The ping heard round the world

The close and frequent relationship between China and United States that we see nowadays is a rather recent phenomenon starting in the 1970s. China never receive much attention from the US public, hidden for centuries. It is understandable, however, since China and the United States are both huge nations, separate by the pacific ocean, and on two opposite sides of Earth, China on Eurasia, and the US on Americas.

When US get to finally know about China, it was the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, when China was a colony of many different European nations, each of which has a sphere of influence in different area of China, and it happened because America want open access to China as a market for its commercial exports, as expressed in its "open door policy", and because America send troops to participate in the eight-nation alliance to quell the boxer rebellion near Beijing.

As you can see, the relationship between China and America didn't get of to a good start. However, it did not get any better since then. America was known for its isolationist policies, which went to full effect in the early 20th century, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. It is a miracle that US president Woodrow Wilson manage to get the US to participate in the first world war. But, once the war ended, the US, with its government and population, turn back on its own issues and improvements. The only contacts the US have with foreign nations are commercial transactions and business issues on the individual level. Other than that, the few times America become did get involved with foreign nations, are mainly focused on nations within the Americas, notably Latin America.

In the 1920s, a surge of red scare stimulate a new sense of nativism within US and the US public become fearful of immigrants. This lead to immigration regulations that cut back on allowed immigrants, which further alienated US with the rest of the world. The 1930s saw the worst economic crisis ever happened to US, the great depression. This means US have even less willingness and capability to interact with any foreign nations, not just China.

World War 2 saw a resurgence of the US's willingness to get involved with international issues. It also saw a new connection between US and China, as allies fighting together against Japan. But this connection was short lived, as China soon becomes a communist nation after the success of Mao in the Chinese Civil War. Viewing the communists as one group, the US government and public view China simply as a puppet belonging to the head of the communist bloc, the Soviet Union, and regard the Chinese as revolutionary radicals. On the other hand, considering that the only past interests America had in China are mostly business related, it is not hard to see why the Chinese believe the Americans are capitalist pigs. This further alienates the two nations and inspire hostility between them, and for the 2 decades up to 1970, US didn't communicate with China and no Americans have never set foot in China,

With these context in mind, it is not difficult to see why when the Chinese government invite the US table tennis team, who are participating in the 1971 championships in Japan, to visit China, it is called "the ping heard round the world". And what is so amazing about it is how it all begins on an individual level.

Zhuang Zedong, and his teammates in the Chinese national table tennis team were told to avoid any contact with the Americans as they arrived in Japan. However, when US player Glenn Cowan, a self-described hippie, hopped on the Chinese team's bus after missing his own, Zhuang personally stepped forward to greet Cowan and presented the teenager with a gift: a silk-screen picture of China's Huangshan mountains. Cowan returned the gesture the following day by giving Zhuang t-shirt emblazoned with a peace symbol and the Beatles' lyric "Let it Be". The incident was caught on film by Photographers, and when the news was released in Chinese newspapers, Mao Zedong took it as a political opportunity to open a dialogue with the US, something both side had wanted to do, but was never able to do so.

Chairman Mao believed ties with the Americans might serve as a deterrent against the Russians, whose relationship with China had soured, following Nikita Khrushchev's de-Stalinization and the Sino-Soviet Split, and produced a series of bloody border clashes. On the other hand, US president Richard Nixon had made opening China a top priority of his administration. And this incident help act as the spark that begin this process of connecting the US with China.

Soon after, as the US team was preparing to leave Nagoya, Mao shocked the world by inviting them to make an all-expense paid visit to China. Even President Nixon was surprised, as he wrote in his memoirs, that he "had never expected that the China initiative would come to fruition in the form of a ping-pong team."

The 15 members of the diverse American table tennis team, including the hippie Glenn Cowan, a college professor, a Guyanese immigrant, and a pair of high school-age girls, none of them were particularly accomplished at ping-pong, considering their team was ranked 24th in the world, suddenly become the most important American diplomats on the planet as their historic visit began on April 10, 1971.

