Saturday, November 30, 2019

Priyanka Reddy Murder Case - Police Couldn't have Saved Her

The brutal incident in Hyderabad left me devastated.

There’s a lot of misinformation being spread and a blame game between police and victim going on right now.

Firstly, the incident happened on the Outer Ring Road that surrounds Hyderabad. It’s 40 kms away from the city. It’s basically like a highway and it’s very hard to patrol every inch. Crimes can easily go unnoticed.

Secondly, blaming the victim for not calling police is absolutely ridiculous. You never know how terrorised she was at that time and you can never expect victims to calmly call for help in the last minute. The fact that she called her family tells you how women don’t trust or have faith in emergency services in India. The home minister of Telangana insensitively told that she should’ve called police instead of her sister. What difference would that have made? That was a highway and there’s no one around to help.

There were also reports that police initially weren’t helpful when the family approached to lodge a complaint. This is unfortunate and most of the police in India aren’t trained in gender sensitisation. Women are afraid and hesitant to approach police and report sexual crimes.

Predators are everywhere in this country and it’s impossible and impractical to stop crimes.

The only thing government can do is it fast track the justice process and consistently punish the rapists with capital punishment. This will make a big difference and will make these predators think twice before committing a crime.

We also need a reliable emergency response service that works like swiggy and help reaches you in minutes. This can only be achieved if govt privatises this and invests more money.

Source - Telangana: Cops said she has eloped, murdered doctor's family alleges police apathy

Friday, November 29, 2019

Google and Facebook are very dangerous to human rights

International Amnesty has expressed concern over the watchdog activity of tech companies like Google and Facebook. The platform was claimed to be a major human rights abuser.

International Amnesty has urged governments of different countries to take different steps, from enacting laws to protecting user data, and not just examining surveillance-based business models and reforming them. Amnesty's 58-page report states that more than 90% of the world's people use Google search engine, while one-third of the world's people use Facebook on a daily basis.

Amnesty clearly believed that Google and Facebook's business model was a worldwide spy on billions of people. Facebook and Google may not charge for their services, but users will have to pay for it in the form of personal data. Citing the example of the Cambridge Analytica chapter for this, it was stated that this was proof that users' personal data could be used against them.

However, Facebook has rejected this report by International Amnesty. Facebook believes it is empowering human rights activists. While Google said that we value people's trust and know that we have a responsibility to protect users' data. The report also publishes the views of Steve Centerfield, Facebook's director of privacy and public policy. In a total of 10 issues, Centerfield explained that we respect and disagree with you.

Please share this articles with your friends and family on social media also post your valuable comments on this post we will immediately publish your comments on this article - Source

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Japanese Hotel Room Costs $1 a Night -- If You'll Livestream Yourself

"Guests coming to Asahi Ryokan have the option to pay just ¥100 (about $1) per night to stay the night -- if they agree to have their entire stay livestreamed," reports CNN:
[T]here are restrictions around how the live streaming works. [27-year-old manager] Tetsuya Inoue explains to CNN Travel that the feed is video-only, so guests will have privacy in their conversations or phone calls... Guests are permitted to turn the lights off, and the bathroom area is out of camera range. 
"This is a very old ryokan [traditional Japanese hotel] and I was looking into a new business model," says Inoue, who started running the hotel last year. "Our hotel is on the cheaper side, so we need some added value, something special that everyone will talk about." So far, four guests have taken him up on the offer since Inoue began offering the deal last month. "Young people nowadays don't care much about the privacy," Inoue adds. "Some of them say it's OK to be [watched] for just one day."
Inoue ultimately hopes to monetize the YouTube channel, according to CNN . (Though it currently appears to be down.)

But Inoue told CNN that when the hotel room is vacant, he plans to just livestream himself, working in his office.

Source: CNN

‘One Child Nation’ (2019) Exposes the Tragic Consequences of Chinese Population Control

The horrors of the utilitarian principle is that, unspeakable evil can be done against a populous when the government deems a drastic measure necessary for the greater good of the populous.

A utilitarian system does not care about the well being of its people, when it is focusing on the issues of the populous as a whole.

