Been on testing for years without problems. Super reasonable choice for a personal machine if you need recent software versions.
Always use a separate partition for /home, have backups in place and your golden.
I’m no AWK expert but I know just enough to tell when it’s the right tool for a particular job. Most pipelines consisting of `grep`, `sed` and `cut` commands can be replaced with a single AWK command. In this case:
stat / | awk '/Birth:/ { print $2; }'
For the line containing the `Birth:` regex, print the second field (by default, fields are delimited by spaces). Other lines that don’t match the regex are ignored.
stat command gets the detail of when the OS was installed on the machine. uptime doesn't give that. I wanted to say that I have been using the same development machine at work for 4.5 years. "running" was not the right word for it, obviously.
You can also use apt-pinning to set priority for which release to use.
A long time ago I ran stable, and pinned testing at low priority.
Across the decades I've slowly upgraded my stance. Now my machines run Debian Unstable, with testing and experimental pinned at very low priorities. Unstable does sometimes have unsatisfiable dependencies, so it's good to have some other options. And sometimes I just want what's coming for a specific package or kernel, and experimental will often be there.
For eg: if you work for a Swiss or US employer and make more than 69k(?), say 100k, as a freelancer, and have a family, you have to pay around 14%(upper limit somewhere around 1000) of the income as health insurance contribution.
I think it is costly. It is difficult to digest for me that the health insurance costs more than housing.
My wife has a master's degree in engineering from a TU9(top 9 universities in Germany).And a B2 language certificate. She has not found a job so far. Been more than a year and half since she started actively applying. At times she ticks all the requirements in the job description, and still no luck.
She is planning to go to a bakery starting next week. The guy at the bakery was so surprised to see someone with master's degree in engineering ready to work at a bakery. So the perception and reality is different.
Unless you are in IT/software development, it is hard to get a job. Traditional engineering disciplines are hard to break into.
So she's got a degree in engineering from here in Germany, knows the language pretty well, but can't land a job here? I don't know where you are in Germany, but that sounds pretty much unbelievable. I live in Bavaria in a mid-sized town with 140.000 residents. I know companies here where almost half the staff is Indian/other nationality and it does not matter at all how good your German is (I know multiple Indians working there).
I personally have a friend who is from Iran, she is going to be a chemistry professor soon here in Germany, so there ARE definitely opportunities for people who are not born here.
Well I have acquaintances employed here too. And my wife's case is not a single one.
I have a friend who migrated from India and his wife used to work for a pharma/biotech firm back in India and had some temporary work here in Germany, when peak COVID happened, when pharma companies were hiring a lot.
She already has a master's degree from India and she has been undergoing further trainings supported by Job center, and still no luck.
TU means Institute of Technology. Says nothing about being a good university. Your wife is likely bound to your location what limits her options and like has a degree that is not very in demand, at least not where she lives.
Engineering could be everything. And if she has a degree in, let's say food technology and is willing to work somewhere deep in east Germany for a very low amount of money then she would find a job.
I’m a big fan of NextDNS, ad filters, logs (or not), block list, allow list, multiple profiles, parental-ish controls. They have binaries to add support for DoH to my router. I literally couldn’t be happier with a DNS provider.
My one gripe is with the block / parental controls interface.
Let’s say you want to block Peacock, and there’s a bunch of urls you want to block, each is it’s own individual rule. If you accidentally delete one instead of disable it, it’s gone. If you can remember the url you accidentally deleted, now it’s placed at the top of the list, out of order. There appears to be no log of changes you make. It would be nice to be able to add custom parental controls with sets/bundles of urls.
Also you can’t toggle or package ad blocking rules, only delete and add. Sort of the same interface complaint as above. I have to go in and delete four ad blocking packages every time I want to watch Paramount+. Then go find them again when I am done.
the marketing copy on dns0 is lol considering the many ISP data retention schemes across EU states.
> The European public DNS that makes your Internet safer.
