關於 why did the cold war end ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

เรียกได้ว่าโกงกันตั้งแต่ในช่วงทดสอบเลยทีเดียว สำหรับ Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
.
ตัวเกมเข้าสู่ช่วง Open Beta ทุกคนและทุกเครื่องสามารถเข้าไปเล่นได้แบบฟรี ๆ เมื่อช่วงสุดสัปดาห์ที่ผ่านมา แต่ปัญหาคือเหล่าแฮคเกอร์และคนโกงก็จัดเต็มกันตั้งแต่ช่วงทดสอบนี้เลย จนทำให้ผู้เล่นชาวคอนโซลหลายคน ต้องเลือกที่จะปิดโหมด Crossplay เพื่อหนีเหล่าคนโกงนี้
.
ผู้ใช้งาน Reddit madzuk ได้โพสท์วิดีโอการเล่นเกมที่แสดงให้เห็นชัด ๆ ว่าผู้เล่นใช้ Aimbot ในการยิงเก็บ Headshot ถึง 3 คนติดภายในระยะเวลาสั้น ๆ
.
ช่วงท้ายวิดีโอ ผู้เล่นคนนี้ก็ได้ทำการรีพอร์ตผู้เล่นไป แต่จะได้ผลมากน้อยแค่ไหนก็ไม่อาจทราบได้ และผู้ใช้งาน Reddit บางส่วน ก็ออกมาบอกว่าพวกเขาเลือกที่จะปิดระบบ Crossplay
.
"ฉันต้องรอหาห้องเล่นนานขึ้นหน่อย หลังจากปิดระบบนี้ แต่อย่างน้อยฉันก็ไม่ต้องเจอพวกแฮคเกอร์"
"สิ่งแรกที่ฉันทำเมื่อวานคือการปิดระบบ Crossplay และนี่ วิดีโอเหล่านี้คือเหตุผลที่ฉันปิดระบบนี้"
- เหล่าผู้ใช้งาน Reddit
.
สถานการณ์นี้ไม่ได้แตกต่างไปจากช่วงแรกของการเปิดตัวภาค Modern Warfare และโหมด Warzone ที่เต็มไปด้วยการโกงตั้งแต่เปิดตัว ย้อนไปในเดือนเมษายนก็เคยมีรายงานว่าผู้เล่นบนคอนโซลเลือกปิดระบบนี้เพื่อหนีแฮคเกอร์ในโหมด Warzone เช่นกัน
.
งานนี้ต้องรอดูกันว่าทาง Activision จะจัดการปัญหานี้อย่างไร ถ้าทดสอบยังขนาดนี้ เกมเต็มจะขนาดไหน ก็ได้แต่เป็นกำลังใจให้เหล่าผู้พัฒนาจัดการปัญหานี้ให้ได้มากที่สุด
.
ที่มา : https://www.eurogamer.net/…/2020-10-17-call-of-duty-black-o…
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War War
.
All Open Beta players and every device can play for free last weekend. But the problem is, hackers and cheaters are going to be full from this test. This is so that many console players have to choose. To turn off Crossplay mode to escape these cheaters
.
Reddit madzuk user posted a video gameplay that clearly shows Aimbot to shoot 3 headshot in a short period of time.
.
The video end of the video. This player has been portrayed. But no matter how effective it is. And some Reddit users say they choose to disable Crossplay.
.
′′ I have to wait a little longer after this shutdown, but at least I don't have to find hackers
′′ The first thing I did yesterday was to shut down Crossplay and this video is why I shut down this system
- The Reddit Users
.
This situation is no different than the first phase of the Modern Warfare section launch and Warzone-filled, cheating Warzone mode since launching back in April. Players on this console choose to shutdown this system to escape the hackers in Warzone mode too.
.
This job has to wait and see how Activision will manage this problem. If it's still a test, the full game will be no matter how much it is. But it's encouraging the developers to manage this problem.
.
Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-10-17-call-of-duty-black-ops-cold-war-console-players-are-turning-off-crossplay-to-escape-pc-cheaters-in-the-betaTranslated

Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?｜Lee Yee

In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?

For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.

To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.

Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?

Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.

According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.

And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.

In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.

From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.

Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.

To Smash a Cracked Pot ｜Lee Yee

The national security honeymoon, the calm before the storm, is over. The sword of Damocles above our heads comes swinging down.

