International News Thread

[Lord of Rhinos]

On 10/24/2018 at 7:15 AM, mormont said:

Detailed report on the BBC today concerning internment (or 're-education') camps for Uighurs in China:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps

The sheer numbers are chilling. 

Thanks for posting that.  It is amazing what China can get away with.

[Errant Bard]

52 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Thanks for posting that.  It is amazing what China can get away with.

 is it? What ought to happen, that does not, then, in your opinion? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Errant Bard said:

 is it? What ought to happen, that does not, then, in your opinion? 

Well, Russia seems to cop sanctions at the drop of a hat compared to China who pretty much get to do what they want with little consequences. Could it be that the economic price of standing up to China means that principles are much easier to adhere to against the economically weak Russia?

As I have always said, Russia is the threat of the past. China is the threat of the future. Economic expediency be damned.

[Ser Reptitious]

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, Russia seems to cop sanctions at the drop of a hat compared to China who pretty much get to do what they want with little consequences. Could it be that the economic price of standing up to China means that principles are much easier to adhere to against the economically weak Russia?

As I have always said, Russia is the threat of the past. China is the threat of the future. Economic expediency be damned.

Welcome to naked capitalism! Ain't it great? 

[Bonnot OG]

Brazil just elected a genocidal fascist. 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, Russia seems to cop sanctions at the drop of a hat compared to China who pretty much get to do what they want with little consequences. Could it be that the economic price of standing up to China means that principles are much easier to adhere to against the economically weak Russia?

As I have always said, Russia is the threat of the past. China is the threat of the future. Economic expediency be damned.

That's why no one stands up to the US's shit either. Countries should be sanctioning the USA for it's treatment of migrant children. There's a lot of tut-tutting but nothing substantial is happening

Have you ever read history? One always appeases the militarily or economically powerful by letting them get away with shit that one does not let other countries get away with. There's nothing special about China in this regard, except that it is a now thing.

I'm also not sure how you can still believe that any country is consistent on the matter of principles in foreign relations. 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 10/27/2018 at 8:00 PM, Proudfeet said:

Thanks, but I think that that is a very superficial way of looking at it. I don't know of many people who will put their organisation before themselves. much less the shareholders. That is why they try to have their interests coincide. For example, matching bonuses to financial benchmarks.

As far as legality goes, breach of fiduciary duty is mainly for "negligence" or personal benefit. When it comes to unethical decisions, it is still very much on the management trying to increase their own bonuses and any benefit for the company is just an extra. The legal argument sounds to me that you are claiming that shareholders will sue the board when they find out Apple/Samsung didn't implement forced slowing down of phones when their rival did. 

It's there in the historical (and court) record. 

No, shareholders would not sue for finding out Apple/Samsung didn't implement forced slow down. Shareholders can and do sue if a company makes a legal decision which reduces profits. They can't sue if a company doesn't make an illegal decision. The question is, if Apple and Samsung challenge this fine and win, and it turns out to be legal of Apple and Samsung to put slowdown code into their OS, would shareholders in HTC, Sony, Nokia etc be inclined to sue if those companies don't do the same? Maybe, but at least investors would ask the question why and the companies would have to explain, that for them it would be a loss-making endeavour. A company would have to argue that Apple and Samsung can get away with it because they are virtually cults when it comes to cell phone loyalty, which means they can abuse their customers, and the customers will thank them for it. But for the other cellphone companies they've got to fight for the table scraps of the market, with far less entrenched brand loyalty, which means they need to have a different approach to getting people to buy their phones.

Of course planned obsolescence has been a thing in the consumer world for a long time now. And it seems that there is very little about it that can be deemed unlawful, probably the only thing is that the obsolesence should not make the product dangerous. So every company that can do it, does it. The slowdown code is the same thing, but for some reason this has been deemed (by Italy at least) to be going too far in planned obsolescence. It's almost like the first precedent on the limits of planned obsolesence outside of making the product harmful.

[Proudfeet]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's there in the historical (and court) record. 

No, shareholders would not sue for finding out Apple/Samsung didn't implement forced slow down. Shareholders can and do sue if a company makes a legal decision which reduces profits. They can't sue if a company doesn't make an illegal decision. The question is, if Apple and Samsung challenge this fine and win, and it turns out to be legal of Apple and Samsung to put slowdown code into their OS, would shareholders in HTC, Sony, Nokia etc be inclined to sue if those companies don't do the same? Maybe, but at least investors would ask the question why and the companies would have to explain, that for them it would be a loss-making endeavour. A company would have to argue that Apple and Samsung can get away with it because they are virtually cults when it comes to cell phone loyalty, which means they can abuse their customers, and the customers will thank them for it. But for the other cellphone companies they've got to fight for the table scraps of the market, with far less entrenched brand loyalty, which means they need to have a different approach to getting people to buy their phones.

Of course planned obsolescence has been a thing in the consumer world for a long time now. And it seems that there is very little about it that can be deemed unlawful, probably the only thing is that the obsolesence should not make the product dangerous. So every company that can do it, does it. The slowdown code is the same thing, but for some reason this has been deemed (by Italy at least) to be going too far in planned obsolescence. It's almost like the first precedent on the limits of planned obsolesence outside of making the product harmful.