> A free, sovereign and GDPR-compliant recursive DNS resolver with a strong focus on security to protect the citizens and organizations of the European Union.
> In a decree made public today, French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne has extended the temporary retention of communications data of all citizens in France for another year. The blanket retention obligation concerns identity data (surname, first name, date and place of birth, postal address(es), e-mail address(es), telephone number(s)) as well as payment information, connection data (IP addresses, port numbers, identification numbers of users and their devices, date, time and duration of each communication, data on supplementary services and their providers)
300k is a lot to be fair. And if that’s not enough it’s something like 20$ a year. It’s the only way I found to block ads (except in YouTube) on the iPhone.
That doesn't match my experience. My ex-colleagues and I used to criticize the government regularly, and publicly, when I lived there, and we faced no hostility or opposition.
Altnews the left wing version of Tucker Carlson. I'd go as far as to say that if Alt-news told me there was no Earthquake in my house, my first instinct would be to find cover.
Local and politicized news in India is notoriously biased. But the direction of the bias varies from news org to news org. Somehow, American & British news orgs are notorious for giving megaphones to the worst faith actors within Indian politics.
I've found that ThePrint is the closest thing to centrist-neutral reporting in India. They are pretty open about leaning left*[1] on social issues and leaning right [2] on economic issues.
[1] The left-right division doesn't work as cleanly in India, but left for the Print means separation of church & state, live-n-let-live, individual freedoms, LGBT support, a kind of French secularism.
[2] which in an Indian context means left of Biden, but right of pre-1991 socialist India. ie. Welfare-ist, but not isolationist.
Alt News is much more similar to Rappler, a Filipino news website and fact checker whose founder (Maria Ressa) was awarded the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize after she was arrested and convicted by the Filipino ruling government for "cyberlibel" in retaliation for her journalism.
The Peace Research Institute Oslo nominated the Alt News founders (Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha) for the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize after Zubair was jailed for "hurting religious sentiments" in retaliation for his journalism.
"Hurting religious sentiments" by tweeting a screenshot of a 1983 movie is obviously not a war crime. Zubair is a journalist who was jailed for spurious reasons:
> Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta on Tuesday said that questions arise on the Delhi Police for arresting journalist Mohammad Zubair for allegedly hurting religious sentiments even as suspended Bharatiya Janata Party Nupur Sharma is still free despite making controversial comments on Prophet Muhammad, Live Law reported.
> The first information report against Zubair was based on a complaint by Delhi Police Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar, who said he was monitoring social media when he came across the March 2018 tweet after a handle named Hanuman Bhakt raised objections.
> The handle had taken objection to Zubair’s tweet, showing a hotel signboard with the name “Honeymoon Hotel” repainted to “Hanuman Hotel”. The journalist’s lawyer has argued in court that the photo is a screenshot taken from a 1983 Hindi movie.
> On Tuesday, Gupta said that nobody had complained about the movie for 40 years. “How was it [the tweet] reported based on one anonymous complaint?” he asked.
As a journalist, Mohammad Zubair is like Maria Ressa. Both speak truth to power in countries in which press freedom is an ongoing issue, and both are not afraid to publish inconvenient facts that reflect poorly on the ruling party of their countries. There are plenty of Indian sources that reported on Zubair being jailed for "hurting religious sentiments", so I'm not sure how your dislike of Western media is relevant. Your comparisons of Zubair are also not very appropriate, since "hurting religious sentiments" is not the same thing as publishing false information.
The BJP expelled Nupur Sharma from her position as the national spokesperson of the BJP because of the incendiary comments she chose to make on live television. Mohammad Zubair made a compilation of her comments and did not change any of her words.
As the former Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta said, one of the problems in this case is that the journalist Mohammad Zubair was jailed for "hurting religious sentiments" because he tweeted a screenshot of a 1983 Hindi comedy film, while the politician Nupur Sharma was not jailed despite her incendiary comments "hurting religious sentiments" on live television.
