How long did we need to support ipv6? Is it supported yet and more widely in use than the ipv4, like in mobile networks where everything is stashed behind NAT and ipv4 kept?
Another protocol, something completely new? Good luck with that, i would rather bet on global warming to put us out of our misery (/s)...
Mobile networks especially are widely IPv6, with IPv4 being translated/tunneled where still needed. (End-user connections in general skew IPv6 in many places - it's observable how traffic patterns shift with people being at work vs at home. Corporate networks without IPv6 leading to more IPv4 traffic during the day, in the evening IPv6 from consumer connections takes over)
Android: Settings -> About (just checked mine, 10...*), check your IP. We have 3 providers in our country, all 3 are using ipv4 "lan" for phone connectivity, behind NAT and I am observing this situation around most of EU (Germany, Austria, Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, various providers).
Yep, if you capitulate from the start than nothing changes. And you as a user are giving them a chance to lock you into custom OTPs (that are just little changed standard OTP to force you to use their app so they can track you, steal your contacts and god knows what else (i have reversed it, got the seed and i am running it from shell as I was sick of it) even if they have a classic web page.
Everyone just agreed that it is fine if certificates are no longer used for web apps (even with a fully standardized pkcs#12 tokens), everyone just agreed that bank is using some non-standard otp generator, everyone just agreed with everything. Now you will soon have to pay heating in car on monthly basis.
Stop agreeing. Start complaining. Now and you.
Sailfish on Sony Xperia 10 works like a charm, with working things that even modded roms are having issue with.
If you fight it back... I am running my banking app (that they have even if they also have a web based app) for 4 years now without any issues, they did a major rewrite in between, but quite frankly in most of cases Safety-net is just a bunch of sand into eyes of security, if implemented right it might have impact but at the end most of banking banks are reducing it to if statement (that i patched).
Yep, true that normal user cant do this, but this is users call. Complain to financial ombudsman, complain to the bank, demand a way for you to authenticate if you are paying for the product, complain bank supporting phone monopoly etc.
Harass developers that decided to verify if phone is rooted, prove in media that they are just a bunch of kids having a boner on security they don't understand (which is a huge fact in all annoying login schemes, from mail to sms etc., OTP was more than enough (sms... giggling... ss7 access on tor for 500 dollars monthly)
Actually you are addressing wrong problem. It starts somewhere else, when you want to use Bluetooth hardware that has a custom app to use it and you cant use it on Sailfish while you cant use it in Android layer as there is no bluetooth pass-trough. Here I vote with my wallet, not buying such devices and waiting for Sailfish to implement it.
I bet they did 3d rendering in browser with javascript and every character is in separate iframe to achive compartmentalization while the logic is architecturally separated and written in prolog + llama + logo, like latest design trends require.
Reminds me of working with cloud...
p.s: rolling my eyes to the point where they fall out and I am blindly forced to search for them around the floor)
It is helpful for becoming negative to negative companies where they deserve it.
IG Farben had great technology (for that time) but needed change of name and half of century of good service so they have been removed from our memory as producers of Cyclone B. Now they are known as Bayer. And my neighbor (concentration camp survivor), while he was alive, wasn't buying Bayer products and he was quite vocal about it. Any of them, regardless of technology, different people, different products,... Guess why. Will you say he was negative?
Thats why FB was renamed and I am eagerly waiting what they will be like after 50 years. Until then, they will not be anywhere near my devices and even less filtering my sight.
For me personally they build a lot of trust back with their work on llama. Also they do have capable software engineers. But hardware is a different thing. I am still burned by their handling of hardware support for Oculus devices. To such a degree that neither VR nor AR is of significant interest anymore, never mind developing software for such products.
That said, I was never a Facebook user. I do have an account and that is that, which I tend to not use in most browser session because of Facebook surveillance.
If you are android user, dont know about Apple, 3rd party applications are full of Facebook SDK, try installing https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases (and pay author a coffee, he seriously deserves it) and check the domains apps are accessing. You might figure out you are Facebook user. Just nobody told you.
This was the point of App Tracking Transparency (ATT) on iOS. If an app embeds a third-party SDK that tracks you, such as the Facebook SDK, they are required to get your permission first with a system popup. They aren’t allowed to track you silently without your knowledge.
