Thank you for sharing, that is interesting to hear.

It bears repeating that I do not presume a monolithic opinion of the citizens of China or the culturally Chinese diaspora.

I balance that against the reactions and attitudes that I do experience, in proportion to how often I experience them.

I am categorically against invasions and conquest of land by force. We live in the year 2026, not the year 1985. I set my priorities accordingly.

But to gp's point, that is a principle. Perhaps not yours, but they outlined their stance and stuck to it despite threats and consequences.

Contrast Sam's OpenAI announcement which was very carefully worded to appear to uphold the same principles, but is currently being rightfully disassembled as retaining various potential outs that would allow violating the signaled principles.

Honest and staunch about clearly stated principles is better than wiggly and dishonest about weasel-worded impressions of a principle.

And all of that is orthogonal to whether you (or anyone) agrees with a given principle or given revealed behavior.

How do they feel about and respond when asked about the Taiwan question?

Do they either clam up or act like it's a mortal insult to suggest that an independent democratic nation should not live in fear of impending violent conquest?

Because that's the kind of reaction that makes the reports of "happy life, all's good" a little harder to digest.

Not saying that's a unanimous opinion / response, of course. But it certainly seems to be the default.

Maybe worth asking for anyway? They might just be setting metrics based on the most popular ways of measuring but if they care about the spirit of the offer it would make sense for them to be flexible with the letter of the requirements.