But unethical decisions are decisions. Maybe I'm lacking in creativity, but I don't see how this would compel companies to be as cutthroat as possible. I was too focused on the legal aspect to think of other consequences, but I guess there is a bit of self-preservation rather than greed in the sense that shareholders can remove the management if they are unsatisfied. I just don't agree that there is a legal aspect to it.

I think the difference of planned obsolescence in this case is that previously, it could be a deliberate design flaw that limits the longevity of the product. However, in this case, it seems that they are actively sabotaging the product by releasing new updates with the sole aim of limiting performance. 

[Liffguard]

Jair Bolsonaro has won the presidential election in Brazil.

https://news.sky.com/story/far-right-candidate-jair-bolsonaro-wins-brazil-presidential-election-11538800

Quote

Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro has won Brazil's presidential election following a divisive campaign.

Official results show he won 56% of the vote with 94% of ballots counted, in Sunday's run-off against Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Workers Party.

...

Two years ago he commented that the dictatorship's mistake was "to torture and not kill" leftist dissidents, and during his campaign he vowed to send opponents "into exile or into prison".

The former army captain has commented that he would rather his sons die than come out as gay, and told a female politician that she "wasn't worth raping".

 

 

[Kandrax]

14 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Brazil just elected a genocidal fascist. 

What Ethnic, National, Racial or Religious group he wants to eliminate?

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

What Ethnic, National, Racial or Religious group he wants to eliminate?

You can pick one at random and it would probably be on the list. Or you could read on what he thinks of gays, blacks, indigenous people, etc. 

[JGP]

This is... bad. Peacekeepers should be on the ground, imo.

 

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1056902877413806080

 

[Bonnot OG]

3 hours ago, Kandrax said:

What Ethnic, National, Racial or Religious group he wants to eliminate?

Hi sympathizer. Guess you're not it well read on him eh?

 

[Errant Bard]

6 hours ago, Kandrax said:

What Ethnic, National, Racial or Religious group he wants to eliminate?

I listened to an interview of frei betto, a dominican monk, and founding member of the Partido dos Trabalhadores, where he was saying that if Bolsonaro was elected he would go into clandestinity. That's how scary things are.

From all accounts Bolsonaro got elected because both of a deliberate push from media, justice and government to make leftists into the devil and because of the unbearable violence on Brazilian streets. He intends to inject more guns and fuel more conflicts and violence. do the math.

[The Anti-Targ]

I thought sexual orientation was a protected class, at least under some county's human right legislation. According to this article https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/appeals-court-homosexuality-is-a-protected-class-like-race-and-sex sexual orientation discrimination is a sub-set of sex discrimination under US civil rights law. Though that's only a circuit court finding. I guess we'll have to see if it makes it to the Supreme Court, and with the way it's oriented, likely the Circuit Court finding will be overturned.

So protected group I guess varies by legal jurisdiction. Still a lot of countries' human rights laws would class targeted killing of gays as genocide., I would think.

[Ser Reptitious]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So protected group I guess varies by legal jurisdiction. Still a lot of countries' human rights laws would class targeted killing of gays as genocide., I would think.

The intent would certainly be genocidal, regardless of whether it meets the strict legal definition of a 'group' as set out in the Genocide Convention of 1948. Back then, sexual orientation was not exactly on the official radar screen (certainly not in any positive sense), so it's no surprise that it was not included. 

If it walks like a genocide and talks like a genocide, it's a genocide, regardless of legal definition quibbles.

[The Anti-Targ]

And I think the Genocide Convention 1948 is really just a starting point for national legislation on such matters, not the last word on it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I was listening to a panel on NPR linked here and it was jarring to hear that a majority of human beings live under dictatorships or authoritarian regimes.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I was listening to a panel on NPR linked here and it was jarring to hear that a majority of human beings live under dictatorships or authoritarian regimes.

And yet, the world seems to keep on turning, and most people seem to live sufficiently happy lives. And others live quite miserable lives despite living under democratic regimes. Though some of the benefits, most likely, are due to a few products and services that perhaps may not have been created or made available globally were it not for some countries being democracies. It's not as straightforward a question to answer as people probably think as to whether the individual on average has a better life under democracy than under other forms of govt. I think the answer at the moment is "it depends". Democracy certainly doesn't guarantee that arseholes don't get put in charge.

Thankfully India is a democracy, otherwise the numbers would look particularly thin for us. Without India, would the population of the world that is living under democratic systems still be larger than the population of China? Might be a close call.

Personally I'm glad I live in a democracy. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to go and live in a non-democratic country. I'd be pretty selective though. Though that is probably moderated by the fact that as a non-native I know I would be free to leave at any time, so long as I didn't run afoul of the authorities, of course, which is harder to avoid in non-democratic countries. But even then the worst that might happen is I get kicked out, depending on the offence. And there are some democratic countries I would probably avoid. 

I wonder how they defined democracy? Did they consider Iran to be a democracy? It has a democratically elected branch of govt, but the real power resides with the Mullahs.

[kairparavel]

While this is here in the states it involves two sisters-  Saudi citizens, who as it turns out, were seeking asylum in the US.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/us/new-york-hudson-river-bodies-saudi-citizens/index.html