3 ms·

Why is this news? The Netherlands with ~ 20 million people donated over 100 million in 1 donation this week. That's more than 100 x more in absolute numbers a

Why is this news? The Netherlands with ~ 20 million people donated over 100 million in 1 donation this week. That's more than 100 x more in absolute numbers and china has over 1 billion people. Anyone wants to compare relative difference per capita? Since this is not even newsworthy in absolute numbers. Probably it's a record low in relative numbers.

ChemSpider 5y ago
Yes, why would this "news" be upvoted. That amount is so low, it is actually insulting. China has the means to end this war on short notice but it choose not to.
btheshoe 5y ago
It's geopolitically interesting that China, a Russian ally, is choosing to donate to a Ukrainian cause. It sends a subtle message of china's stance on the war.
dgellow 5y ago
> Why is this news? It’s something that happened and might interest some people. That makes it news and someone found it interesting enough to share on HN. News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”. In this case it’s interesting to know actions taken by China in the context of Ukraine invasion by Russia. Even if it isn’t that meaningful, it’s still a message.
- krapp 5y ago
  >News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”. Yes, they do. Any news story that would be covered by the mainstream media needs to present evidence of a new or interesting phenomenon that satisfies intellectual curiosity. Do most stories about Ukraine, Russia, China or the war satisfy intellectual curiosity, or emotional needs? Do they generate intellectually stimulating conversation, or just act as a medium for the same tedious political tribalism that most political subjects tend to generate? The bar has to be higher than "x happened" or else we'll get flooded with pedestrian nonsense, which we are every time a major mainstream topic takes over and the existing moderation safeguards fail.
  - dgellow 5y ago
    Current safeguards seem to work quite well, even for what you call pedestrian nonsense.
blagie 5y ago
It's a symbolic gesture which sends a geopolitical message. Now, we all get to speculate about the message. Most of the speculation here is wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of a humanitarian mission and if you read Russian media, Russia is distributing food and aid in Ukraine. Everywhere, but especially Russia and China, a lot of effort goes into keeping up appearances. I think the key question is how will this be reported by China. It could be pro-Russia (China is helping Russia free Ukraine), neutral (China is providing humanitarian aid in the middle of a conflict), pro-US (China is helping Ukraine against Russia), or just about anything else. I'm keeping my eye on People's Online Daily. Articles like this one: http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html (Supporting EU efforts in Ukraine) Or this one: http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html (Speculating US bioweapons research in Ukraine)

ChemSpider 5y ago

Yes, why would this "news" be upvoted. That amount is so low, it is actually insulting. China has the means to end this war on short notice but it choose not to.

btheshoe 5y ago

It's geopolitically interesting that China, a Russian ally, is choosing to donate to a Ukrainian cause. It sends a subtle message of china's stance on the war.

dgellow 5y ago

> Why is this news? It’s something that happened and might interest some people. That makes it news and someone found it interesting enough to share on HN. News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”. In this case it’s interesting to know actions taken by China in the context of Ukraine invasion by Russia. Even if it isn’t that meaningful, it’s still a message.

krapp 5y ago
>News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”. Yes, they do. Any news story that would be covered by the mainstream media needs to present evidence of a new or interesting phenomenon that satisfies intellectual curiosity. Do most stories about Ukraine, Russia, China or the war satisfy intellectual curiosity, or emotional needs? Do they generate intellectually stimulating conversation, or just act as a medium for the same tedious political tribalism that most political subjects tend to generate? The bar has to be higher than "x happened" or else we'll get flooded with pedestrian nonsense, which we are every time a major mainstream topic takes over and the existing moderation safeguards fail.
- dgellow 5y ago
  Current safeguards seem to work quite well, even for what you call pedestrian nonsense.

blagie 5y ago

It's a symbolic gesture which sends a geopolitical message. Now, we all get to speculate about the message. Most of the speculation here is wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of a humanitarian mission and if you read Russian media, Russia is distributing food and aid in Ukraine. Everywhere, but especially Russia and China, a lot of effort goes into keeping up appearances. I think the key question is how will this be reported by China. It could be pro-Russia (China is helping Russia free Ukraine), neutral (China is providing humanitarian aid in the middle of a conflict), pro-US (China is helping Ukraine against Russia), or just about anything else. I'm keeping my eye on People's Online Daily. Articles like this one: http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html (Supporting EU efforts in Ukraine) Or this one: http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html (Speculating US bioweapons research in Ukraine)