This seems odd. My experience visiting India was of software parks that are 24h operations. Perhaps this was in the Mumbai sticks. The 50 phone lines and people coming to work in a bungalow not being a giveaway, perhaps something alongside the breakfast order was.
Deng Xiaoping was not the successor to Mao. That was Hua Guofeng. An interim leader, but an important interim stopgap.
I have no idea who N S Lyons is other than a substack author. There are many other small factual errors and romanticisms of writing in the piece, as well as avenues left unexplored not least if Confucianism is but an excuse for authoritarianism as it has been used by past dynasties who've tended to flip from Confucianism to Taoism, and sometimes other, to justify themselves.
But that shouldn't shadow the subject at hand, which is casting some light on the limelight avoiding figure of Wang.
The advantage a first mover has is early access to innovation. With earlier customers and a slightly more mature product they're a step ahead. So, knowing this, can you leap frog it by second guessing what the customer/market really wants in a way that wins for you?
My personal solution is to boycot companies that do this, and should they come up in conversation mention they arbitrarily block legitimate users from their services
I was disappointed that the author hadn't done a literature review, even a basic one. Perhaps they're an expert and didn't see the need, but they didn't cite anything or provide any further reading.
And it's not like this subject isn't researched.
There's so much [1] [2] that a literature review might be a really good place to start.
Surely it is not just anyone that a link is shared with, but anyone with the link?
It's link-bearer open access to a partial document (an entire page) an author marks as not having partial access. Circumvention of Google's authentication procedure.
Is that understanding correct?
If so, Google's seemingly OK with users believing something's secure, that isn't. And that could cause information leakage by Google's design that could lead to fraud and/or other crime.
One of the lemmas from this and simulation theory [1] is that we're not in a simulation run by a super computer, though it might be for us, but we're in a memory leak that's been left unchecked, an Excel-167 business application, or a hacked train toilet door lock [2] of the future.