There are a lot of policies that are made to "solve problems" that really don't address root causes of the problem, such as Tory Party policies designed to kill poor people as a mechanism for lowering poverty, because that doesn't end poverty that just makes poverty deadlier so poor people effectively just die from it keeps the numbers of poor folks low and gives the illusion of wealth. Some might argue it creates a naturally selected environment for wealthier folks as poor people end up starving to death.

In the instance of China's one child policy, they looked at the root cause of a problem and came up with an effective solution to overpopulation, the video started with the fact that there will be fewer people when the ageing population dies away. It has effectively cut the number of people in the country by a significant margin, and the fact that women were treated as worthless has only made women worth more by a large margin, the aim of reducing the birthrate effectively committed human rights atrocities and hand waved those atrocities away by using the phrase. "For the greater good".

In order to sustain a populous, one needs to have 2 children.

Friday, November 22, 2019

Watch The Inventor: "Out for Blood" in Silicon Valley

This is the story of Theranos, a multi-billion dollar tech company, its founder Elizabeth Holmes, the youngest self-made female billionaire, and the massive fraud that collapsed the company.

This here is a clear indication of "Scientific illiteracy".

But hey this could have worked, prolly in a next decade or so.. who knows ?! She ticked all the right boxes at the right time.

Super Woman, millennial CEO, grandiose plans and ideas, ruffled the feathers of all those kooky old male boomer CEOs.It's almost as if it marketed itself to a sympathetic media that practically fell over itself to carry the banner for this company, and helped sell it to an increasingly misinformed and mislead public...

While it is fascinating story, the whole fiasco was just a classic swindle; in that it works best on people who are greedy. Everyone closed their eyes, and the deceptions were so idiotic that these people seemed to want to be deceived.

"How did she manage to fool silicon valley?" implies there's any reason at all that Silicon Valley isn't just as short-sighted, gullible and selfish as everyone else in the world.

Disclaimer: The following is only an embed from website is not hosted or owned by me. I shall not be responsible for any copyright claims or any other legal matters. If you feel this is a copyright of your work or part of your work, please email me here so that I can remove it from my blog. 

Watch The HBO Documentary below:- 

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Jimmy Wales goes with .social for new social network

We’ve seen previously that both Wikipedia co-founders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales despise how popular social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have turned into platforms for spreading fake news.

While Larry Sanger launched a social media strike in protest against the malpractices adopted by social media networks, Jimmy Wales launched WikiTribune, an online publication to post and share news articles.

WT:Social is similar to Facebook and Twitter but does not rely on advertisements as its revenue. “The business model of social media companies, of pure advertising, is problematic,” says Wales. His rival social media network will work on the donations by generous individual donors.

Another reason why Wales thinks that adopting the advertising model is bad is the fact that it leads to low-quality content. While Facebook and Twitter use algorithms to display posts with most engagements on the top in users’ feed, WT:Social will display the latest articles. There is no ‘like’ button or something similar on the platform at the moment but an “upvote” button might be added later in the future.

WT:Social already has 50,000 users but Wales says that he wants to attract masses to his Facebook and Twitter alternative.
WT:Social’s website mentions “We will foster an environment where bad actors are removed because it is right, not because it suddenly affects our bottom-line.”
Currently, there is a waitlist to join the network. Meanwhile, you can sign up on the website for free, donate and invite friends.

Link to Website:

Monday, November 18, 2019

Youtube updated TOS can potentially ban people with adblock

YouTube has recently changed its terms of service. The key section that has got people up in arms is as follows:
YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.
This is especially concerning to a lot of people because, due to the fuzzy wording, there remains the possibility that Google can restrict access to any part of the service -- YouTube, Google, Gmail, whatever -- if it seems you 'no longer commercially viable' (which is itself a pretty vague phrase).

Realistically, though, there's a difference between can and will. In theory, YouTube -- and pretty much any service -- can stop you using it for just about any reason whatsoever. Whether they would is a different matter. There have been other organisations that have leaned heavily into restricting users who aren't cost-effective, mostly newspapers such as the Washington Post and New York Times, who will lock articles behind a paywall until you buy a subscription (usually allowing you to view a couple per month). Spotify, for example, has specific wording in its ToS that bans adblockers.

However, this is probably a lot less to do people using ad blockers and more to do with people doing things that bring YouTube into (what they consider to be) disrepute. The concern here is likely to be -- and granted, this is speculative, but it's a reasonable reading -- is that this is to highlight people who YouTube feels are likely to scare off advertisers. Rather than saying that x is banned, and y is banned, and z is banned, but a, b and c are OK as long as you don't cross lines e, f and g, YouTube are now saying that if, by their sole discretion, if they feel as though your presence on the site is likely to be 'no longer commercially viable' -- if they don't feel it's in the best interest of either the site as a whole or their bottom line, depending on how generous a reading you feel like giving it -- then they can decide to remove your account.

In practice, they could always do this. In fact, this was upheld recently in the response to two lawsuits filed against YouTube. One, from PragerU (a right-leaning organisation), complained that YouTube restricting their videos on topics such as why climate change was a big ol' hoax (no, really) among others amounted to anti-conservative censorship. The other, from a group of LGBTQ+ activists, claimed that YouTube was unfairly marking out LGBTQ+ content while letting homophobia run rampant. In both cases, the complaint was that YouTube marking videos as 'restricted' was unfair treatment. However, whether that's true or not, it's not really relevant to the issue at hand: it's been held time and time again that YouTube isn't forced to allow anyone a platform. (It's been brought to my attention that PragerU is currently in the middle of another lawsuit in California on the same issue; the judgement hasn't come in on that one yet -- as far as I can see -- but it's not looking great for them either.)

Whether you believe that's fair ('As a private company, they shouldn't be forced to provide a service to extremists') or whether you think it's troubling for free speech reasons ('YouTube can now remove anyone who promotes an agenda they don't agree with, whether that's far-right or anti-China, for example') -- and there are arguments for both, don't get me wrong -- this specific wording change is probably not going to have much practical impact on the day-to-day use of the site by the vast majority of people.

Debian 10.2 released

The Debian project is pleased to announce the second update of its stable distribution Debian 10 (codename buster). This point release mainly adds corrections for security issues, along with a few adjustments for serious problems. Security advisories have already been published separately and are referenced where available.

Please note that the point release does not constitute a new version of Debian 10 but only updates some of the packages included. There is no need to throw away old buster media. After installation, packages can be upgraded to the current versions using an up-to-date Debian mirror.

Those who frequently install updates from won't have to update many packages, and most such updates are included in the point release.

New installation images will be available soon at the regular locations.

Upgrading an existing installation to this revision can be achieved by pointing the package management system at one of Debian's many HTTP mirrors. A comprehensive list of mirrors is available at:

The complete lists of packages that have changed with this revision:

The current stable distribution:

Proposed updates to the stable distribution:

stable distribution information (release notes, errata etc.):

Security announcements and information:

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Capitalist Marketing Scam - Consumer Products at Risk

I think the only thing I'm nostalgic for in regards to the 2000's is that the gadgets and tech that came out in that decade actually had real utility. These tech companies these days want me to buy a $400 mirror because it tells me the weather. I already have a pocket computer that tells me the weather, a home AI that tells me the weather, and a watch that tells me the weather. I've input my grocery list into so many devices that I don't need the list because putting it on all these smart devices inadvertently made me memorize it. The $30 christmas RC car that gets destroyed by the elements in a week is now an $800 drone for no reason. Every new website/app venture is just a cynical data collecting scheme.

In the 2000s, the gadgets were actually USEFUL. This pocket computer gets you on the internet without having to carry a textbook-sized laptop! This blu-ray holds 20x more data so you can have several movies on it instead of just one! This phone lets you record video! This website can stream videos instead of you having to download them! They fulfilled actual needs.

I don't think if I was born later I would have fallen in love with technology like I did growing up in the 90s and 00s. The stuff coming out today is total junk. Another subscription streaming service when I already have two. A smart X that doesn't actually improve the day-to-day lived experience. It's like they've run out of ideas but capitalism demands endless growth so they're just pumping out bullshit. 

Silicon Valley is the new Hollywood.

Fitbit is a medical device for certain people with certain conditions that need to constantly know their heartbeat. The idea that it's a consumer product for everyone is a capitalist marketing scam. 

It's like digital chapstick.