> “If she [Sharma] could say that…which had a much bigger propensity to incite violence… but she is not arrested, Zubair is...Then some questions do arise on the fairness of the police,” Gupta said, in an interview to Live Law.
Additionally, the fact that there is even a law that allows the government to imprison people for making comments perceived to be "hurting religious sentiments" is a serious violation of freedom of speech.
As a former MP, Ahmed was obviously also a politician and there are plenty of articles from Indian media describing him as a politician. Someone can be both a politician and a mobster at the same time.
You lie by speaking selectively. BJP leadership was supportive of Nupur Sharma initially. Prominent Muslim figures like Nasiruddin Shah (who normally despise BJP) have come out and said that Nupur Sharma did not say anything wrong about Mohammed.
BJP distanced itself from her after they got a lot of push back from friendly Middle Eastern states. BJP are a bunch of opportunist cowards themselves anyway.
There is no case against Nupur Sharma and she only said what she said (on that TV show) after having been provoked by another Muslim panelist about Hinduism and Hindu gods.
Politicians are responsible for the statements they make. Nupur Sharma is a politician who made a statement that the public took offense to, and she had to endure the political consequences regardless of what anyone else said before or after her comments. The other panelist in the debate is not a high-ranking political figure and the public does not necessarily demand the same level of decorum from him.
Nobody here is claiming that Sharma deserves to die for her incendiary comments, which went far beyond "quoting a religious book". However, she did get expelled from her position as national spokesperson of the BJP and that is an appropriate response, considering the negative feedback she has received.
No politician is immune to criticism. Nupur Sharma made incendiary comments on live television and Mohammad Zubair has the right to quote and criticize those comments. Zubair's quotes were not "misinformation" since his video compiled Sharma's comments verbatim. If Sharma did not want to anger the public, she should not have made provocative statements in a public setting.
Sharma's comments did result in violence. The Supreme Court blamed Sharma for inciting a beheading that was carried out by extremist perpetrators:
> The Supreme Court Friday slammed suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, for her controversial remarks on the Prophet. While hearing the plea filed by Sharma seeking transfer of the FIRs against her to Delhi, the Supreme Court accused the leader of “igniting emotions across the country” with her “disturbing” remarks.
> “She has threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” “She and her loose tongue have set the entire country on fire.”
> The Supreme Court said her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered.
As for Kajal Hindustani, it looks like her situation is being handled appropriately:
> Police have registered a first information report (FIR) against a woman activist for her alleged hate speech and detained more than 50 people on the charge of rioting following a communal clash at Una town in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath that left two persons injured, an official said on Sunday, PTI reported.
> “We have registered two FIRs. One is against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech, and another against the mob for rioting," Superintendent of Police Sripal Sheshma told reporters.
You can keep spewing non sense like this, but people here are more literate than what you are used to. Your argument boils down to - if you insulted or are perceived to have insulted the prophet of Islam (by even quoting a hadith), then you deserve to die and live in perpetual fear of being murdered by a "ghazi".
No one cares if Nupur Sharma lost a bloody BJP job. You are justifying murder and religious fanaticism.
Don't put words in my mouth. The murder is not justified and the perpetrators deserve the appropriate penalties. As the Supreme Court explained, Nupur Sharma made the incendiary statements that incited the murder. Nobody here has claimed that Sharma deserves to die for her rhetoric. Sharma knew her comments were provocative and much more than "quoting a hadith", which is why she issued her apology after she was suspended from her position.
She literally quoted a Hadith. What is "incendiary" according to you is her tone of quotation. As if people don't quote nonsense from other religions in a non-reverential but mocking manner. Is Islam so fragile that Muslims get provoked by "quoting a hadith"?
I am incapable of putting words into your mouth, you are just taking hilariously diametrically opposite positions in the same conversation.