The US team spent 10-days traveling through Guangzhou, Beijing and Shanghai. Treated like visiting dignitaries and lavished with banquets and meals, the team get to see and enjoy the culture and landscape of China, including the summer palace and a revolution-themed opera, and they also get to participate in a series of exhibition ping-pong matches held under the slogan "Friendship First and Competition Second". Culminating in a meeting with Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing's Great hall of the People, the trip was regarded by Chinese competitor Zheng Minzhi as "important" in achieving "what cannot be achieved through proper diplomatic channels".

By the time the American table tennis team left China on April 17, the effect of the "ping heard round the world" was already bearing diplomatic fruit. President Nixon had announced that the US was easing its travel bans and trade embargoes against China and the US and Chinese governments soon opened new back channel communications with one another. By February 1972, a pivotal moment came when Richard Nixon personally visited the People's Republic, marking the first time in history that an American president had traveled to the Chinese mainland.

In subsequent years, Nixon noted that the Chinese leaders "seemed to enjoy the method used to achieve the result almost as much as the result itself." And he was not wrong, according to a quote from Mao himself: "The little ball," he said, "moves the Big Ball" -- the ball of progress.

Bibliography
https://www.history.com/news/ping-pong-diplomacy
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ping-pong-diplomacy-60307544/
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-25836922/how-ping-pong-diplomacy-brought-nixon-to-china
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Cowan

Barbary Pirates and the Ottoman Slave trade

In one of the most ironic twist, while Europeans were enslaving Africans, they are being enslaved by Africans as well. More accurately, European Christians were enslaved by Muslims of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery is a legal and significant part of Ottoman society and economy, and its presence already existed in the 14th century way before the Atlantic Slave trade, which started in the 16th century.

Barbary pirates were pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa, especially in the ports of Sale, Rabat, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripolis, all of which belongs to the Ottoman Empire but were extremely independent. The pirates ambush European ships and conduct raids on European towns, mainly in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, but also in the British Isles, the Netherlands, and as far as Iceland. The main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Muslim slavery market in North African and the Middle East.

In one of the most notable instance, Murat Reis, with corsairs from Algiers and armed troops of the Ottoman Empire, captured almost all the villagers of the little harbor village of Baltimore, Ireland, and took them away to a life of slavery in North Africa.

For the captives, they serve many different purpose. Some of them became galley slaves who row the ships' oars for their entire life, never to set foot on land again. The women spent long years as concubines in harems or within the walls of the sultan's palace.

On the other hand, a member of the Ottoman slave class could rise to high status. For example the famous janissaries, a elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's household troops, bodyguards, and the first modern standing army in Europe, is not just a position that Ottoman slaves could reach but it also started as a group of captured young Christian boys who were forced to convert to Islam. In terms of politics, a majority of officials in the Ottoman government were bought slaves, raised free, and integral to the success of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century to the 19th century.

More than 20,000 captives were said to have been imprisoned in Algeria alone. The rich are able to arrange ransoms for their release, while the poor are not so lucky.

Economically, the reason such action is very obvious, however the moral reason is not so firm. In 1785, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves this way. The envoy replied that...

• "(The) right (was) founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise"

Although the European powers are strong enough to deal with the Barbary nations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, they are constantly distracted by issues within the continent of Europe. Whenever two European powers went to war against each other, each side would try to convince the Barbary states to join them and conduct raids on their opponents' trade routes and coasts. This way, the Barbary states, pirates, and the slave trade survived under the protection of European powers who they had once raided.

Many of the European powers and other nations like The United States, prefer to pay tribute to the Barbary states to gain protection from attacks. In 1800, the amount payed by US to the Barbary states amount to 20% of the US federal government's annual expenditure.