To be clear, ATT is the system Apple put in place for native apps that is enforced by the App Store review process. When it comes to the browser, I think you’re more interested in Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP).
You should check out WebKit‘s tracking prevention policy:
Yes, I am aware, that Apple is trying very hard to be the only one in ecosystem, that is tracking you where you cant do anything to avoid it due to completely closed phone.
With such a cure, you don't need disease.
That is why I was using heavily modified Android.
As I could prevent Android tracking me and kick the Google spyware out of it completely.
I am now using Sailfish ( https://sailfishos.org ) and I don't need to care about Google or Apple any more. Need to patch banking app from time to time and use plastic cards, but this is acceptable (well, not from bank software but I couldn't care less, they are free to port it to linux and make it open source /s ).
---
Anyway, the GDPR is requiring from applications to disclose tracking and allow you to chose what tracking if any, you will allow, before it occurs. Not only that, PIA cant be a payment for app usage.
So in theory, Apple is only enforcing what is already required from applications by EU directive.
Paid and provided by "Pay to win games, targeting kids, not preventing fake news (covid, human harrassment etc.), probably someone died due to lack of taking ownership/responsibility, election fraud through not acting on it.
Yes i do like Llama but lets be honest who paid for it and for what.
Just because suckerburg gives us nice toys...
He could actually start giving his money away to humanity in a relevant and meaningful way to start fixing what he did to our society.
I don't think we need more billionaires giving their money away. I think they and their companies need to pay tax properly so we can vote on how it's spent.
> Paid and provided by "Pay to win games, targeting kids, not preventing fake news
Guess what? New iOS features and YouTube videos are paid-for and provided in the exact same way. Both Apple and Google are complicit in spreading misinformation, advertising to kids and profiting from lootbox/microtransaction revenue. But nobody consciously objects to Apple for partnering with Taboola, or Google for supporting extremism on YouTube. No sane critic lashes out at Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai demanding they donate their life savings to offset the obvious damages they've created.
I think Meta and moreover Facebook is a purely detestable platform. It's absolutely hilarious how unwilling this website is to apply the same criticism to their other favorite services. The cognitive dissonance is arresting.
That's true, but my stance frankly wouldn't change if they also thought Google and Apple needed to spend the rest of their existence as a charity case. My point is more that it's a silly measure of damages, since this behavior is table stakes in the FAANG echelons. It's like saying that we should reject Open Source contributions by Google and Amazon because they pay their engineers with money made off exploitative server deals. It's a reach.
I don't really understand your point. Company A is corrupt, the company B and C are corrupt too (and D, E, F,...). We have 3 corrupt companies. Why would here be any problem saying that company A is corrupt? Or from another perspective, why would be A less corrupt if B and C are doing the same thing?
Open Source contributions are there for three reasons. Either the license requires it (Google Fuchsia is a step into avoiding this and keep next generation hardware close source), it is a public relations stunt or they want other software developers work for them for free (which is also lowering the wages for their developers).
Never ever mistake any company that has public stocks doing anything else but earning money for the stock owners. As they didn't buy the stocks to support charity but to earn money, which is the greatest reason why their products are worse deal for their customers on y2y basis.
Apple is responsible for plenty of death in foxcon companies.
Google, is a lot different than Apple or Facebook. Google did a lot for our society through Android, Google maps, https, Gmail, Kubernetes and Search.
YouTube had a problem with fake news and especially the algorithm (flat earth etc.) but they actually acted on it a lot faster than facebook ever tried.
But yes pls don't assume something without knowing were my viewpoints are. There is no cognitive dissonance but we talk here about facebook and not about every other companie on the planet.
I have made my peace with React (I know I can draw anything I can imagine with it, which I can't say for Vue, I can even draw 3-d worlds) but many people think React ruined web development.
Why are you downplaying them as “a tech company selling ads” when the most relevant characteristic of theirs is facilitating genocide in Myanmar, then obstructing the investigation, and fuelling ethnic violence in more places like Ethiopia?
