and then telling us we will only see that money at all if we work here for 15 years?"_

Their schools and our schools aren't the same. If you sent your kid to a regular Chinese school, do you expect the same treatment as Chinese kids get? Is it okay for their teachers to hit your kids if they misbehave? Perhaps you'd like the rest of the kids to pretend like your kid was Chinese, even though their culture isn't as multicultural as ours.

I don't know what your complaint with the PSB registration is about. It takes two minutes, and other countries do very similar things. They're keeping track of foreigners in their country. USA, Canada - we all do it, just through different ways. Only difference is, there's an order of magnitude in population difference. I remember, actually, when I went to school in the USA, I had 10x more paperwork to fill out than going to China (I'm Canadian).

USA and Canada also limit the amount of money you can spend before you're horribly taxed. This isn't unique to China. I've never paid Chinese social insurance, so I honestly can't say. All I know is, I'm paying social security in Canada, and by the time I use it, it's going to be (probably) gone.

<comment><USER19> PSB registration does not take two minutes, literally or figuratively. I was at the 出入境 for about an hour two weeks ago. This one visit was one of many visits. Yesterday, I went to register at the local 派出所. I was the only person there. They processed all my documents (three passports) in one hour.

I should amend my statement above: PSB registration does not take two minutes _for me_. You are fortunate that it only takes two minutes for you (I am assuming you mean figuratively, though if you are being literal I am even more envious).

China is a big country. There are places in China where the administration is very efficient and effective. Most places are not. I say this from personal experience and from the experience of others who don't live in large, developed cities. Some generalizations are accurate, but like any generalization, the veracity may vary from your own local experience.

<comment><USER20> At a hotel where they are supposed to register for you it might take 2 minutes. But in my experience it takes anywhere from half a day to a week in smaller city. Half a day is the minimum because you get directed from one place to another and wait in lines. A week is how long it could take of you're missing anything they require such as a photo. Yes, it varies widely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very interesting read of one person's (very credible) opinions about China. Yet...

The title is a tautology. I can't help but feel that anyone from country X will every be integrated into any other country, _as long as they still want to be themselves._ Which is what the author never really states. Had he bought into the materialistic lifestyle, asked everyone how much money they made, and insisted his kids cram for elementry school exams, and toed the party line (whatever that may be), then maybe he would've been considered Chinese (I bet he'd say you still wouldn't but he didn't even consider that possibility). But no, he wanted to be a Westerner in China, and by definition, never become Chinese.

I lived in Europe for half of my life before age 30. I was fluent and mistaken for a native of the country where I lived. Yet, I could not help but retain my American perspective; I don't think I could give that up even if I wanted to. So even if I blended into the culture and wanted be a native, I could not _feel_ like one myself. I came "home" to the US and don't feel American anymore either--I think that will be the author's fate in Britain. I have American friends still there, native by any standard, yet still consider themselves American by choice.

So I think it comes down to giving up one's identifying culture. The ironic thing, is that Chinese (and many other foreigners) do it all the time when they immigrate to the West. To me, that is the quandary of immigration: how do they manage to embrace the host culture so much that they no longer identify with their native one. It seems so much easier to do from East (India, China) to West (US, mostly). It seems like it's much easier to go from a culture of community to one of individuality than vice-versa. Why is there a lack of symmetry?

<comment><USER22> I think a big reason is ease of integration/life - many Chinese people find life to be easier when they immigrate to the West. Life can be very very competitive in China - relationships are often necessary, complex and by definition numerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author seems to suggest that the main problem -- as suggested by the title -- is that the Chinese are strongly anti-foreigners. This might be true. But I don't think it's why his business was robbed.

The main problem, I think, is the Chinese's jungle-ruled platform associated with its single-party tyranny. What happens is they will invite you in and give you lots of promises and flexibilities at first. They will learn from you. And when you get too big, they will change the rules to favor their owns, and kick you out, robbing you if necessary. It's not so much that you're a Caucasian foreigner.

I believe that a lot of outside investors and companies will eventually (unless they are big) find out that doing business with the Chinese will end up looking like this person. I am not anti-Chinese as a people or a culture, but I have seen this type story again and again.

<comment><USER14> It's similar to building a web property dependent on another company's APIs. You are ultimately in a vulnerable position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very insightful article. I feel more worried about the Chinese housing bubble crash than anything else. You think the '07 US recession was bad? That'd be a walk in the park if China's bubble bursts.

<comment><USER9> Don't worry, the government will never let the crash happen. Plus they are trying "tightening" the housing now. Stagnating might be a better word: neither let price fall nor let it rise too fast.

<comment><USER25> _Don't worry, the government will never let the crash happen_

My bet would be these words were uttered right before every crash in history...