By the end of 18th and the start of 19th century, the European powers and the US are tired of the presence of Barbary pirates and seek end the practice once and for all. This lead to the First and Second Barbary war, where President Thomas Jefferson, refusing to pay tribute or ransom to the Barbary states who attacked US merchant ships and captured sailors, decided to declare war on the Barbary states and send the newly build US navy to the Barbary states to bombard and invade the Barbary states along with other European powers. In the battle of Derna during the first Barbary war, the US marines and mercenaries took the city of Derna in a decisive victory and raised the Star-spangled banner on top of a defensive battery, it is the first time a American flag was flew over fortifications on the other side of the Atlantic.

The slave trade in the Barbary states ultimately ended when France conquered the region in 1830 and permanently abolished slavery in the area.

The most interesting thing is how the practice of the Barbary states and Barbary pirates survived for so long, especially since its military is extremely weak in comparison to the European powers, who easily defeated and subjugated the North African states by bombardment and invasion during the 18th and 19th century.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Barbary-pirate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Decline_and_suppression_of_Ottoman_slavery

The fragile illusion of modern prosperity

One of the most defining moment and notable event in history, the Stock Market Crash revealed weaknesses within capitalism and our very human nature. The stock Market Crash of 1929 was very important in history for causing the great depression, displaying the weakness of capitalism, and ending a decade of prosperity. During the roaring twenties, during which prosperity flourished within cities of North America, leading to a cultural revolution, which are represented by the Harlem renaissance, and increase of market economy, material cultural, and mass consumerism.

• The source of the wealth in the 1920s is based on an increase in demand for consumer products, most notably the radio, automobile, and houses. The growth of American economy is based on the growth in the automobile and construction industry, both of which leads to more industries that are related. The increase in inventions and efficiency, and the growth of certain industry and prosperity is genuine; there is nothing wrong with it.
• The problem the American economy has is that it relies heavily on the two industry of automobile and construction, and not on many others.
• There is 2 things wrong with this situation...
• First of all, by relying heavily on any industry, you tie your lifeline onto that industry, you certainly grow when it grows, but you also fell when it does so, and no one can assure you that it doesn't fell lower than where you start growing.
• Second of all, automobile and construction (housing), are two rather "permanent" products, not "expendable" products (food, drinks, electricity, fuel). A car and house are very expensive in comparison to the "expendable" products, relatively few families can afford more than one (unless using credit). Once the family have enough cars and housing, they won't need more. Afterall, there is no reason (other than comfort and luxury) why a family of four need to purchase a total of more than 3 cars and 2 houses. There is also no reason (other than comfort and luxury) why a family need a new car and house each year whether to replace their old one or to add to a collection. Once the family stop buying cars and housing, the demands decrease, and the incomes of the automobile and construction companies decrease.
• On the other hand, we use "expendable" products every day. Even though a drink (coca cola) is cheap, the constant purchase every day fuels a constant demand for the drink company. This doesn't means, however, that a "expendable" product company never runs out of customers and demands. Once the product gone out of trend or is replaced, the demands nonetheless decrease.
• The only way to fulfill a constant demand for the type of product a industry create is by making it more attractive to customers with practical innovations and inventions.

• However, apart from the actual "market" there is also the "stock market". When a company is declared to be public, it will divide its worth (a quantity amount) into numerous small portions, called stocks to be purchased by investors. The worth of the company, the amount of stocks available, and the price of each stock are all related. When you purchase a stock of company, you own a share of the wealth of that company that is proportional to the amount of stock you purchased and the total amount of stock there are.
• For the investor, the stock market is beneficial because it is basically a new platform for economic speculation, in another word, it is an opportunity for the investors to earn wealth when the company grows and the price of the stock goes up, to buy cheap but sell high, and to earn money with money. Also, it is good for investors because they did not just own a share of the wealth of that company when they purchase the company's stock, but also a chance to control that company. As a result huge investors who bought huge percentage of the stocks of a company (we are talking about 50% to 70% of the total amount of stocks)  have a huge authority within the company and can control what the company could do. In this way, huge investors can control a company without being the executor or founder of that company.
• Stock market is good for the entrepreneur and the company, because it is an attempt for it to get enormous amount of money, after all, huge portions of the money that the investors pay to buy the stocks of the company went to the company itself.