I'm not sure exactly what the extent of the "facilitation" was in the first link, so what I'm about to say might be a little vague, but the second doesn't appear to be about them covering up their role in said "facilitation", but rather their refusal to provide so much user data to The Gambia looking to prosecute Myanmar officials for war crimes.
The way you've phrased that makes it sound as though Facebook were trying to hide the actions they took to facilitate things, which I think is a miscommunication.
I think the Myanmar experience has a lot to do with why Facebook tries to disappear politics talk on Threads. I mean, negative talk about your neighbors is how political violence starts.
People on the Fediverse get high and mighty about the Myanmar incident but in a Fediverse world the Myanmar government would have run the big instance in their language and would have defederated anyone who tried to stop them, alternately outsiders could have defederated but then they wouldn't have any influence.
Fediverse folks could have refused to run a server to support genocide but there is no way they could stop their software from supporting genocide. A centralized system like Facebook does have more control and more responsibility but when they took that responsibility later on Myanmar kicked them out
Why ? The discussion is about fixing brand reputation, and he quotes probably one of the most disgustingly successful rebrands in history. If even IG Farben managed to successfully rebrand, surely a company that just went "a little too far" with private data, can too. Looks quite on topic to me.
Not only my point stands, I still remember a world almost without narcissists, people traveling for fun, not to take a photo to brag, times where people listened to doctors not some people recommending horse dewormer, UK not suffering due to Brexit consequences ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8425058/ ), people actually bonding in person,...
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
You are underestimating the horror that Facebook did to human society. I am accusing them of crime against humanity. And all that, just for selling ads - where you will be able to see the comparison with IG Farben, do whatever it takes, to earn money.
I accept the argument, that if they wouldn't, someone else would, but nevertheless THEY did it or we would be talking about someone else.
Even if you don’t like it, idiots do have as much right to speak as any Nobel Prize winner. Not only that, the more they speak, the better, as the chances of stopping being an idiot increase. All Nobel Prizes were at some point also idiots, if they’re still not idiots today about some topics.
Nope, I am quite rational here and if I wouldn't witness change in society, I wouldn't believe it. I am seriously worried for humanity, as what I am seeing today is: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808 (and this was shot in pre-facebook era)
Fun fact, they didn't have large budget for shooting so they were searching for footwear that would look futuristic. They found some unknown company producing cheap "shoes" so horrible that the director wasn't worried for it to succeed as "no one would wear that". The company was Crocks.
Go back to any random year in human history and ask the older people whether they think the world was better when they were young. They will all say "yes" (evidence for this exists in countless survived writings, as well as other social phenomena like people becoming more conservative as they age). It's one of the most natural things in the world.
That alone should be a very strong signal that maybe your nostalgia is not based on a rational unbiased observation of the changes in society.
edit: and to be clear, obviously there have been times in history where things really did get worse for a period. But if you're proposing that that's happening now, you have a massive burden of proof to overcome, and you should be absolutely really totally sure that you're not being influenced by rose-tinted glasses. Which I'm not even sure is possible.
So what? You believe the world has gotten worse every year since the beginning of time? Or is it that all those older people throughout history have been wrong, but somehow it's you that's finally gotten it right?
Whatever. I don't have time to fight every logical fallacy you produce. I think I have explained it well, there is no need for me to bother with everyone who doesn't understand it.
Fair that perhaps they (the director specifically) thought that (they look like something nobody would want to wear) about Crocs. Heck, I thought that back then, many did. So perhaps that's why Snopes is saying it's true.
But Crocs had actually become somewhat popular already before Idiocracy.
The more realistic full picture explanation being that they chose something that they or someone on their staff, like many "look at those idiots" types (myself at the time included), already knew and considered a stupid trend is much more likely. It doesn't at all negate that they in fact thought nobody with taste would wear those shoes, but I don't think that choice was entirely made in isolation not aware of the trend.
The effect of watching the movie and seeing Crocs worn was yet another of those pieces of evidence that the stupid people of today connect to that fictional future world, like all the other stuff on the movie dialed all the way to the top (energy drinks, corporate sponsorships, etc.)