<comment><USER26> Yeah, the US government did its damnest to prevent the housing crash in the US, and they have a lot more money and experience with markets than the Chinese do. When the Chinese bubble pops it's going to blow the social fabric of the country apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As Confucius said, 三人行,必有我師焉 ("wherever three persons are walking, my teacher is surely among them"). This is a very interesting article for an American who has lived in east Asia for two three-year stays (mostly in Taiwan) and who has been learning the Chinese language since 1975. Much of what has been said about China in the first decade of the twenty-first century reminds me very much of what was said about Japan in the 1980s--that it was destined to be the leading nation of the world. Today, demographics and looking behind the official economic statistics, and considering that China has not yet democratized as much as Japan had in the era when the Liberal Democratic Party had a lock on national power all suggest that China is most likely to have a "lost decade" that continues into two or more lost decades as China's economic growth fails to keep pace with the Chinese regime's world power ambitions. Political unrest is an ongoing fear of the Communist Party of China regime, and there is little to suggest that Chinese "soft power" can overcome the misgivings of neighboring countries (e.g. India, Vietnam, and South Korea) that remember being invaded by Chinese armies in the recent past.

It is possible to become an American. I have seen it done. My wife, out of all the girls I knew when I first lived in Taiwan, was the LEAST interested in gaining a green card or even living in the United States as a student until we had occasion to enter the United States (her first occasion ever) as a married couple after a year of married life in Taiwan. Over time, she has become a Minnesotan American by choice rather than by birth, and indeed we have spent far more time in the United States than I had ever imagined possible when I first planned my adult life as an American with a university degree in Chinese language. There have been great opportunities for us in America and much that my wife can cherish even though none of her primary or secondary education was intended to prepare her for life in the United States, and none of my higher education was intended as anything but preparation for living in east Asia. The United States is open to immigrants, accepting of cultural diversity, and a second home for many people that becomes a more meaningful home than their first home. That acceptance of outside influence is America's strength, and why the United States and not China will be the superpower of the twenty-first century.

What the United States can learn from China (but even more so from Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea) is better provision of elementary education in government-operated primary schools, particularly in the subjects of mathematics and science. Native-born Americans like me who have lived in east Asia are APPALLED at the wasted opportunities that United States schools have with their lavish resources to provide a truly world-class education. United States schools do not do as badly as they possibly could, but they also don't do as well as they reasonably could be expected to do. Let's learn from China's best examples here in the United States. Meanwhile, I hope that the common people of China eventually learn from other democratized countries of east Asia how to come out from under a one-party dictatorship and to enjoy uncensored mass media, free elections, and a vigorous civil society.

<comment><USER28> > Native-born Americans like me who have lived in east Asia are APPALLED at > the wasted opportunities that United States schools have with their lavish > resources to provide a truly world-class education. United States schools do > not do as badly as they possibly could, but they also don't do as well as > they reasonably could be expected to do.

I know this is a popular refrain about American education, but it's only a half-truth. The only real direct, objective comparisons between different countries' educational systems are based on data from identical tests administered across those nations. However, as the results from the PISA[0] indicate, Americans rank near the top of their respective ethnic groups when they are separated in that manner. That is to say, American students of European descent are near the top of the charts when compared to European students, American students of Asian descent are near the top of the charts when compared to Asian students, etc.

This also applies to American students of African and Hispanic descent. However, students in African and Hispanic countries do so much worse than students in European and Asian countries that despite the American students of those ethnicities performing better than students in those countries, they still bring down the average American score below that of most European and Asian nations.

What this tells us is not that the American education system is just plain bad. Quite the opposite - take a student from anywhere in the world, and on average, he or she will receive a better education in America. The _real_ problem is that our education system fails to provide an equal quality of education to all of our children.

As you probably already know, this result is because our public education system is funded by local taxes, and our car-based society allows us to geographically isolate us from the poor, who are overwhelmingly of African and Hispanic descent. Thus, the African and Hispanic students end up going to public schools that are poorly funded because their parents are poor, trapping Americans of African and Hispanic descent in a cycle of poverty.

The solution to this problem is not apparent, as attempts to integrate schools along socioeconomic & ethnic lines just results in the wealthy voting to defund public schools and sending their children to expensive private schools instead.

0: [http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth- abou...](http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa- scores-usa.html)

<comment><USER29> From your linkd article: "So much for the bigoted notions that Americans are dumb and Europeans are smart." > "There are 3 parts to the PISA test, Reading, Math, and Science."

There is more to an education than reading, math, and science. The US is particularly famous for frequently forgetting that other countries even exist. Most of the Anglo world (including, but not just US) is seen with some derision in Europe for being so proudly monoglot. A comment of "My god, that person was so dumb" is usually about their lack of worldliness, not their skill with calculus.

 _Quite the opposite - take a student from anywhere in the world, and on average, he or she will receive a better education in America_

The people that get to immigrate to the US are the best and brightest, otherwise they don't get in. It's unsurprising that their children perform well. Yes, the US education system is far better than the third world's (what a boast!) but even if you're talking about Finnish immigrants, they're not going to be unskilled louts. The mere fact that they're allowed in means that they have already passed a bar.

I agree that the real problem is the disparity and locally-sourced funding for schools, but that doesn't mean that there's no problem with the curriculum across the board. There are squillions of articles out there bemoaning all aspects of the US school system's race to teach the test rather than provide an education.