She apologised after she was thrown under the bus by her party (in a cowardly manner), which got pushback on this issue from India's middle eastern partners. The Supreme Court Judge's comments on her are unprecedented and disgraceful. After having received severe criticism for those comments, the court silently provided her the same relief from prosecution that she had sought in the first place.
The next time you turn up to support islamic barbarism, at least own up to it.
There is no hadith with the negative phrasing Nupur Sharma used in her comments. As a politician in a country with religious tension, Sharma knew that her incendiary comments would inflame this tension.
The Supreme Court correctly assessed Sharma's comments as irresponsible and inflammatory, which even your LiveLaw link affirms:
> On July 1, a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to entertain Sharma's petition. During the hearing, the bench made strong oral comments against Sharma, saying that she was "singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country". The bench said that being a spokesperson of a political party is not a license to make irresponsible comments. The bench had also said that the petition "smacks of arrogance that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her", and added that she should avail alternate remedies than approaching the Supreme Court. Following the critical remarks of the bench, Sharma's lawyer chose to withdraw the petition.
The fact that Sharma made incendiary comments does not justify any threat of violence against her. However, as a politician, she should have known better than to inflame the people she is assigned to serve. The BJP removed her from her position because her behavior made her unsuitable for representing the party.
Your accusation that I am "supporting Islamic barbarism" is unjustified and also against the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Criticizing a politician for making incendiary statements is not the same thing as "supporting Islamic barbarism".
> because Indian Government recently jailed an independent fact checker for a tweet he made 4 years ago.
Are you contending the fact that a 4 year old tweet was used to suppress an Altnews? This ad-hominem attack may have basis, but the assertion that there is very filthy gross things being used to suppress doesn't seem to have been addressed.
And it seems like gross government indecency from where I stand. You're talking about ethics in journalism, but this seemingly is a case of government jailing & taking away someone's right, which seems like an act that requires a much much higher standard of conduct than antagonistic-left journalism.
We've banned this account for repeatedly the site guidelines and abusing HN for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> the current ruling party is straight up unironically fascist and descends from the same political party that inspired the german nationalist socialist party.
This is false. There is no link between the German Nazi party and BJP. If you are talking about RSS, the link comes from a quote in a book published in 1939 (well before the world found about the holocaust) by the RSS founder [0]. Admiration for Hitler and his Nazi party in the 30s wasn't unique to the RSS founder [1][2].
Golwalkar was also supportive of allies in their war against Nazis and supported the formation of Israel.
Also Golwalkar is 100% pro-nazi, he only went against them later for gains.
"German Race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races -- the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by." (Golwalkar, MS, “We Or Our Nationhood Defined”, Nagpur, 1939, p. 45)
The whole point was that most of the world was pro-nazi until the events of WW2 and the holocaust. And if you are comparing someone's views in the 30s to the current worldview, I hate to break it to you that everyone's racist and fascist, including Roosevelt, Churchill and MK Gandhi. Gandhi pretty much called for the Jews to offer themselves up to be butchered by Nazis and Arabs.
Ironically fearmongering that there's an imminent genocide is one of the justifications used by the the Government for internet shutdowns and censorship. Law and order is precarious in most parts of the country and anybody can spark an unrest by sparking rumors and it spreads like forest fire causing riots and loss of life.
Last I checked India was home for second largest Muslim population, and population has only been growing, more than other sections of societies in India.
Sure things aren’t same for Muslims post 2014 and people should raise their voice. However for every Muslim atrocity, there is one against Hindus or any other religion. Should we take comfort in that? Absolutely no, but this genocide nonsense is utter rubbish.
You should be the one presenting evidence of planned genocide. And proper evidence, not some bullshit he said she said. Maybe some leaked papers from the Indian Government showing attempt to arm mobs, moving battalions of the military or the paramilitary expressly for the purpose of mass murder etc.
“the current ruling party is straight up unironically fascist and descends from the same political party that inspired the german nationalist socialist party.”
