His conclusion is sound while yours is not. Korean is not a dialect of Chinese, which seems to be your implication. Neither is it a "branch" of a tree of which Chinese is the trunk. In linguistic terms it is called a "language isolate". In the past, linguists tended to group Korean and Japanese together; I believe largely for political reasons they have been separated--but that's another topic.
Korean uses many Chinese loan words (in the same way that English uses Greek loan words) but the sentence structure, pronunciation and grammar are totally different. You would not say English is a dialect or branch of Greek for the same reason.
I speak both Korean, Japanese and am currently studying Chinese. Korean does not sound like Mandarin at all because it is not a tonal language. It does sound similar to Mongolian and Manchurian. That is not surprising because the roots of Koreans (and probably their current language) come from the area north of Korea near Manchuria.
In fact, Greek and English, being both Indo-European languages, are more closely related than Korean and the various Chinese languages.
There is a controversial theory that Korean, Mongolian, and Machurian, are all a part of an Altaic superfamily — along with Japanese, Turkish, and a number of others. This was broadly accepted fifty years ago, and less so today.
Given that we have writings from Indo-European speaking empires since 1000 BC that we can mine for phonological clues and trace evolutionary changes with while the languages of supposed Altaic only began to be written after 700 AD, it's not surprising that there's less evidence to be found and not enough for a hypothesis bold enough to link those disparate cultures together. The idea that Hindi, Persian, Latin, Russian, and English are linked together is already very surprising.
That is not my implication, just as humans are not evolved from gorillas. The likely share a common base.
That may have been 500, 1000, or more years ago and each continuously absorbed neighboring language features from trade or due to local social structures.
It is a fallacy. The only real reason I ever found were people in positions of influence and power wanted another hour in the evening for a round of golf. Though we can make DST permanent, keep the hour and eliminate the horrible time changes.
Author fails to establish a solid correlation (let alone causal relationship) between "storytelling" and affinity. Furthermore, author fails to prove that Disney is better at storytelling than its competitors. He could have first defined "storytelling" and then provided data-driven proof that Disney focuses more on it than its competitors. This is simple enough to do by running such a definition on content (he could use conformity to a three act structure and run it on all movie scripts in the past 20 years, for example). Otherwise we are left with the tautology that Disney content performs better than others because people like it more ("affinity").
This article is laughably wrong (probably a puff piece to entice Korean students to work in Japan). The truth is exactly the opposite: there are fewer Koreans in Japan every year (as measured by foreign residents in Japan -- this includes work and student visas). The fastest rising immigrants to Japan from 2015-2018 are in descending order[1]:
Vietnam
Cambodia
Uzbekistan
Myanmar
Sri Lanka
South Korea comes in dead last, having DECLINED by 10% during the same period.
The truth is that as soon as Korea became a developed country, having joined the OECD in the 90s, immigration to Japan slowed to a trickle, precisely for the historical reasons that you might suspect.
"That's how the government works". Calm down. Huawei has been shut out of America (and many other allies) because of allegations of ties to the Chinese government. Amazon is on the cusp of winning a $10B contract for the Pentagon. So, same thing. America and China are now explicitly strategic competitors, both governments have been saying that for the past 2 years. It's about competition, not about totalitarian repression.
I'm perfectly calm. The US government is nowhere near as protectionist and controlling as China's. This is indisputable. The current administration is starting to change policies to at least counter some of the control China extends beyond its borders.
Totalitarian control has an effect on competition. Those cannot be independent.
singapore is a city disguising itself as a country. there's your answer. for comparison, compare singapore to the richest urban areas of its peers and you will see that advantage go away most likely
*had lots of fun playing!