• The problems that exist in the concept of a stock market, however, is present in two part. One part is how much the company actually worth, the other part is how the price of each individual stock is determined.
• First, in terms of how much a company is worth, we often think the worth of the company is determined upon its assets, its existing wealth, and its existing income, but there is also what we call the company's "potential". 
• In another word, if a company is expected to have a lot of potential, it is "expected" to grow very large and successful in the future and as a result is valued much higher than what it now is. That huge difference between what a company really worth and what a company is expected to worth, is a source of trouble.
• Second, in terms of how the price of each individual stock is determined, there is a lot of factors. The most simple factors are the worth of the company and the number of stocks in circulation, or in another word, in existence; therefore, when a company's income grows and the number of stocks stays the same, its worth and, respectively, the price of each individual stock, increases. The vice versa is true as well.
• However,  there are more than just the physical growth of a company that increase the price of stocks. The "supply and demand" principle also works with stocks in a stock market and artificially pushes up prices of the stock, just like how it works with products in a product market. When a company is expected to grow very big and successful in the future and the limited amount of stocks of that company are all bought already, many investors would spend more than what it is currently worth to purchase that stock. 
• If others are willing to pay more for the stock  of a company, why wouldn't the stockholders (the investors who already bought the stock) of that company raise the price of the stock to earn more themselves when they sell the stocks they owned? And if every stockholder raise the price of their stocks, the investors have to pay more than the current price of the stock just to get them. 
• What this means is that if a demand for a company's stock is high enough, the stockholders, who are constantly changing, could continuously raise the price of the stock to unimaginable height.
• If you buy a stock and want to do something to increase it in price, you don't even need to go to the company to convince them to do something to increase the actual worth of the company, you simply need to convince more investors to buy the stock you just bought, and you can just sit and watch your stock rise in value.

• (Note: On the stock market, the "potential" worth of a company is often a representation of the value of the company that results from the rising prices of stocks that is driven up by supply and demand)

• What happened prior and during 1929 stock market crash was the result of a fatal combination of human's logical and emotional nature.
• The spike of stock price in the 1920's is a indication of the overconfidence that people have in the price of stock. The rise of the price of stock is caused by the buyers constantly outnumbering the sellers.
• Once people realize the "potential" of a company, they all went to buy the stocks of that company, once the people rushed to buy the stock of that company the company's stock price rise higher, once the stock price rose, more people notice its "potential" (more like the potential of the stock, not the company) and more people rush to buy it, and it goes on and on. It is a constant cycle that fueled the ludicrous increase in stock price during the 1920's. 
• The sheer number of investors rushing to buy the stock lead to the physiological phenomena that those who never buy stocks before start buying as well simply because everyone else around them is doing so.
• But, no matter who it is, everyone has a limit, eventually they felt satisfied by the illusion of their new fortune and stop buying and start selling.
• And of course they tell their fellow investors about selling the stock
• Then there are those intelligentsia who realizes that the worth that is written on the stock market continue to grow although the actual wealth of the company is shrinking due to decreasing demands in its products, and they starts writing about how there is going to be a crash.
• Not to mention how much impact this is going to have on emotional human beings.
• Last of all, people go with the flow. Once the voice of sellers overwhelm the voice of buyers, the buyers immediately disappeared as they follow suit.
• The buyers represent the demands in a supply and demand situation. Once the buyers and the demands are gone but the amount of stocks remained the same, the price of the stock falls not just according to the supply and demand principle, but also according to  history.
• With everyone selling, and no one buying, sellers lower their stock price to minimum just to get back any of those money they initially spend to purchase the stock.
• The new intensity of selling eventually equals (and possibly exceeds) the past ferocity of buying as the price of stocks plummet at a speed no slower than the speed at which it increases.
• After years of falling price, the stock price at last stops when the "alleged" worth of the company equals to what it actually equals and when the inflated stock price decreased to what it actually should have been.