Oh can we stop with this bullshit? In hindsight Nazism is an almost cartoon like singular epitome of pure evil but in its day it was considered by many throughout the world not just in India to be a cutting edge political philosophy whose ideas were to be taken seriously.
Nazism like many other ideologies including some varieties of Hindutva was an offspring of 19th century Romanticism. The idea of one’s culture having a primitive yet glorious mystical past was appealing to many freedom fighters the world over and implied nothing about their feelings towards Jews or German expansion etc. Similarly the superficial adoption of e.g. the swastika doesn’t imply Germans were rushing to make a yatra to the Himalayas.
In fact the most prominent example of a “Nazi” Indian is not any RSS member but Subhash Chandra Bose. His nickname Netaji is a direct translation of “fuehrer”! He died in the Burmese jungles where, bankrolled by Berlin, he was trying to open an attack against the British colonial regime. However he wasn’t so much pro-German as he was anti-British. And that’s how India remembers him; as a freedom fighter. A couple of years ago he briefly came into the news in the US because Saikat Choudhary (the architect of the Democrat party’s “Green New Deal”) wore a t-shirt with his picture on it. When a “fascist” is on an ultra-leftists apparel, the word fascist has lost all meaning.
I’ll leave you with an assignment. Find out about the prominent Indian Muslims of they 1930’s who made pro-Nazi comments. It’s an interesting historical exercise (especially their reasons why.) but I don’t think it would reveal much about the views of todays Muslims. Do you?
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political/national/religious/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.
> In hindsight Nazism is an almost cartoon like singular epitome
Not that singular, even in its time, which is why we usually call the more general thing that it is an example of by the name of its Italian contemporary and ally.
Let me restate my point. A persons reasons for supporting the Nazis in 1933 may be quite different from the reasons you think people are pro-Nazi in 2023. So such comparisons don't add very much to the discourse.
lol what? There have been plenty of Hindutva terror incidents, one as recent as the day before yesterday, when 3 men killed a couple of undertrials in front of live camera and then went on to scream the terror warcry of "Jai Sree Ram".
> If this is “fascism” as you say, majority of the Indians are happy living under it.
Do you have a sense of irony? Majority is always happy under fascism. It is the minority who matters in that case.
We've banned this account for repeatedly abusing HN with political, nationalistic, and religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This is failure of law and order. What bothered me is how liberal media portrayed these individuals.
The primary identity of individuals killed is undertrials (as you rightly mentioned) or murderers or criminals, and not lawmakers or MPs as portrayed by these headlines.
For those crying oceans, read this Twitter thread. These two “undertrials” were monsters of the worst kind who killed anyone with impunity. Shame on people who support such monsters just because they happen to share the same religion. https://twitter.com/Sanity_3/status/1647304754002010113?s=20
The 2 brothers who were killed were notorious gangsters involved in 100+ cases of murders, loot, kidnapping etc. At least read-up before trying to win with your ignorance.
India has Buddhists, Parsis, Jains, Zoroastrian as “true” minorities. They don’t have any problems in India. In fact they are among the most prosperous folks.
Why is that only Muslims have problem everywhere on the globe? France, US, UK, Israel and the list goes on.
Few months back, in a similar fashion a Hindu Don was encountered by the UP cops. All Hindus still supported the cops.
For people like you, if the person is a Muslim irrespective of whether he is a terrorist, serial murderer he should be supported at any cost.
And don’t club Sikhs and Dalit among yourself to look good. They have a far larger contribution to society and don’t cry victimhood at any given opportunity.
We've banned this account for repeatedly abusing HN with political, nationalistic, and religious flamewar. Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, it's not what this site is for.
Posting like this will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please stop.
It’s the usual protocol of astroturfing. Accuse the whistleblower of something vague and discard them with name calling. Straight out of playbook of authoritarian governments. Nothing new.
I searched the name Nupur Sharma and it gave me this article which explains everything.