Against the professional recommendations of the Board of Education, the University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) governing council went with the majority’s decision and fired Benny Tai Yiu-ting, associate professor of the Faculty of Law. Certainly, no one would challenge Benny Tai’s comment that the decision to terminate his appointment was made by “an authority beyond the university through its agents”.

Three males and one female, aged between 16 and 21, were arrested on suspicion of “secession” in violation of the national security law. There was no action, only online speeches. Perhaps the few words by these teenagers are powerful enough to split a country of 1.4 billion people?

I had been pondering whether the Communists and their bootlickers would adopt the disqualification tactic or the postponement tactic in the upcoming Legislative Council election. The answer has been revealed that mass disqualifications would come first, and then a postponement may follow. Some said that the Communists are “braver” than I had predicted; but to borrow a young person’s words, which I find to be more suitable: rationality limits my imagination.

The three-part strike happened within a period of two days, putting an end to the honeymoon where the CCP had once sought dialogue, probed, soothed, and observed the global siege led by the United States. Now the CCP is addressing the US sanctions head-on while flexing its muscles by targeting Hongkongers.

This also illustrates that the attempt by the pan-democrats to navigate within the cavity of the national security law, to try to compromise on the confirmation letter to see a way out through election was an utter, complete failure. They could have followed my suggestion from a month ago, to run in the election with proud and loud opposition against the national security law, to welcome being disqualified and show the civilized world “what the CCP is plotting against Hong Kong”. That would have been more courageous. Yet some pushed their luck, and now they face the same fate of being disqualified.

CCP’s honeymoon period following the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong was based on the assumption, by the CCP as well as other overseas observers, that Trump’s tough policy toward China was for his election campaign. Since the current projection of the election seems unfavorable to Trump, that there is hope for the Democrats to take over, and the US might change its policy toward China.

When the United States ordered the closure of the Chinese Consulate in Houston, and when the four top officials, especially Pompeo’s declaration of resistance to China, made it clear that the US ultra-cold war strategy towards China is unlikely to be reversible.

Stephen Young, a senior diplomat who had stationed in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei, said that demanding other countries to close their consulates is a very drastic strategy. In the past, if a foreign diplomatic agency had a blunder, actions would usually have been taken against a person. The closures of the consulates suggest that the relationship is close to a break-up.

On July 25, the New York Times published the words of Ryan Hass, the President of the US National Security Council in the Obama era, that said, “They want to reorient the U.S.-China relationship toward an all-encompassing systemic rivalry that cannot be reversed by the outcome of the upcoming U.S. election. They believe this reorientation is needed to put the United States on a competitive footing against its 21st-century geostrategic rival.”

The two bills on Hong Kong, and the one on Xinjiang Uyghurs, were all passed almost unanimously in the US Senate and the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House and Democrat, Pelosi, was particularly enthusiastic; left-wing media such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, though have been critical of Trump, have both affirmed and even encouraged Trump’s anti-China policy.

This has been a 180 from Trump’s previous declaration of “America First” when he did not hesitate to offend the United Kingdom, the European Union, and even Asia-Pacific countries. Pompeo has recently been chummy with Europe and the Asia-Pacific to ally up, and emphasized in his anti-CCP declaration the need for the free world to act together. In fact, Trump’s unilateralism has pivoted, and the allies have returned to their positions one after another, and a global siege towards China has gradually been formed.

Has China been in touch with the US Democratic Party in private to probe whether its China policy will change if it wins the general election? There is no way of knowing. Even if so, the answer is apparent.

The US policy toward China leaves no room for maneuver, and the power-hungry CCP must now hold tight onto the hastily enacted national security law till the end. The longer they hold out, who knows how many more Hong Kong officials or pro-Beijing people would be affected along the lines of Bernard Chan and his sanctioned foreign bank.

What the CCP and its Hong Kong bootlickers are doing could be described with the Chinese idiom “to smash a cracked pot”. The pot is already cracked, then just smash it. It means that there are blemishes, and mistakes that cannot be corrected or will not be correct, then why not send the helve after the hatchet.

Lu Xun said, “When the brave is angered, he draws the sword towards the stronger; when the coward is angered, he draws the sword towards the weaker.” Disqualifications coupled with the postponement, is it “braver”? Or rather, “the coward is angered”.