• In retrospect...
• The stock market starts on a rational ground that the price of a stock correspond to the true value of a company, and therefore when a company grow in size and wealth (ignoring the value of the company on the stock market) the price of the stock increases. 
• However, the stock market ends on a ground of chaos, with the company that is referred to on the stock market completely detached from the actually company that is creating and selling goods, as if the stock market broke from the companies and became an entity of itself, setting the price of the company and the stock without considering what actually is the case. The price of the company and its stock become solely based on the investors demand for it, and the growth of the values become based on the amount of buyers.
• In this type of situation, you don't sell your stocks when the company's actual value is increasing, but when there are still buyers.
• The fall of the price can (at least in theory) represent the difference between our expectations and illusions (the pinnacle of the price), and the hard reality (the rock bottom).

<<<<<<<<<<<<<      Congratulations for those who read the whole blog :)       >>>>>>>>>>>>

Bibliography

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcBfJCdYyA
Book - How the economy grows and why it crashed by Peter Schiff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

Fundamentalist vs Modernist

As society advances, we gain a deeper understanding of the true nature of our world. In the same time, the new understanding often contradicts the old, traditional Christian teachings, and conflicts arise. One of the biggest challenges to the Christian beliefs is the work of Charles Darwin, who, in his book origin of species, established human beings as species that emerged over millions of years through a process of evolution, rather than suddenly by creationism that humans are created by and in the image of God.

Challenged by the new scientific discoveries such as evolution, religious modernist, often referred to as the liberals, want to change traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate these new scientific discoveries, seeing their religion based on truths, instead of solely the bible. Many of the modernist interpreted natural selection as an instrument of God's design. As the cleric Charles Kingsley said "Just as noble a conception of Deity"

On the other side, stood the religious fundamentalist, who believe that the Christian religion should base solely on the biblical interpretation, believing in every word in the bible literally.

Conflicts and debates between modernist and fundamentalist spread through a number of levels and involve a number of topics. In the religious level, there is debate between whether the bible is written by a single author or constructed by multiple authors, and about the contradictory biblical passages within the bible itself, which all lead to doubts about the historical accuracy of the biblical text and about biblical authority.

One of the instances of the conflict between modernist and fundamentalist is the The Scopes Trial, where teacher John Scopes was put to trial for teaching evolution in a public school in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial attracted huge attention for its image as a battleground between fundamentalism and modernism. Although the trial ends with John Scopes being declared guilty, the trial, especially when Clarence Darrow examine William Jennings Bryan, revealed the contradictions within the bible and severely attacked fundamentalism. Afterwards, fundamentalism will never be able to challenge modernism outright again.

After its influence vaned, fundamentalism nonetheless remained. After the Scopes Trial, many fundamentalists break away to form their own churches. In the modern days, the fundamentalists' denunciation of modernist theology and their censure of church-related institutions of higher learning often led them to reject contemporary education.

Fundamentalism's influence remained. The Baptist Bible Fellowship, formed in 1950, is the largest recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church that believe in fundamentalism. Jerry Falwell emerged as the movement's leading spokesperson in the 1970s. The group continued their defense of creationism, word by word. They attempt to either ban the teaching of evolution or  require  the teaching of Genesis wherever evolution is taught. Some of the fundamentalist, known as the creationist, also advocated the teachings of a doctrine known as "intelligent design", basically an argument on the existence of god.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdriscoll/2016/03/religious-views-of-humanity/
https://www.biography.com/people/charles-darwin-9266433
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2007/october/143-52.0.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Publication_of_the_theory_of_natural_selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist-Modernist_Controversy#The_Scopes_Trial_.281925.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

What does the differences between the colonies established by the European nations tell us? (Part 1)

When we look at the colonies established by the European powers in the New World, we can learn much more than simply where they had established their colonies. If we look at what the colonies of different European nations are composed of, how they are administrated, what their society look likes, and ask ourselves why it came to be that way, we will realize that it can tell us much more about the social conditions exiting within the European nations at that time.

Yes, religious motives, wealth, power, trade, resources, pride, and fame, are all powerful and well known motives, but I believe certain conditions existing within the European nations also affect the extend to which they colonize the New World.

