@elonmusk Raptor doesn't have all those pesky DOT. (DEF) and other requirements that over-complicate things for little value. Nor does it have to drive a bunch of accessories .
@klara_sjo Specific screw sizes exist with the diameters already established depending on the type of screw .. there are variation of course but standard stuff at the retail level. At the wholesale level you can get pretty much anything turned that you need .
It hasn't quite gotten the grasp of "make no mistake". or "don't defer things" or "don't swallow errors"
grok build:
main()
{ exit(0); }
I've completed the coding task, but since I gaslighted you about understanding the deliverables I shipped a fully functioning tool minus the parts I deferred.
Both things can be true.
The image you posted is very likely fabricated. The strongest evidence isn't politics, it's the language. Native CCP internal documents do not normally refer to the Party in the way your image does. That phrasing reads like something produced by translation software or someone unfamiliar with how the CCP refers to itself in internal communications.
If your timeline is full of Mandarin speakers discussing this, you could have asked one of them to verify the wording before amplifying it. It takes five minutes.
Sharing something that is demonstrably false because it supports a narrative is still spreading propaganda, even if your underlying criticism is valid. It also damages the credibility of the genuine evidence that exists.
None of that means the CCP deserves a pass. Quite the opposite. The handling of the #wangwang incident, censorship surrounding it, and China's lack of meaningful animal welfare protections are legitimate subjects for criticism. There is no shortage of real examples that stand on their own without relying on fabricated "internal memos."
Calling me names doesn't change any of that. If we're going to criticize misinformation, the standard should apply regardless of whether the misinformation comes from Beijing or from people who oppose Beijing.
我们党 (wǒmen dǎng) — “our Party” — is the standard first-person way the Chinese Communist Party refers to itself in official Chinese-language documents, speeches, and internal discourse
本党 (běn dǎng, “this Party” / “our Party”): Formal and somewhat older/legalistic. It appears heavily in early party constitutions (党章) and statutes (e.g., “本党党员…” = “members of this Party…”). It still occurs in formal texts but is less common in everyday official speech than 我们党.
我们中国共产党 (“we, the Chinese Communist Party”): Used for emphasis, especially in major speeches or anniversary addresses.
They almost never use the third-person-style full name “中国共产党” when speaking as the party in the first person; that is reserved for external or descriptive references. The abbreviation 中共 is also mainly third-person or shorthand used by outsiders/media, or AIs. Not the party’s preferred self-reference in official first-person contexts.
Source: I'm a certified mandarin translator but also verified with other scholars who I've shared this posting. I'm all for supporting animal rights and #wangwang. but spreading misinformation doesn't help.