I think that probably the most telling is when you hear of tertiary educators saying that they have to dumb down intro subjects and teach students the skills they used to get in high school - things as simple as how to construct an essay (which doesn't sound like it's an objective 'reading, math, science' measure)

<comment><USER28> > There is more to an education than reading, math, and science. The US is > particularly famous for frequently forgetting that other countries even > exist. Most of the Anglo world (including, but not just US) is seen with > some derision in Europe for being so proudly monoglot. A comment of "My god, > that person was so dumb" is usually about their lack of worldliness, not > their skill with calculus.

I won't deny the lack of language learning in the US, which is something that I find disturbing, particularly with the "flattening" of the world in recent years. However, I firmly believe that it has nothing to do with the education system. The real problem (if you can call it that) is that Anglophone countries don't _need_ to learn any other languages. The reason why Europeans can speak foreign languages (most often English) is because they _need_ to.

Moreover, if you live in an Anglophone country (particularly America, and I'd expect Australia is similar too, due to its linguistic isolation), there just aren't very many chances to _practice_ a language even if you learn it. I know the public schools where I grew up required students to learn foreign languages (and they usually learned Spanish), but most of them forgot the language within a year of stopping classes, because they never got a chance to use it. This situation may very well change with the rapidly growing Hispanic population in the US.

OTOH, if you live in a non-Anglophone country, you're _constantly_ bombarded with all kinds of media in English - on the web, in print, and on the silver screen. This effect is amplified in countries that speak languages with relatively small numbers of speakers. For example, the postage stamp-sized countries of northern Europe are more fluent in English than southern European countries such as France, Spain, and Italy, and a big reason for this is that their small size means that there is less domestic media to consume, so they turn to Angolophone content.

> There are squillions of articles out there bemoaning all aspects of the US > school system's race to teach the test rather than provide an education.

Once again, I think this is largely a function of the quality of the school. Having graduated from a public high school in an affluent district after the turn of the millenium, I can say that contemporary US public schools do _not_ solely teach to the test if the students are primarily wealthy suburbanites. We received plenty of stimulating education and in college we were thrown straight into the deep end of the pool, with lots of graduate-level material that we didn't understand for quite a while, a far cry from the reteaching of high school material that everyone says is happening. Then again, that's only my personal experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The (unframed) article: [http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark- kitto-youll-...](http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto-youll- never-be-chinese-leaving-china/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Hmm. A strange article. A mix of really good points soaked in bitterness.

I spend the bulk of my time in Beijing, Taipei, and Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia). My take is slightly different.

Well, a lot is true. The property thing, definitely. The state industry takeovers is scary; you have to get a sense for what industries they don't mind foreigners in, and which they do. Media? Yeah, you don't want to own a media company in China as a non-Chinese. The same is true with energy and raw materials. Probably not true for manufacturing, education, and consumer goods. So, that's a weird and surreal and true point.

But some things seem dead-off. The Chinese seem _much_ more community oriented than the West. On mornings I'm up early, there's always large groups of people doing Tai Chi, or moving around doing a sword-dance, or other group exercises. Likewise, there's huge groups of people singing, dancing, waltzing, in the evenings. Families go out and play together a lot. At least, that's what I see in CBD in Beijing.

The thing about the Chinese loving money and size is true. It's not as bleak as it sounds though, it's probably similar to 1950's America in that sense. You've got people who were raised lower on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, so they're very pro-money and pro-security. It's all pretty upfront, and everyone is in to hard work, credentialing, and earning well. My friend is married to a Chinese woman, and we were working something like 12+ hours a day for a while. Since his work/life balance was totally destroyed on the projects we were on, I apologized to her one day at their house. "Hey, sorry we're working so much..." and she replies: "You're making money?" I say, "Yeah, we're making money." She says: "Okay! No problem then, keep making money! I'm glad you two are doing it!" They named their cat "Wangtzai" (spelling?), which translates to "Bring money." Yeah, they named their cat "Bring money." But they're also happy and have a good home life together. She just respects working a lot and wants her husband to work a lot. That's where she's at mentally.

This part struck me as the most off --

> [China] does not welcome intruders—unless they happen to be militarily > superior and invade from the north, as did two imperial dynasties, the Yuan > (1271-1368) and the Qing (1644-1911), who became more Chinese than the > Chinese themselves. Moreover, the fates of the Mongols, who became the Yuan, > and Manchu, who became the Qing, provide the ultimate deterrent: "Invade us > and be consumed from the inside," rather like the movie Alien.

It's not like "Alien" -- it's more like, China was so much more artistically and culturally sophisticated that even invaders assimilated the conquered culture, and happily so. It's little known that the Mongols (Yuan) built the Forbidden City at first. It was called "Forbidden" since it was Mongolian- only, preserving some of Mongolian Steppe Culture even within China. Likewise, Mandarin is the Manchu language... the ethnic minority that conquered China and became the Qing. The Han (majority) now speaks the minority's language, since it was widely spoken in courts and high level administration under the Qing Dynasty.

But why did the Manchu become more Han-like and base out of Beijing? Because it was a pretty amazing place, and by and large it always has been.