That's correct. Nupur Sharma's comments on the Times Now news channel were incendiary enough that Times Now decided to delete the video of the debate she was featured in and also issue a statement:
> Views expressed by BJP Spokesperson on Newshour@9 last night are her personal views. TIMES NOW does not endorse views of participants. We urge participants on our debates to maintain restraint and not indulge in unparliamentary language against fellow panelists.
It's not someone else's fault that Sharma decided to make those comments on live television in the first place.
If you watch the full debate, the Muslim panelists were continuously mocking Hindu Gods, Nupur got fed up and replied to them in the similar manner.
What this fact checker cunningly did was to edit out the Muslim panellist mocking and simply showed her part of the clip. He has a mass following in Islamic nations and it got blown out of proportion.
Political leaders are expected to conduct themselves appropriately in public view because they are selected to represent all of their constituents. If a politician makes an appearance on live television and says something that is offensive to their constituents, they can expect political repercussions regardless of what anyone else said on the TV show.
That other people in the debate compared a Shivling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) to roadside signs and poles does not excuse Nupur Sharma from the repercussions of what she said. Sharma made comments that she knew would be offensive to a religious minority, and she was expelled from her position as the national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party because that was not the behavior the public expected from a high-ranking political figure.
When someone like Mohammed Zubair makes a supercut of Sharma's comments to highlight the fact that a politician is not appropriately representing her constituents, it's not Zubair's fault that Sharma made those comments in the first place.
At the end of the day one is a human being who gets triggered on repeated offensive things. If you look-up, what she said was not incorrect since several Islamic scholars make the same claim. I guess the aggressive tone in what she said made all the difference.
For the record, Nupur does not represent any constituents in the purest sense. She was the spokesperson, that’s it. She is neither an MP nor MLA.
She should be able to say anything she wants on Islam and Muhammed. The only consequence to her should be what is in the Indian Penal Code, and ostracisation by her constituents. She doesn't deserve to be lynched by a muslim mob for that.
People like you who justify mob lynching don't belong in civilised society.
Sharma made incendiary comments on live television. Zubair and many other people called her out for her comments, and in response, her political party (the BJP) expelled her from her position as national spokesperson. She was not "lynched".
When a politician chooses to make incendiary comments that are then met with anger from the public, that politician has nobody to blame but herself for the negative response.
Gaslighting at it's finest right here. Nupur Sharma can never live a normal life. The moment her security is removed, and whereabouts are known she will absolutely get murdered by some Muslim fanatic, just like Kamlesh Tiwari.
You're abusing the word "gaslighting". Nobody is claiming that Nupur Sharma deserves any retribution beyond expulsion from her position.
High-profile figures are more vulnerable than average individuals and it is not in anyone's interest to make incendiary statements that expose themselves to higher security risks. Sharma should have taken this into consideration before saying what she did on national television, even though any violence against her would be unjustified.
We've banned this account for repeatedly abusing HN with political, nationalistic, and religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I appreciate your concern for the HN guidelines and have banned the other account. However, fairness obliges me to add that you also broke the guidelines by repeatedly perpetuating this flamewar.
"Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse."
And guess what Muslim fanatics have butchered few Hindus already on this issue. These were the normal people who simply liked or expressed support for Nupur.
The amazing thing is that even after killings, these fanatics cry victim hood.
As bad as that is, and it is helpful you've provided some context here, I still don't think that's worthy of jail or any sort of formal state punishment. Which obviously is not a controversial take in most western countries. But more importantly I don't think it's an effective strategy to deal with the problem. Censorship rarely ever works unless you go full-bore and destroy plenty of good will and legitimate human progress in between.
Twitter has a great feature for that not where citizens can provide context / 'fact check' an article without deleting it. That's the best (and IMO only legitimate way) to deal with this stuff, countering bad information with better information. While still exposing publicly that this person is lying to you. As opposed to deleting or censoring it, you put up a big flag that says "there's more to this story".
The fact that you have to search for the name shows you are not enough clued in about what is happening in India. Wish you take some time out and get the facts straight from some Indian friends to understand both side of the story.
