Sure, those EIO will be held if Hungary starts applying EIO that it got (e.g. for former Ministry of Justice of Poland which awaits trail, he sits comfortably in Hungary).
Let's hope elections there will change Orban into something saner.
I think you might be missing the ‘concerning’ part. Which specific cases are concerning? I don’t find it inherently concerning that people can’t escape justice by crossing the Hungarian border, Bonnie and Clyde style.
Too explicitly spell it out, op is saying here that if any one of the 27 countries in the EU decides you are breaking one of their laws, they can have 1 of the other 26 enforce an EIO.
EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement. So it’s not as if arbitrary Hungarian laws can be applied in France via EIOs. And of course, we all know this is not happening, which is why we get radio silence from the people who are ‘concerned’ about this whenever specifics are requested.
Annex D is a list of things that are crimes pretty much everywhere.
Not sure what to make of the claim that Hungary might theoretically be enforcing Hungarian law in France. It seems surprising that no-one has noticed any specific consequences of this that you can point to.
The EIO is mostly just a formalization and standardization of a bunch of ad-hoc processes that were already in place. Law enforcement agencies in different European countries do try to assist each other, on the whole.
What you're missing is the erosion of the ability of the executing states to say things like "hey this is sketchy, we think this crime might not have happened", "hey the police department in this particular city is notoriously untrustworthy", or "hey this prosecutor is widely known in the local press to be corrupt and owns a collection of ferraris".
Now foreign authorities are trusted by default and significant parts of their reasoning are not subject to review, that's bad.
You understand that these aren't typically public, right? There's not any particularly good mechanism to discover abuse in this system in the first place, because the checks and balances are largely left to the requesting state.
>Where are search warrants issued via public proceedings? You could make the same point about any jurisdiction.
It's different though, typically you can fight those warrants after the fact, with EIOs you have to do the fighting in a jurisdiction you don't live in.
This is all deeply problematic because things like "probable cause" have very different meanings in different EU countries, even if on paper it's all supposed to be the same.
>Also, account first created in 2021, coincidentally starts posting right after the other account in this thread is replaced with a green account?
Maybe stick to one account? It’s confusing for the rest of us, if nothing else.
You are determined not to point to any specific examples and you keep switching to different abstract arguments. For example, you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way, and are raising a different set of equally irrelevant abstract points.
>you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way
Nonsense, I told you that EIOs are non-public after you repeatedly insisted on examples of them being abused. I did not suggest that there's anything sinister about them being non-public. The sinister part is outsourcing warrants to other countries. I can't trust that the French legal system will protect me in France anymore because now I also have to trust the Hungarian legal system, that's bad.
Frankly, it seems silly to debate about whether or not these systems are being abused when we know that Poland has historically issued one third of all EAWs.
Oh no, that's totally up to you. If you're happy with the courts in your country not being able to review the requests sent from Hungary, that's cool. Without transparent judicial review, how could we even know if the cases are concerning?
"Subject to review" means little more than "is the form filled correctly?", it certainly does not mean second-guessing by the courts in the executing state.
Like, yeah, your EIO will be rejected if you don't tick any of the crime-category boxes in the form.
I have been looking at some way to reduce the burden on me and put it back on the developer submitting. So far I’ve been asking them to split their wall of code PRs down in to multiple smaller ones, and soon I’ll probably ask them to demo to me the feature working because I can’t assume they did this themselves.
I picked up miniature painting as a hobby around Christmas icm 3D printing with the idea of building a Christmas village from scratch. It's always fascinating what long and winded funnels every new hobby brings. In this case brushes, synthetic vs sabel, usage, care.
Especially given how fast things progress, timeline and performance are a tradeoff where I'd say swaying things in favour of the latter is not per definition net positive.
Microsoft gets largely pilloried on every UI rethink, Apple’s Liquid Glass just annoyed everyone I’ve heard comment on it, and, fwiw, YouTube Music asking if it feels outdated is an unnecessary annoyance.
Totally agree if the AI or search results are a (relatively) direct answer to the question.
But what if the AI is used to build up a(n otherwise) genuine human response, like: 'Perhaps the reason behind this is such-and-such, (a quick google)|($AI) suggests that indeed it is common for blah to be blah, so...'
Same logic still applies. If I gave a shit what it "thought" or suggests, I'd prompt the $AI in question, not HN users.
That said, I'm not against a monthly (or whatever regular periodic interval that the community agrees on) thread that discusses the subject, akin to "megathreads" on reddit. Like interesting prompts, or interesting results or cataloguing changes over time etc etc.
It's one of those things that can be useful to discuss in aggregate, but separated out into individual posts just feels like low effort spam to farm upvotes/karma on the back of the flavor of the month. Much in the same way that there's definitely value in the "Who's Hiring/Trying to get hired" monthly threads, but that value/interest drops precipitously if each comment/thread within them were each their own individual submission.