I don't know, maybe I'll get China-fatigue at some point. I agree with his point that you'll never be really truly Chinese in China, but foreigners also get all kinds of additional respect and benefits for being foreign, along with a tacit okay to break certain customs and decorums because you don't know better. For foreigners in China who speak Chinese, it's even better -- you get delight from everyone you interact with, and lots of respect (arguably, undeservedly so)... so yeah, it's good and bad. The article comes across overly jaded, though I suppose the idea to not start a media company or buy residential housing are both good pieces of advice!

<comment><USER28> > Likewise, Mandarin is the Manchu language... the ethnic minority that > conquered China and became the Qing. The Han (majority) now speaks the > minority's language

Say what? Mandarin Chinese was originally spoken by Han Chinese only and is _nothing_ like the original language spoken by the Manchu (save for a few loanwords). The Manchu language is from the Tungusic language family, and has absolutely no genealogical relation to Mandarin or any other Sino-Tibetan languages.

As it says on Wikipedia[0]:

> By the end of the 19th century the [Manchu] language was so moribund that > even at the office of the Shengjing (Shenyang) general, the only documents > written in Manchu (rather than Chinese) would be the memorials wishing the > emperor long life; at the same time period, the archives of the Hulan banner > detachment in Heilongjiang show that only 1% of the bannermen could read > Manchu, and no more than 0.2% could speak it.

Manchu now has ~20 native speakers, with its closest non-endangered relative being Xibe, with ~30,000 native speakers[1].

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_language#History_and_si...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_language#History_and_significance)

1: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibe_language>

<comment><USER9> Mandarin is not totally unrelated to Manchu. There are a lot of loan words in Mandarin from Manchu, for example, 姑娘, 罗嗦, 邋遢, 马虎, 麻利, 别扭, and lots of other common phrases. More importantly, Mandarin is heavily influenced by Manchu in other ways, for example, tones. Southern languages like Cantonese, Minnan have more tones (Cantonese 9, Minnan 8, vs Mandarin 5). Some Chinese believe Mandarin is a language polluted/reduced by Manchu, and they consider southern languages to be more elegant and culturally richer and purer. Cantonese lost to Mandarin by a single vote during the selection of "official" language of China in 1912.[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yue_Chinese#Twentieth_century>

<comment><USER28> > There are a lot of loan words in Mandarin from Manchu, for example, 姑娘, 罗嗦, > 邋遢, 马虎, 麻利, 别扭, and lots of other common phrases.

And I acknowledged them. Similarly, southern Chinese languages feature borrowings from Tai, Austro-Asiatic, and Austronesian languages.

Sanskrit is another source of borrowings for many Chinese languages, due to the influence of Buddhism. The word "Mandarin", coincidentally, comes from the Sanskrit word _mantrin_ (मन्त्रिन्), meaning "minister" or "councillor", although that is not used in Mandarin itself to refer to the language.

So it's not just Mandarin that has been influenced by foreign languages. The borrowing of words is very common when two languages come into contact. A prime example is the internet-speak used by Chinese netizens, which is replete with English-based neologisms.

However, that doesn't change the fact that modern Mandarin overwhelmingly bears more similarity to Classical Chinese than it does to Manchu.

> More importantly, Mandarin is heavily influenced by Manchu in other ways, > for example, tones. Southern languages like Cantonese, Minnan have more > tones (Cantonese 9, Minnan 8, vs Mandarin 5).

Do you have any proof that Manchu influence is the reason for Mandarin's relative paucity of tones in comparison to southern Chinese languages? Middle Chinese, which goes back nearly a millenium before the advent of the Qing dynasty, already had only 4 tones[0]. According to the relationship between Middle Chinese tones and modern Mandarin tones[1], the 4 tones of modern Mandarin are descended from the Ping (平), Shang (上), and Qu (去) tones of Middle Chinese, with some redistribution according to consonant type.

> Some Chinese believe Mandarin is a language polluted/reduced by Manchu, and > they consider southern languages to be more elegant and culturally richer > and purer.

And one of the major proximal causes of this is the loss of tones, since it's lead to homophonic ambiguity, which has been corrected through the formation of polysyllabic neologisms, which break many millenia-old connections with Classical Chinese. It's not just the addition of Manchu vocabulary and/or phrases.

0: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_tones>

1: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Rela...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Chinese_phonology#Relationship_between_Middle_Chinese_and_modern_tones)

<comment><USER9> >Do you have any proof that Manchu influence is the reason for Mandarin's relative paucity of tones in comparison to southern Chinese languages?

It's very hard to prove. There are materials from Qing Dynasty that still have the 入(entering) tone, this indicate the tone disappeared sometime during the late Qing. But others hold belief that the northern language lost the entering tone long before Qing, maybe as early as Yuan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> we do tend to project our own desires on other people. i remember a colleague telling me how disappointed he was with chile because the same people who had overthrown a fascist dictator were now interested in worldly things like cars and clothes.

there's something of that in this article, i think.

also, it's very hard to be neutral when you live in a place. and living in a foreign place _is_ hard (more for some than others, of course). it's easy to bear grudges, no matter how aware you are that "it's just cultural differences".

huh. voted down for that? sigh...

</comment><comment><USER33> Even though Chinese ideals/opinions tend to be NOT as diversified as, say Canadians, doesn't mean all Chinese think the same.