It will become a long comment, all I can say , BBC, NyTimes etc has some axe to grind with the current dispensation.
I understand by "Indian friends" you mean upper caste Hindu Indian friends who are Modi acolytes and his primary voting demographic. Not Indian Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Dalits or Shudras who form greater than 50% of the Indian population.
No, I mean people with loads of common sense who can tell you both side of the story.
>> Not Indian Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Dalits or Shudras who form greater than 50% of the Indian population.
Acc to you, if they are more than 50% AND not happy with Modi, why is Modi winning back to back elections and almost certain to come to power again in 2024?
You only need 35% to win in Indias multiparty elections.
Additionally, Muslims in Gujarat and UP have been coerced into voting for BJP candidate by threatening them with shut down of municipal services when BJP wins. This is enabled because EVMs report summary statistics from each location which the government employees have access to.
Did you even read what I said? EVMs are not being tampered. But they make per polling booth data available to candidates. The BJP candidates use that summary data to withhold municipal services from constituents who didn't vote for them.
They are able to make this threat because of summary data made available by EVMs
Please do something new than the other authoritarian shills. It’s the same playbook.
Why do you assume that everyone outside of India is incapable of understanding things on their own and need help from Indian friend? Why do you patronise? Isn’t that racist? Isn’t the that some kind of twisted supremest thinking?
I can read the stats and make up my mind on my own.
Of course when you come here with a half-baked knowledge and accuse someone* of astroturfing , one has to call you out.
By your own admission, for the first time you heard Nupur’s name, you did a quick search and within minutes you reached the conclusion what you wanted to reach.
Since when asking to understand the issue in depth - rather than a 2 mins cursory look up - racism?
Apparently, death threats and actual deaths and rapes should only happen to Dalits and Muslims via periodically organized riots. It's also a great idea to jail the lawyer of the survivor of a lynch mob, Teesta Setalvad. Indias Supreme court is pleased.
For eg: denying service from a German retailer depending on the ML prediction result of the transaction being classified as fraud probable(Germany has pay by invoice), would also be constitutional or not?
Or credit score/risk rating using ML, trained on a feature extracted from parameters like Zip code, ethnicity could also classified as automated data analysis for prevention of criminal acts, right?
In general a retailer can refuse any customer for any reason (unless you're discriminating against a protected class)
The reason they do this isn't to fight crime, but to save the business from losing money. So I don't see how a ruling about preventing crime would apply.
They could be giving out different IP (or CNAME) for people using their DNS. Then the site is just slightly different depending on how it is accessed. or i suppose they could be looking at logs of the ips using their dns and checking all visitors to the website, but that would be wild.
ooh they could also have a host that is only resolvable from those servers, and have the front end dynamically load that message from that host. and if it fails it does not show anything.
I fail to understand why politicians thought the cookie dialogue was a good idea. Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective.
Politicians never thought the 'cookie dialogue was a good idea'. Politicians aimed to reduce the use of cookies for tracking without consent. That the industry responded by either ignoring the directive and/or by harassing their users to give that consent forcibly isn't on the politicians but on the owners/operators of those websites.
Lawmaking is like chess. Politcians and their lawyers should anticipate what bigcorp will do in response to new law and inject countermeasures before the law is introduced.
Cookie law was lame af from the beginning and did nothing but annoyed end-users.
The relevant governing bodies need to crack down on companies that are violating the rulings and ensure that it's understood this is a requirement for doing business.
If you've ever been in a position to write policy, you know the adage that if you design something to be idiot-proof, they'll just design a better idiot. Same rule applies for bad actors.
Laws don't try to predict everything, that's why the spirit of the law is just as important as the letter. What the law means to accomplish is just as important as what is actually written, and persons who violate the spirit of the law while not explicitly violating the letter should not get a free pass; this is not how law works, and it's why despite the hundreds of thousands of laws on the US books, there are still courts to interpret laws and make rulings on situations.