What may be added is that some people have a hard time reading words by their 'total shape'. I can imagine that for them, the difference between pattern matching symbols and strings of letters is even more profound.
Comparable to what I read someone say about AI the other day: we're living in the small sliver of history where smart-glasses with cameras are technically feasible yet are still (kind of) detectable.
There's no reason why stealth technology should have to advance faster than detection technology. In fact, in many applications with strong incentives to advance both stealth and detection capabilities, the modern world has trended towards being increasingly transparent.
If we culturally/economically wanted it, I'm sure we could all have cheap nonlinear junction detectors in our pockets.
My mom has hearing aids, I only get all the technical info through her, so it's a bit blurry, but she complained about very unpleasant scratchy noises, for instance when my dad was watching videos on his iPad (for himself) elsewhere in the room. Settings were changed but now she has a harder time understanding us. We don't have to scream but if we don't speak 'clearly', she misses a lot, especially when we are with a larger group (say 10 people at a dinner). She says she has some friends that she understands very clearly, in contrast to others (admittedly, me and one of my sisters are not the best examples of how to speak crystal clear).
Perhaps this is just the limit of her hearing capacity. Or do you think she should not settle for this and push for something better?
> We don't have to scream but if we don't speak 'clearly', she misses a lot, especially when we are with a larger group (say 10 people at a dinner). She says she has some friends that she understands very clearly, in contrast to others (admittedly, me and one of my sisters are not the best examples of how to speak crystal clear).
This is where my normal hearing is now. My assumption is the "some I understand clearly" is base very much on what frequency their speech is in.
I'm meeting with a hearing aid doctor this week, actually.
Just as a tip, shouting or even just speaking more loudly is rarely necessary if someone has (properly configured) hearing aids. Just speak clearly. Ensuring proper enunciation so they can read lips is usually more important. Hearing aids will make it "loud enough" but they won't clean up the information.
Does she have primarily high frequency loss? High frequency loss is the most typical in the elderly and also from damage from noise exposure.
Different people have different voices. I usually find it easier to understand men because I hear the lower frequencies better, especially without my hearing aids but also with them. And it's always easier to understand people you know well compared to strangers.
I find small speakers to be awful. The high frequencies are distorted and tinny. Scratchy is a good way to put it. I have a very hard time understanding anything played through a smartphone or tablet speaker. The speaker is too small to reproduce the bass frequencies I can hear the best, and so it's just TSSST TSSSSSZZT sounds through my hearing aids.
I cannot wear my hearing aids at full volume at the dinner table or while working in the kitchen for this reason. Metal, plastic and paper are also common offenders. CLINK. CLINK. CRSZZST. It's almost painful and headache inducing if I'm tired.
Unfortunately those high frequencies are what carry speech sounds like sh, t, ch and so on. Without those it's like the adults talking in the Charlie Brown cartoons. "wah-womp-wah-wah-mhuh??"
Hearing aids can do two things for this: one is to take some of that high frequency information and remap it to lower frequencies. This is part of why they say you won't like wearing your hearing aids when you first get them. They're systematically distorting what you hear -- but in a way you might eventually learn to interpret.
The other is just to make it loud enough that it can be heard. And as you suggest that may be the limit of the hearing capacity if there's very little at the high frequencies the only way to make something high frequency to be perceived, is to hammer the ear with a 90 or 100 dB level of sound.
It's absolutely worth having them adjusted a bit. Also every manufacturer uses a different algorithm for speech frequency remapping. Some people have strong preferences by brand as to the hearing aid sound. (Phonak and Oticon certainly have different "feels" in my experience.)
Almost all hearing aids allow multiple "configuration profiles" where you can switch through them with the app or buttons. I have four: general, lecture, comfort, music. Comfort mode just nukes the high end and cranks up the noise reduction. That's what I use if I'm just reading alone in the living room, or when out at the grocery store, etc.
As to large groups, personally I've simply conceded I can't do large groups. If I try I will feel left out and get depressed over it. If people want to see me at a family reunion, for example, after I do a brief tour to say hi to everyone, they'll have to join me for a small group chat in the den or whatnot.
It's not just you. The generated stuff - in my opinion - doesn't make any sense at all, with regard to structure or meaning. Unless, perhaps, the aim was to generate some kind of badly designed Ikea store.
I used to be in (molecular biology) research. At some point my supervisors were already working towards a paper in their mind, while I was still doubting (the statistical significance of) my findings.
In the end I left my Phd track before actually finishing it. My conclusion is that I like research(ing stuff) as a verb, but I don't like research as an institute.
reply