Some of the main causes, and by no means the only causes for "racism":

1, those you don't understand, you don't trust -- vast of Chinese have not met many foreigners and Chinese culture tend to differ greatly from western cultures.

2, as noted, China is a very segregated country, you get discriminated against for all sorts of reasons. But if you are from a powerful American family, you will find your respect in China; if you are a poor China man, even your (slightly better off) neighbours would look down upon you.

Same reason Jd's love could not marry him, she will not marry another China man either, if he is not from a respectable family or occupying a respectable position.

On a final note, I don't believe in racism. Not that racism does not exist, but it's too easy of an explanation for your misfortunes; It's too easy to blame something you cannot change and call it a day. Real life is a lot more complex than that, and it's best to look for resolvable problems and fix them, increasing your chance of success, than to blame someone else.

<comment><USER34> Good points. Just a reminder though - i am sure you know this - that "China man" is a derogatory term for Chinese and has a racist tone to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's funny to see more of these articles about China where westerners get their panties in a bunch when they find themselves in a similar situation most other people have been in with respect to the west. I should write a similar article about my American/European dream. I hope the Chinese are able to take criticism better than the west. Westerners can't get over their superiority complex.

<comment><USER36> >>I hope the Chinese are able to take criticism better than the west. Westerners can't get over their superiority complex.<<

Actually, most Chinese people I've met, especially those who were born and raised in mainland China, have a massive superiority complex. In every type of discussion comparing the West to China, they keep bringing it up the fact that China has thousands of years of history, and has invented things like gunpowder. Most of them view the West - especially America - <USER2> condescension and contempt.

<comment><USER37> Russian people of Soviet era had the same complex.

We were taught that we have best science, culture, sport, military and most progressive state. Also we were strong but good, not as "prokliatye imperialisty" ("cursed imperialists")

It evaporated in '90s, but not completely - I often hear "we were ...."

Jerome K. Jerome wrote about the same complex in British people. If I recall correctly that must be in "Diary of a Pilgrimage"

<comment><USER22> I hear that Russia still has the best mathematicians. Culturally Russia was at the forefront of music/opera - just see the famous violinist of the 20th centuary. I read though in Nathan Milstein's biography that he fled the Stalin regime which stifled art in Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What does it mean to be Chinese?

Technically, there is no Chinese ethnicity. China is made up of (officially) 56 ethnicities. My parents are ethnically Han Chinese. I was born in Canada, raised in America. I carry an American passport. To my neighbors, I'm a 华侨 (overseas Chinese); one taxi driver told me that I would be Chinese forever because it's in my blood. So what am I? Moving from the questions of ethnicity, is it possible for a foreigner to immigrate to China and become a Chinese citizen? I suspect the answer is 'no' but I have heard (perhaps from the internet) that one _can_ become a citizen at the invitation of the Chinese government. It seems, being Chinese has more to do with ethnicity AND culture than anything else.

While some may deride China for being parochial/uncosmopolitan for this, many countries share this same trait: the majority ethnicity defines citizenship and acceptance. The United States isn't immune from this. Even though I grew up an American (and still consider myself American) I have experienced personal bias and prejudice because of my ethnicity. I got comments from kids about me going to Buddhist church (I'm not Buddhist), using karate in a fight (I don't know any form of martial arts), using chopsticks (this is true), or speaking "Ching chong, ching chong" (I am not familiar with this language). High school was hard. Not that it wasn't for any of my white friends who shared the same weight/height/car/popularity class as me, but none of them were ever told to "Go home."

The big "but" here is that I live/lived in the United States. And though there is a history of disenfranchisement as well as evidence of racial bias today, I am more hopeful that _you_ (whoever you are) /can/ become American... not by becoming 'white', but by participating in a society that has the opportunity to change itself as well as the opportunity to change you.

It's not clear to me that this is possible in China (i.e. social change to embrace differing ethnicities). The average Chinese (pick any of the Chinese ethnicities) person has very strong feelings about one's identity as it relates to race and language (e.g. some people couldn't believe I was Chinese and couldn't speak Mandarin when I first got to China). In my first trip to China, I made a friend who relayed me this interesting anecdote (this was the late 90's): he (an American) was on a college campus and he engaged in a discussion about race relations in America with a Chinese student. The Chinese student told him: "There is no racism in China because there aren't any black people." While the ethnic tensions aren't _as_ visible here, simply ask a Han person how they feel about Uyghers.

<comment><USER38> To be Chinese is to be 'jing' - to put it negatively, it means to be calculating, materialistic and ruthlessly advancing one's agenda; to put it positively, it means that you are constantly trying to improve yourself and be resourceful.

As 1.5 generation American-Chinese, I used to hate Chinese culture for its 'jing'-ness and rebelled it by going to a liberal arts college and reading Jack Kerouac, subscribing to the hippie culture etc. What I realized is that American culture, beneath its veil of "creativity" and "open society" is nothing but a cover for human selfishness universal in every society.