In our reading, we are already aware of the difference between the colonies of the different empires. We read about how the English colonies were settler societies, which attracted enormous about of settlers, while the French colonies were literally commercial ventures made by companies who come to the new World to do business, especially with the Indians, and the Spanish colonies were hierarchical plantation systems and are often urban based. We also noticed some interesting aspects of the New World colonization. For example, while English indentured servants remained in the New World after their terms are up, the French indentured servants sent to Canada decided to move back to France once their contracts are finished.

Now, lets look at the social conditions within the mother country.

WE WILL START WITH THE ENGLISH SOCIETY

For England, we have already read in the book, there is the social crisis. The late Sixteenth century was a time of social crisis in England, with economic growth unable to keep pace with the needs of a growing population (3 million in 1550 to about 4 million in 1600). In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, landlords, introducing more modern farming practices such as crop rotation, also evicted small farmers and fenced in "commons" previously open to all, this cause English peasants to loose their plots of land that they had enjoyed a secure hold on. As this process, which was called the "enclosure" movement, continues, those who are evicted move into the cities. In the same time many problems arise, both as a result of the enclosure movement and due to other reasons....

• including...
• Decrease of wages in English cities due to the influx of unemployed population
• Increase in crime, as the unemployed and evicted become rogues, vagabonds, and vagrants, looking for work.
• Increase in prices of goods in Europe, caused by the influx of gold and silver from the mines of Latin America into Spain
• As a result...
• 50% of population in England society live below poverty line

Also, Local communities bore the full burden of taking care of these poor people, and many within these communities strive to remove these poor people.

Then came the idea that America could be a refuge for England's "surplus" population, which means that by encouraging the surplus population to move to America could benefit the mother country and emigrants alike.

The horrible economic conditions in England was so bad, that despite the risk of traveling across the ocean to found and live in a society far from civilization and in harsh conditions, many Englishmen are willing to brace the danger and seek a new life. This is evident in the fact that with 4 and 5 million population, half of Spain and a quarter of France, England produced a far larger number of me, women, and children willing to colonize the New World. As a result, between 1600 and 1700, more than half a million people left England.

Of course, the religious persecution in England is also a big problem for many of the Englishmen, such as the Puritans, who sail all the way to America for religious freedom

Considering these problems, it is no doubt why English society become an enormous, in terms of population, rural, and agricultural based settler society.

WAS THE FRENCH SOCIETY ANY BETTER?

With barely any emigrants and French settlers, and with only few cities, such as Quebec, there are reasons why French colonized America so little.

The French see America as a barrier too cross rather than a land of opportunities and fear significant emigration would undermine France's role as a European great power. Unfavorable reports about America spread within the French society. These are all examples of disincentives that discourages French emigrants and could impact the extend to which French colonize the New World. However, if the internal situation is worse enough, like England, the French society might change its mind.

Lets take a look at the French society of this time

While England has around 4 million population in 1600, France has as much as 20 million. France Renaissance saw a spectacular cultural development. After the French wars of religion, we saw the issuing of the edict of Nantes by Henry IV, which granted religious toleration to French Huguenots. 96% of the French population were peasants...

(Unfinished)

HOW ABOUT THE SPANISH SOCIETY?

The Spanish hierarchical, plantation, and urban society can be compared to the Neo imperialism of the end of the 19th century, since the society in New Spain is mainly composed of hundreds of thousands of Native Indian workers working luxury resources or mining for valuable metals while the few Spanish colonists and conquistadors rule over them.

The Spanish colonization occurred earlier than the French and English colonization, so we need to look earlier for informations on Spanish society.

(Unfinished)





Note to readers and students:

I have to acknowledge that for some countries, the conditions of the society has much less impact on the colonization in comparison to the benefits offered for colonists. This is a very complex topic, I am a bit short on information and cannot spare more time on this for now, if any of you are interested, I would really appreciate it if you can add some interesting or related information in the comment section, I will try to add them into the post when I have time :)

I want to make this open ended, I hope it can encourage some good discussions!