LinkedIn Chooses ‘Hong Kong SAR’ for User Experience

LinkedIn Chooses ‘Hong Kong SAR’ for User Experience

Linked-In email

I received this email from LinkedIn this week. LinkedIn is changing how they display the location “Hong Kong” to “Hong Kong SAR”.

“SAR” stands for “Special Administrative Region”. It does not reflect the name of the territory associated with Hong Kong Island known as “Hong Kong”. “SAR” is a classification, identifying Hong Kong similar to how Puerto Rico and Guam fall under the governance of the United States as “unincorporated territories of the United States”.

From an English usage perspective, this is strange. On LinkedIn, a location in California does not display as “California State” nor does Puerto Rico display as “Puerto Rico UTOS”.

This is part of a growing trend of using additional and eccentric wording to describe places somehow associated with China. For example, many companies, especially airlines, are displaying Taiwan as “Taiwan (Province of China)” or similar, even though those companies do not list California as “California (State of USA)”.  · · · →

badAd: New Ad Network

badAd: New Ad Network

Video link

It took nine months to create While searching for any way to monetize my own blog, I saw how invasive many of the “best” advertising platforms can be. Most monetizing solutions weren’t that attractive. In fact, all of them were quite unattractive. I wanted no part.

Interestingly, I had been contemplating the very idea of a financially solvent news business. Newspapers used to make money. Today, they don’t. I even wrote about the whole issue of news solvency in my 2015 book, Know Each Other. Advertising and blogging have to work together or neither can work at all.

That was the light bulb moment! If ads and blogs go hand in hand, then ads should be like blogs and blog readers should be glad to read ads! We need ads that people want to find. The solution was simple: text ads.

Text ads load fast, are searchable, and get to the point… pun in tended, being that my weekly blurb is called “The Point”.  · · · →

Hermeneutics on Stack Exchange

The question came up on Stack Exchange’s Bible Hermeneutics forum: Naphtali touching the border of Juda?

Normally, when my answers get criticism, I man-up and improve my skills. But, in this case, I think that high-rep users, including two moderators, disliked my answer because they disagreed with my respect for the Bible. I hope otherwise, but it otherwise doesn’t look hopeful.

In studying the Bible, we come across passages that are difficult to explain. In Bible school and in good sermons, Bible teachers and students take the time to learn from those passages that we don’t know everything, but the Bible is still trustworthy. That’s part of the message, lesson, application, and value of those passages. That’s the hermeneutical-exegetical message many solid Bible teachers preach from them.

…but that’s apparently not allowed on Stack Exchange.

Whatever the motive—defining “on-topic” in their new way or using “off-topic” as a guise to press their disagreement with my answer—it was very much on topic in traditional Bible teaching.  · · · →

My story as an ESL human trafficking victim in Taiwan

My first year in Taiwan made me a victim of human trafficking. I am thankful that my story is not anywhere near as terrible as others. But, I understand the damage that human trafficking does to people, crippling their lives for years. After ten years, I’m still at a disadvantage because Taiwan did not protect my rights as a foreigner.

Foreigners have limited rights when in another country. That is good, in a way. But, it puts foreigners at a disadvantage, making foreigners easy for dishonest people to take advantage of foreigners. Employers know about these disadvantages and game the system to turn foreigners into partial slaves. That happened to me. Though it was very mild, I am a victim of human trafficking.

But, then I discovered something else even more shocking. I’ll explain that after I tell my story.

In Taiwan, I was the foreigner. My first two bosses tried to control me by seizing my legally-required paperwork; my second boss succeeded.  · · · →