Corporations can kick and scream all they want while writhing through to meet the letter of the law, but that doesn't make them right, it just makes them desperate.
I can understand if it was a small subset of companies that made it difficult for the user.
I can show multiple government websites where the UX is broken. There is no profit motive there. But if you live in the EU, you probably have seen it already.
It is so worse that chrome has an add-on that has 800k downloads.
Cookie law wasn't lame. Regardless of what kind of law you crafted, the corporations that are used to skirting the law, especially in the US legal landscape, would try to dodge the law by any means possible. Ranging from having people 'consent' to the cookie through tos, or by making it difficult to reject. BOTH of which are prohibited by law. They were prohibited exactly to prevent skirting the law.
So basically every cookie prompt that makes you take more than one click to reject or says "You consent to this -> Yes" is in violation of the law and they will get fined if they are reported.
I've also seen a lot of other sneaky bypassing of the law.
For example the news site nu.nl now requires having a free account to read many specific articles. This is a smart move on their part because logging in requires maintaining a higher amount of user information across visits and thus it brings a lot of tracking into the "technically necessary" realm so they don't have to ask permission.
I disagree. If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law.
Take into consideration that these companies annoyed their users but blamed it on the politicians, which is pretty irrational behavior.
And here you are, still blaming the politicians. As a result the GDPR came into being which is far more strict, it too is being blamed as the reason why many companies have now decided to shut down service altogether as the easiest solution to comply, when obviously the alternative would be to simply stop tracking your users.
> If companies decide to take these laws in the worst possible way, far worse than any normal and sane person would anticipate the problem isn't with the law.
Are you saying that before the 2002 ePrivacy Directive came out most people who thought about this wouldn't have predicted that companies would put up cookie banners?
The cookie nagging kinda worked for a while because EU bureaucrats bad. But I believe their was a general shift in realizing Google et al. spy on you where it backfired in the long term.
Users were way more naive at the time of cookie banners being introduced. Internet were still not a real IRL thing.
I think if you confronted your average user with what these companies collect in data behind the scenes they would be astounded. I've seen a lot of this stuff professionally and it is quite amazing that any of this is legal at all. The profiles that these companies have on private individuals are at a level that the intelligence services likely can not match, either in quantity or in quality.
To Joe Doe's defense it took way to long for me to realize Google stalked me on the web. Embarrassingly long. "Internet people" told me but I thought they were crackpots.
> cookie dialogue (...) Adds almost nothing to benefit user and huge annoyance from the UX perspective.
It's misinterpretation of the letter of the law (there's no such thing as a cookie dialog/banner) and the spirit of the law (disabling tracking should be easy default choice, not the convoluted, hard choice).
Cookie banners are simply the most annoying and spiteful way to fulfill the EU regulations. You don’t need to block access to the website until you accepted tracking. If you don’t track you don’t need any thing at all.
Things that are technically necessary to facilitate functions requested by the user like shopping carts or login tokens are exempt under clause 22 of the ePrivacy directive.
Don't set any other cookies and you won't need to ask for consent.
Politicians aren't forcing websites to set more than the strictly necessary cookies, which require consent. It's marketing/advertising that does.
That's because the cookie dialogues as they are now were never part of the original GDPR and other privacy related bills/acts/whatever.
GDPR requires that consent is as easy to withdraw as it is to give. [0]
That companies have dragged their feet and gone kicking and screaming with cookie banners is irrelevant to the actual law; the EU needs to start cracking down more and more on this to show what it actually means, since it's quite clear that companies are not going to willingly comply with the data consent laws.
So don't blame the politicians on this one, they never gave any requirement for such banners, and in fact specifically mentioned that it must be simple to revoke/deny consent. Companies that didn't want to comply with GDPR and other privacy laws decided to make it as painful as possible for you and I and blame it on the privacy rules.
This way, you can also have a rolling distro.
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting