"""I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive? Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman. Discussion is over!
This isn't the context for a rebuttal of your suggestion that unfounded accusations abound regarding criminality. Probably some are but you'd have to believe in a massive conspiracy to disregard all reports of let us say, rape and sexual offences committed by some of those immigrants. Do you really believe 'Sweden is the rape capital of Europe' is a far-right put-up job? I never thought they had that kind of clout."""
It is with existing law that asylum seekers were taken in, and it is with current law that they are allowed to stay. The idea that it was because of 'the say-so of one woman' is ridiculous.
Sweden had the highest rape rate in Europe BEFORE the immigrants started coming in. But this actually has to do with better reporting in that country. It's easy to check this fact yourself.
Sweden and Germany have the two highest GDP growth rates in the last couple of quarters. They are also the two countries that did their duty, obeyed the law, and are now seeing the benefits.
All official crime statistics prove that immigrants are committing less crime compared to locals. Also, more rapes happen by locals by far than by immigrants. More than 1500 immigrant houses have been attacked in Germany in the last year. You can easily check these facts.
Want to change the law? Fine. Do it through non-violent means, or stop crying. Want to claim immigrants are rapist vermin? No. That's cowardly, and actually illegal in many European countries.
Your comments are highly offensive and simply wrong. I'd suggest you check these facts out if you actually think they are true. If you're just spreading such hateful lies on purpose, then I hope someone reports you and you face the law.
Because we live in a land of laws, and fascist bullshit hateful comments about people are not accepted.
1) Sweden has been importing North African and Middle Eastern people's since the early 1970s in a concerted effort to shore up their Demographic issues.
https://swedenreport.org/immigration-3/
5) The quickest way to put the fascists in power is to demonize the truth, because the truth does get out eventually
Edit: These are all true it's quite Hacker Newsy to down vote the truth rather than provide a factual rebuttal, sources are there for you to read.
And as far as fascism
>Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism.
If you do not understand how attempting to quell factual conversations, results in the people searching for solutions, which results in the rise of the ultra-right wing, I invite you to look at who was voted seats in Germany in the most recent election and who's leading in Denmark, it will only grow. There are unintended consequences to the policies implemented by many of the EU governments which are now beginning to surface
"The last time they reported rapes by nationalities those born in a foreign country or born to a foreign parent accounted for over 70% of all rapes."
That is not a factual remark.
according to Brå you quoted, immigrants were 5.5 times more likely to be CHARGED[edit: but not convicted, convictions have "little difference"] on reported rapes in Sweden. Not on the total of REPORTED rapes. There's around 190 convictions per year in Sweden compared to 6,700 reported. With such a low conviction rate, there is something terribly wrong.
Another hypothesis that could be made is that the police are targeting immigrants more than locals. Or that immigrants can not get as good a legal defense. But these are just some hypothesis, I am not willing to jump to conclusions.
Before all these people came begging for help after fleeing war, were you standing up for the thousands of women not getting justice every year in Sweden? Or is this only a new concern for women? Because the rates are about the same, and also thousands weren't getting justice. I guess it's just a strange coincidence that you haven't publicly been calling for justice.
Hate speech is a crime, where you make false accusations about hundreds of thousands of people and call for violence. If you're saying that they are rapists, that might incite violence against innocent people. If what you are saying is actually true, then yes, you can say it, and it is not a crime. You can talk about statistics, but if you make up a figure (your 70%), and you say "accounted for over 70% of all rapes" as you did, then that is not the truth is it? Even your linked articles do not say they "accounted for 70% of all rapes".
Out of the 81,300 asylum seekers in 2014 to Sweden, how many of those have been convicted of rape? If it was 2 people, then it is less than 0.0025%. Even if it was every single person convicted rape(190) in that year, that would be 0.23% It's not though, it's way less. I hope you see how silly it is to paint all those people with the same brush.
Do you really believe stuff those articles talk about? Like how the gatestoneinstitute article you linked to says how "Sweden is also home to sizeable Muslim enclaves that have become off-limits to Swedish police". That's ridiculous.
That is a factual remark, though and its quite simple math. If 15% of the population is 5.5 times more likely to be charged than the remaining 85% of the population in order for that to be true the 15% of the population must account for 85% of the instances. 15.5* 5.5=85 + 15.5 = 100 Those numbers are in the Bra report its not difficult to deduce...
There is something wrong with reporting if less than 3% of rapes are resulting in convictions.
Do I believe everything the gatestone institute says, no. What I gave you came directly from the Swedish government and Sweden's issues do not stem from the last 3 years. Sweden has been importing refugees from the Middle East and North Africa as part of policy to deal with a demographic issue and lack of immigration from Western Nations since the 1970s.
If it wasn't an issue why do you think they stopped reporting the numbers in the 90s? It's not because they were favorable
I think it's much more likely the police are afraid of being accused of racism.
I did some more reading and found this: "The report is based on statistics for those "suspected" of offences for reasons of comparison, but Stina Holmberg of the Council for Crime Prevention said that there was "little difference" in the statistics for those suspected of crimes and those actually convicted. "
It seems those 5.5 times more likely rates were not convictions but being 5.5 times more likely to be suspected and charged, but not convicted. Actual convictions were about the same according to the same report.
There was a police memo circulated stating the reason they were not reporting ethnicity traits in their public reports now is that they were afraid of being accused of racism.
Why are you conflating "hateful comments" with violence?
You are the only one who seems to be arguing in favor of violence.
You apparently want violence done by the state to happen to people who merely make "hateful comments". Aka, people who make statements you disagree with. Nice tolerance there, bro.
Changing laws should be done through the legal process. Even if the laws changing happen to be something you that personally disagree with.
You are the fascist if you believe that the people you disagree with should be silenced.
You apparently want violence done by the state to happen to people who merely make "hateful comments". Aka, people who make statements you disagree with. Nice tolerance there, bro.… You are the fascist if you believe that the people you disagree with should be silenced.
This seems to be a bit of a straw man argument. While some people no doubt want those views silenced, that's not the correct approach and not one I see being advocated here.
On the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to object to those views. Personally, I'd also like that discussion to be a constructive one, and I'm not sure that the whole "unwashed criminal hordes" rhetoric is really going to help with that. Nobody should be silenced, but likewise nobody should be free from criticism for views that we object to.
The OP absolutely wants those he disagrees with to be silenced.
"The people who brake the law with their hateful comments inciting violence deserve to face the consequences of the law. "
AKA, if people make arguments that he disagrees with, like "immigrants are more likely to break the law", he believes those people who make those arguments should be put in jail.
Your comments in this thread have broken the HN guidelines by being uncivil and calling names. That's not allowed here, even when you're right—especially when you're right. So please don't do this. Besides breaking the rules and lowering the quality of discourse (yes, others lowered it first, but two wrongs don't make a right), it undermines your argument in the mind of a neutral reader. That's a bad thing to do to the truth.
If you want to prevent me from defending myself against accusations, please delete my account. If you want to defend people calling immigrants rapists that's your call.
Thanks.
Edit: on second thoughts, please delete my account. I don't want to be involved with a website who defends such people.
I'm hardly "defend[ing] such people"; I chided that account more harshly than yours. The issue is simply the rules of the site.
When we ask people to follow the rules, people sometimes think that's for political reasons (i.e. we must be supporting their enemies), but isn't—it's simply that no one is allowed to call names, be uncivil, and so on, regardless of how wrong someone else is. Obviously if we're going to have such rules, we need to apply them evenly.
It's physically impossible for us to reply to every comment that breaks the rules. Users who notice egregious cases that haven't been chided by mods are invited to alert us at hn@ycombinator.com. Obviously, though, the bad behavior of others does not excuse one's own (cf. "two wrongs don't make a right" upthread). And if you mean to infer political bias from the choice of comments I've publicly chided, you'll find that the data (https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang) sooner support the opposite bias than that one.
HN doesn't delete entire account histories. That would gut the threads that the account participated in, and the threads belong to the community. We do often delete specific comments that people have a reason to be worried about.
Far from ignoring you, I answered that question in the comment you're replying to.
Yes, we ban accounts—usually publicly, except in case of spammers. And we do move threads, adding a comment explaining what we moved and where. We do not delete threads.
Please delete my account and all personal information?
You've repeatedly ignored my requests to delete my account and personal information.
Individual comments are deleted all the time. Please delete all my comments?
I have a right to be forgotten which is enforceable by law. Since the HN servers uses European servers I have a pretty good chance of this at least on those if you don't do the right thing. This has also been enforced on a number of US companies already.
Further more, you are infringing my copyright on these comments.
The hate speech you are publishing(and have direct knowledge that it is false) is not only a criminal matter, but also a safety matter.
My next step will be to send my request for removal again once by postal letter. This is my last comment on HN, and I will not read any more replies here.
When people spread lies about immigrants, and put them on the internet, in print, or say them at demonstrations to thousands -- then those have a proven affect to incite violence.
This violence happens against innocent people who did not break the law. I am against that.
The people who brake the law with their hateful comments inciting violence deserve to face the consequences of the law. (which is not always violence by the way).
If you think there is really some conspiracy to hide the statistics of rapes by immigrants, then do the research and prove it. Seriously, if it's true, then that will save a lot of people. But the available evidence does not hold that to be true.
“My sense is we were innovating too quickly for Uber and Lyft. You get to be a big company, you’re less nimble. But these companies have to expect disruption.”
Gold. Reminds me of how Slowgle is getting disrupted by Paris.
The best parts of JavaScript are where the Lisp and Smalltalk heritage is apparent.
The worst parts are where a PHB told Brandon Eich "we're going to call it Javascript, make it more like Java", and where the PHB told him "I don't care if it's done, we need to ship it".
Self was definitely an influence. It's where the prototype inheritance came from. Not sure that's a good thing. Smalltalk was more traditional in its inheritance model even if it was all duck typing.
For UI, prototype inheritance was nicer on the Newton (NewtonScript) than on the several of the class-based stuff I played with[1]. Morphic include in Pharo / Squeak is based on Self's UI. I actually like a prototype (other than performance issues) more than class-based. It has a much nicer, lighter feel for me. I just don't think Javascript is the best at it. I loved programming NewtonScript other than its clunky syntax in places. NeXTSTEP got around a lot of crappy class-based behavior by having live objects.
1) I swear I still have nightmares that include OnOk
Trying to install stuff without the users permission, and using sudo without the users intent is really not right. How can we trust this if they do such things?
It looks like it is running a sudo command with a python script with scripts under a non-root user. This means that anyone who can write data to that non-root user folder can then run things as root.
ie. I can drop in a .py file and execute whatever code I want. Code run with sudo should not allow this.
The backdoor is `sudo` and if you allow passwordless `sudo` then any program you execute has permissions to run code as root. If you require a password to `sudo` then there's less of an issue as even the LetsEncrypt client would require you to grant permissions to `apt-get`.
That all said, it's still bad form to `apt-get -y` when run with a `--help` flag. Particularly with the `-y flag`. Even if you trust LetsEncrypt (and most of us would), it's still unexpected / non-idiomatic behavior and the `-y` flag means users don't get much time to cancel the operation should any output concern them.
This is a discussion about letsencypt-auto, not the underlying letsencrypt/certbot program. Here's what the docs said about letsencrypt-auto:
"Because not all operating systems have packages yet, we provide a temporary solution via the letsencrypt-auto wrapper script, which obtains some dependencies from your OS and puts others in a python virtual environment: <instructions to download and run letsencrypt-auto>"
If users don't read the label before downloading and running a script, they might be surprised by what it does. But we've learned that users don't read those instructions and get upset anyway, so cerbot-auto now asks for additional interactive permission before installing things.
I looked up the actual figures after posting -- seems London has about 5x as many international visitors, so you are absolutely right.
But, I think in Rio there is also an argument to be made of how many of those "estimated" visitors are actually simply displacing people who would otherwise have travelled to Rio. To your point, if Rio is in fact no set-up to accommodate as many people as London, then a lot of the effect of the games will simply be substituting regular travelers with Olympics watchers.
Either way -- the only point I guess I was really trying to make was that the variable of interest is the delta in the actual visitors to Rio -- you want an economist making this argument, not a health expert
Most people are probably going to stay at Air BnBs. There literally aren't enough hotels there to support the influx of people there. It was a mess during the world cup and that was held throughout the entire country. The only place I could find to stay during the world cup there was an overpriced AirBnb.
It was totally worth it, but I've been wondering since how the hell the city is going to handle that many people there at once.
You could make an electric cargo trike for every single person in the country, plus have some money left over. Some of that left over money could go into building bike paths.
What an amazing country where every single person would have free transport.
Less people would be dying because of obesity, and air pollution. Two of the biggest killers. Actual things that are killing Australians right now. Not imaginary ones.
As a cyclist I'd love to see that business in SA too. I don't see why a government should build that business though, but I accept the argument that the government should be responsible for defense.
Additionally I think submarines aren't a terrible thing to spend money on for a country like Australia.
