So you look up everybody who you meet irl? I mean the way I'm reading this blog post is that the author had no idea. Personally I don't believe it, that's why I wouldn't accept the apology if I cared about this
No, but if I'm trying to get someone to give me money for a project, invite them to my lab, and visit "several of their residences" I would definitely look them up
It isn’t like it was very googable until a few months ago. Now I guess all these big labs will just start running criminal background checks on anyone who wants to donate a bunch of money.
What? He was on the sex offender registry in multiple states, with several high profile pieces written in various media outlets. That's not some deep dark secret you have to dig to uncover.
Also, I never even heard about this guy until a few months ago, it obviously wasn’t high enough media profile for my radar. What did his Wikipedia page look like last year?
Edit: I checked Wikipedia from 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&o... All the allegations and convictions were listed, so I’ll take back my comment and admit this was a failure of minimal due diligence (or outright not caring).
> credible reports that internet service providers in Kazakhstan have required people in the country to download and install a government-issued certificate on all devices and in every browser in order to access the internet
Maybe for some it was a choice. Anyway, it's not the web browser's business.
If my anyone is coercing me to do something, it's a problem between that person and me. I don't want Mozilla lecturing me on politics, I just want to use the browser.
This is lies. They did not require people to install anything. They MITMed only mobile internet. They MITMed only one city. On this city only few domains were MITMed. Only a fraction of connections to those domains were MITMed.
So in practice I think that most people did not even notice anything. And those who noticed could just press F5 few times. Or use VPN as many people do anyway.
It's slower, which is practically all I care about now that all browsers have the same extension API.
>In addition, Firefox + ublokc origin is pretty much the only option on mobile if you want to block ads, unless you want to fiddle with hosts files or pi-holes or something.
On Android, Blokada, or any browser like Brave. On iOS, Safari has a builtin content filter.
It's fortunate I can buy an iphone for my mum and she hasn't had a single problem with it.
On the other hand I bought my dad a laptop with Windows and despite having an antivirus he's had all kinds of problems with it, including some heavy duty adware.
You can setup Windows to be secure, just make sure to not give your parents admin accounts. Install the apps they use and give them normal user accounts.
Provide the password for elevation and educate to only type that in when they are installing something they know is secure. Likely they will forget the password and have to check with their "IT helper" anyway, and sanity check there actions then.
I have a Windows 7 machine setup like this for my parents and they have never had a problem with malware. The stuff that lives in the user profile gets caught by AV, and I have to install something for them maybe twice a year.
I would rather put in a little extra work setting up a Windows laptop than send metrics for the entire system to Google. Their Android phones take care of that invasion of privacy.
You don't need admin access for anything. Without admin privileges I can install new software, sniff your passwords, encrypt your files, participate in a DDoS attack, mine Bitcoin...
Or I could get them to buy something far cheaper that's already secure, rather than having to learn how to admin an OS that I have had no need to use for nearly 20 years.
> check with their "IT helper"
The whole point is to avoid being an "IT Helper", otherwise I'd just give them an ubuntu laptop.
> The stuff that lives in the user profile gets caught by AV,
This is how it has been functioning til now. Of course. But one should have 1% critical/analytical brain to understand that this is not how it should be going.
If you don't consider yourself subject subject to change you are doomed to disappear.
I think that the problem here is not agreeing on whether this is awful. It's already pretty clear that it is.
However, other countries cannot intervene. Brazilian borders are Brazilian, any other country that wants to help needs to be authorised by Brazilian authorities.
The real problem here is that Brazil's leaders are awful and there's nothing that can be done in regards to that. It's only possible to protest and fight against them in a legal manner.
Romanticizing revolution is ineffective. It's not only extremely hard but also infeasible to destroy all power structures already in place.
I count the parent, and a couple more replying with something-must-be-done answers at the suggestion that the territory be forcefully or otherwise removed from Brazilian sovereignty.
There are other comments in other sub-threads.
Also, this pretext isn't a new idea, and there's heavyweight international support for it.
“Contrary to what Brazilians think, the Amazon is not their property, it belongs to all of us,” Al Gore, then a senator, said in 1989.
The Latin-American Bishops Conference denounced this back in 2007:
The growing assault on the environment may serve as a pretext for proposals to internationalize the Amazon, which only serve the economic interests of transnational corporations. Pan-Amazon society is multiethnic, multicultural, and multireligious. The dispute over the occupation of the land is intensifying more and more. The traditional communities of the region want their lands to be recognized and legalized.
"There is nothing abnormal about the climate this year or the rainfall in the Amazon region, which is just a little below average," Inpe researcher Alberto Setzer told Reuters.
"The dry season creates the favourable conditions for the use and spread of fire, but starting a fire is the work of humans, either deliberately or by accident."
And if you want Brazil’s Amazon to sink your carbon, why don’t you pay Brazil to sink your carbon? Or do you want them to do that for free while each of you burn 7 times as much as each of them? Well, good luck with that.
Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.