Most of my friends from college gone to Teach for America or PeaceCorps have done it for social currency - as much as my Chinese friends have gunned for Goldman Sachs/Microsoft for Chinese social currency. Of course, predictably, five years ago, these TfA and PeaceCorps grads are now enrolled dutifully in medical school or law school. European colonialism's "holier-than-thou" attitude is now baked subtly in that you may have the technical/economical prowess, but you yet don't have the renaissance quality. It's just as bad as the Chinese mindset of being judgmental by asking what school you went to and how much money you make.

Personally I've embraced the 'Chinese jing'. I don't think I'm better than any Chinese mainlander, I'm a shameless Chinese guy who's trying to make the biggest buck, get the hottest chick in the club, get the most prestige/respect in my field, destroy my enemies and don't give a f __k about who gets hurt in my path. My only one redeeming quality is honesty (to myself) - which is why Westerners will never be Chinese.

<comment><USER22> I don't understand the last sentence - honesty to self seems to be more an individual virtue as opposed to a cultural virtue.

<comment><USER38> Yes, China is now more individualistic than America because people are forced to be.

On the superficial level, Chinese may seem to be socially conservative and study math/science to the wishes of parents, etc. But on a deeper level, modern Chinese are extremely selfish, there was a little girl who was hit in a hit-and-run in a major city in central China during mid-day and no one helped her for hours while she laid there dying. This is quite morbid to Westerner values, but the Chinese rationale is "if I help her, the person who hit her has already run away; she might pin me for the hit-and-run because she needs to sue someone for her damage."

Individualism here implies self-protection and ruthless advancement of personal agenda for money and power; it's quite different from the American ideal of individualism of finding and pursuing one's passion and vision. However, my point is that both the Chinese and Americans ideals, are actually the same thing in different dressings, it's just Chinese are more honest about it because of economical scarcities.

<comment><USER22> This is really interesting, the case of the girl you described certainly isn't new phenomenon. I lived with my parents in China up until 1993, and back then this was also a common situation, someone would be dying on the street but for hours nobody will help. I distinctly remember arriving in Australia to find people will help out strangers on the street that are in trouble, it was very different to how things are in China.

I'm not sure how far this phenomenon goes back, but the idea behind the thinking is that helping might bring great trouble upon yourself - <USER3> superstition and part selfishness. I remember when was around 5 and I saw this other kid who was starving, I had pity on him and wanted to give him some food, but I remember my mother stopping me. There are also many 'pianzi' in China - they trick/lie to you in order to gain something, and people are very weary of this. This is why family/relationships are so much closer in China - people are only willing to help those they know.

I've heard that young people(particularly girls) in China are today more obsessed with money, so there very well may be truth to what you say about people being selfish.

>China is now more individualistic than America because people are forced to be.

I agree with this - competition is so high today compared to when my parents were growing up. The pressure back then was low as opportunities under the communist regime simply didn't exist - only those with great ambition would work hard. Most student/workers played around all day at that time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Blogspam. OP is [http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto- youll-...](http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto-youll-never- be-chinese-leaving-china/)

</comment><comment><USER40> Hearing about the property bubble and political system in China is a bit like hearing a Greek tell you about how politics and business worked in Greece, pre-economic meltdown.

</comment><comment><USER41> The author seems to be stuck in a country which is rising after coming from a country which had already risen. The path to success is no cake walk, its tiring and it causes fatigue.

As as Indian this article to me on many counts also looks like the story of India. The west will find it difficult to digest but the desperation to grow forces a person to go out of his way to do and achieve things people in the west in all the comfort cannot imagine in wildest of their dreams.

>>Modern day mainland Chinese society is focused on one object: money and the acquisition thereof.

What other dreams do you think poor people have?

>>The domestic Chinese lower education system does not educate. It is a test center. The curriculum is designed to teach children how to pass them.

The issue in Asian countries which are developing is most have only one shot at doing something in life. Study your ass off or perish, there is no social security- Your parents work hard to give you a decent education and you work hard in a once in a life time opportunity to do something in life. There is no other alternative, you don't have money to do business. The national infrastructures, license problems, corruption and other stuff won't give you a second shot at business.

There fore unlike in the west where 'chase your dreams' makes sense, here it doesn't.

>>Success in exams offers a passport to a better life in the big city. Schools do not produce well-rounded, sociable, self-reliant young people with inquiring minds. They produce winners and losers. Winners go on to college or university to take "business studies." Losers go back to the farm or the local factory their parents were hoping they could escape.

As I said before, opportunities are at a premium here. This is difficult to understand if you come from US and settle down here. You will just never get why there is such a mad rush for opportunities.

>>The pressure makes children sick. I speak from personal experience. To score under 95 per cent is considered failure. Bad performance is punished. Homework, which consists mostly of practice test papers, takes up at least one day of every weekend. Many children go to school to do it in the classroom. I have seen them trooping in at 6am on Sundays. In the holidays they attend special schools for extra tuition, and must do their own school's homework for at least a couple of hours every day to complete it before term starts again. Many of my local friends abhor the system as much as I do, but they have no choice. I do. I am lucky.

Whoa this is nothing. In India while I did by second year of pre university college, I practically slept only for 3 hours a day for the whole year. Before going to the exam I cried. Because my whole years worth of hard work depended on this one exam! During my engineering college days, I've spend endless nights studying without sleeping. Same with school.

As a software engineer I've gone a whole week without sleep. And that was perfectly acceptable. My dad used to tell me, to consider myself lucky to even deserve the opportunity to go and work at a software company. Hence _anything_ was acceptable.

>>An option is to move back to a major Chinese city and send our children to an expensive international school—none of which offer boarding—but I would be worried about pollution, and have to get a proper job, most likely something to do with foreign business to China, which my conscience would find hard.

Good schooling is shit expensive. Hence parents almost always send their kids to a local mediocre school. But warn them sternly to study very hard or they will have no future.

>>China does not nurture and educate its youth in a way that will allow them to become the leaders, inventors and innovators of tomorrow, but that is the intention.

Thats for the next generation. The first generation, like my Dad's. They had only one goal- 'First get your kids somewhere, let them take it from there on.'

The author is clearly stuck in a massive cultural conflict in his brain. He wants China to remain where it was, a mediocre country compared to his original homeland. He doesn't understand the cultural pressures of families in developing nations. He doesn't understand those countries are trying to go to where, his homeland is now. He clearly belongs to his native culture, where bulk of the growth work is already done, and people are just building on top of it. Where you can get to enjoy foreign vacations, passion based work environments, freedom to not worry about basic stuff like food, clothing and shelter.

<comment><USER19> >>The author is clearly stuck in a massive cultural conflict in his brain. He wants China to remain where it was, a mediocre country compared to his original homeland. He doesn't understand the cultural pressures of families in developing nations. He doesn't understand those countries are trying to go to where, his homeland is now. He clearly belongs to his native culture, where bulk of the growth work is already done, and people are just building on top of it. Where you can get to enjoy foreign vacations, passion based work environments, freedom to not worry about basic stuff like food, clothing and shelter.

What quote do you base this off of? This is your conjecture based upon a mostly negative article about China. I live in China so I can concur with most of the author's experiences if not his opinions. What I got from the author's article was this:

I loved living in China. There is an inequity in China regarding money and power. I wish the Chinese people something better.

Is it a cultural conflict to want justice and then to be frustrated when the legal system swings the other way without explanation? Your conclusion that the author wants China to remain where it is show a lack of comprehension for both the content of the article as well as the pathos meant to be evoked.

Here is what he wrote in his conclusion:

>>There are tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of mainland Chinese who "follow" such people too, and there must be countless more like them in person, trying in their small way to make China a better place. One day they will prevail. That'll be a good time to become Chinese. It might even be possible.

These aren't the words of a man, though embittered, that wants to see China remain where it was. These aren't the musings of one that hasn't spent time in the culture and has no understanding of it (though his understanding, as is yours is colored by your own personal background). These are hopes of a man that wants to see China move forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Schools do not produce well-rounded, sociable, self-reliant young people > with inquiring minds. They produce winners and losers. Winners go on to > college or university to take "business studies."

Scarily reminiscent of education in the U.S.

</comment><comment><USER43> Just remember, this too shall pass.

You can't be Chinese right now, but that doesn't mean you'll never be Chinese.

Governments do fall and rise at the drop of a hat in China. People know that right?

<comment><USER44> Being Chinese in China has almost nothing to do with the government. It's a cultural belief that's persisted for centuries. Don't expect that to change at "at the drop of a hat".

It's not a particularly unusual belief, really. All cultures have an in- group/out-group division. OP is just missing traits this specific test requires.

<comment><USER43> A century is not a very long time in Chinese history. In fact, yes, for the Chinese, a century may very well be a "drop of a hat".

Never underestimate the possibilities of change in China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> As lionhearted said, a mix of good points and bitterness, but 甜 and 酸 always go well together, don't they?

I think the most poignant section was this:

>A deal had been struck. Deng had promised the Chinese people material wealth they hadn't known for centuries on the condition that they never again asked for political change. The Party said: "Trust us and everything will be all right." >Twenty years later, everything is not all right.

But I would disagree with the overarching theme that the problem of an ascendant China / China in general / etc. is that China is too inward-looking, that "You'll never be Chinese." I know you'll never be Japanese, but I think China and its people and culture are quite different; I didn't spend as much time living in China or studying Chinese as the author, but in that time and in my experiences I think there is a lot more interest and openness of people (and many elites) than is given credit.

Unfortunately, there are huge structural and institutional barriers too...

</comment><comment><USER46> While the article may have good points, I was once told not to burn any bridges when leaving. It is an illusion that you can change things while giving up the fight. Unless you leaving is an illusion for some other agenda.

<comment><USER47> Depends what you are leaving, sometimes it is good to make sure that going back whatever it is not an option. Having lived there for that long there will be times in the future where he will feel nostalgic need to go back, perhaps try again.. at which point he will look at this piece and know that he will never be able to run business or work in China again a good thing in this case

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Talking about ideology education for children in this country, it's just like in some far-far-away, every newly born has to be fucked by the king; growing up, they know they are fucked, some are addicted to get fucked, some manage to be fuckers, most just know and accept what has been done and move on with more/other important things in their life. it's just life, no matter you born, just get fucked and move on.

</comment><comment><USER49> "blowing your nose in a handkerchief is disgusting."

I am curious, where in the world is that acceptable (especially during lunch) and where disgusting..

<comment><USER50> Blowing your nose in public is disgusting to me personally. I dont care if you use a napkin or hankerchief whatever. I am amazed to see people blowing their nose in public without any embarassment.

<comment><USER51> That's a curious world view. People should be embarrassed by things you personally find disgusting, even if they're within accepted social norms? And you are amazed that people do things are socially acceptable? Pardon me if I say that I find that a bit self-centered.

I'm not sure where you live, but at least in the US, it's acceptable to discreetly blow your nose in many public situations (the dining table not being one of those).

For full disclosure, I should mention that my nose runs a bit more than most. ;)

<comment><USER50> "I find that a bit self-centered."

I get that a lot so you are probably right :). I agree that in the US, it is an accepted social norm (I live in the US too) but I was just stating my personal opinion on the matter.

As for your own nose,blow away :). I promise to behave if I am around you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The article isn't loading. Google cache doesn't seem to work either.

</comment><comment><USER53> I loved this bit: "Leadership requires empathy, an ability to put yourself in your subordinate's shoes"

</comment><comment><USER54> are you sure this isn't an Orwell excerpt?

</comment><comment><USER55> " The Party does not want free thinkers who can solve its problems. It still believes it can solve them itself, if it ever admits it has a problem in the first place."

This is not only damaging to society in China, but to the rest of the world as well. So much potential to do good, squandered because of fear of revolution.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do people still use MySQL over MariaDB? - <AUTHOR> As far as I've come to understand it, MariaDB is a fork of MySQL from the original author, is better maintained, and faster. To take it even further, it practically works as a drop-in replacement of MySQL. Why do developers continue to start new projects using MySQL, and why aren't they busy migrating existing projects to Maria?<p>Is there a drawback to Maria that I'm not aware of? <comment><USER3> The drawback to MariaDB is that it is an unknown. If someone has experienced success with MySQL, then they know they can succeed in the future with MySQL. It's one less thing to worry about.

To consider trying something new, they would need to expect a big improvement. That's not really what MariaDB promises.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think it also comes down to the fact that many hosting providers (including cloud providers like AWS) offer up MySQL-imaged machines, with back-up and other processes around that.

So, on the dev front, I'm going to be inclined to stick with MySQL on my local dev machine, knowing that I'm also deploying to MySQL in production. Even if MariaDB is designed as a drop-in replacement, there can be differences between the two that impact how code runs. This is especially true when one (MariaDB) is updated more frequently.

I'm sure I can roll my own MariaDB server on an EC2 machine vs going with RDS, then also migrate my dev machine to MariaDB as well. But, I've just not seen a compelling reason to undertake that effort as of yet.

</comment><comment><USER5> Umm... MariaDB is slower? [http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/archives/2013/02/mysql- performa...](http://dimitrik.free.fr/blog/archives/2013/02/mysql-performance- mysql-56-vs-mysql-55-vs-mariadb-55.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> People don't know any better.

Even today I have people asking me 'how to install OpenOffice on Fedora'. They complain how the yum commands they found on a 5 year old guide do not work anymore. Then they go and search for an OpenOffice RPM, which they do find, and then complain how bad Linux system is.

Granted that office suites are generally end-user whereas databases are developers, I can't see my college's system admin installing MariaDB the same way I can't see my college teaching MongoDB.

</comment><comment><USER7> From what I can tell it just takes sometime for awareness and adoption to occur. This is especially the case for people coming from the long trusted MySQL. Basically it's not so much that there is something wrong with Maria, just attachment to the firmiliar.

Just my 2¢

</comment><comment><USER8> Hmm on my development machine MySQL is already there, when Maria DB becomes an option I'll switch. Probably same with my Hosting.

If they are technically the same, the cost for me currently is the same ($0), and the experience is the same, there is not immediate justification. Now when Maria adds some nifty new feature (schema-less data storage, intelligent joined results, or some other cool, thing that takes the bite out of massive SQL queries) then it becomes compelling because it isn't same-old/same-old.

I'm sure the same goes for a lot of others; additionally I am comforted that Maria exists and is being developed, and if my situation changes that will be the direction I go.

</comment><comment><USER9> Familiarity, and the fact that it isn't packaged for all distributions. (For example Debian have no packages.)

Sure it is probably "better", but running Debian's stable release the only updates I wish to apply are security fixes from the security team.

</comment><comment><USER10> I tried MariaDB a couple years ago, started having some terrible problems where the server would hang and require a restart after which I had corruption. MySQL 5.5 has been rock solid.

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems like the Wikimedia article has turned more people on to MariaDB - <USER2> what about Percona? I'm ignorant about the differences. Does anyone have a good 3-way comparison?

</comment><comment><USER12> many distributions are switching to mariadb by default in the current or next versions. Fedora, Arch, and OpenSUSE for example.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's for the same reason they use MySQL instead of Postgres.

Hey, as Scott Adams would say, "at least there's a reason"! <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2000-02-13/></comment>