The mere fact that someone knew of Crocs, thought of them, and chose them because of their ugliness, means they were popular/successful enough to pop up on someone's radar, despite them ostensibly not being something that would be worn by anyone. Perhaps they didn't know how much more popular Crocs would become but they for sure must have picked them as an artifact of things already going in a weird direction (Why can you get this? Who would want this? Someone must, these will be the stupid people of tomorrow.)
But also, actually, so what?
Look at some of the fashion of past decades older movies. Some of it is cool but a lot of it is super ridiculous.
And if you look at Crocs, are they really objectively stupid? Treating them as a high fashion item probably is. But they are versatile and robust, good for many types of use cases were people used to wear other types of cheap plastic sandals. People wearing leather shoes surely thought sneaker were stupid until they became so mainstream that they were evaluated more objectively.
Citing idiocracy and Crocs seems like a very weak argument to your case and even Idiocracy's point (fashion choices don't indicate the world is getting stupid). Mind you I'm not disagreeing that things have gotten worse in many ways and social media is definitely not helping. OTOH, Facebook actually was somewhat reasonable for a long time, and useful to connect with people. Only once the Twitterification of it started did it get so bad. But somehow Twitter never gets the bad reputation.
No. Crocks became popular after Idiocracy. Check the year they were shooting as it took them a few years to release it. Chat with Mike Judge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBu_RpKqCg8
At most, it just laid bare to see what were the normal social interactions and thoughts of millions of people and made possible far more viral spread of ideas. On the last one, I don't even think it's social media's fault, it's probably the whole internet at large, it's just these sorts of interactions happen most there.
I have been active on internet forums since the mid-late 90s. Facebook and Instagram and their other social media didn't create any of those bad human traits, they were rampant to begin with.
What these normie-networks did do was make a UX for public posting so easy that scores of low-education users were able to be influenced and re-share low-infromation-quality stuff in huge magnitudes. FB is guilty of making a super accessible user experience, and then in not being aggressive early enough in having high standards for its userbase. But it didn't invent society's ills.
I found myself stepping back from social media and deleted a lot of my accounts in 2016 -- the election and the Cambridge Analytica thing was a big reason. LinkedIn could have been the worst because I had spent so much time promoting myself and prospecting, I met a lot of good folks but I also met so many bullshitters who helped make me into a bullshitter.
The influx of normies circa 2000 did not seem so bad to me but Facebook and Twitter were another thing.
I was thinking a lot about it, but at the times of IRC and forums (and modems ;) ) this was not an issue on society scale. Facebook actually revolutionized it and made it available to anyone including showing the more contraverse opinions to other people as it was more likely for them to click. They were/are literally pumping up all the bad in society, to earn more money.
My point is that the less savoury aspects of human interaction were still happening, just not in the open. The popularity of the internet as a medium of human interaction just made it visible, recordable, searchable and pressed the gas pedal. I wouldn't particularlyblame FB for inventing this.
So your argument is that making computers and the internet easier to use for normal people is cause for societal destruction? I can’t be convinced, but that does seem like more of an indictment on people than it does tech.
Let me repeat him as you probably didnt catch it (I dont understand how, but this is one of the things, I dont understand, so I wont argue about it):
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
I can just confirm that what he has seen and described is correct. And the more that you are standing your ground, the more you are proving, he was correct.
facebook has not been negative, they notably refused to play ball with the antipoaching agreements with other big tech companies in the bay, and technical people such as myself greatly respect them for it
My non-computer-nerd midwestern friends, some of whom are blue collar and zero of whom are anywhere near making coastal FAANG or finance money, all hate Facebook.
Why is this an argument? First of all x many people using something doesn't necessarily mean something is good (network effects if not fake accounts) but also buying up competition is somehow seen as a positive?
The price/performance curve is never linear. Everyone finds their spot, and then thinks “cheaper units are ugly garbage, more expensive units are frilly and pointless.” It’s personal consumer psychology, not science.
Wrong narative. I love espresso. But comparing it with 250 euro espresso machine, I highly doubt that it will make 500% better coffee, for wast majority of the owners, cleaning one < 500 euros machine regularly would make more difference, maybe drying portafilter before use, learning how to equally distribute coffee in portafilter, adding a round cut tea/coffee filter at bottom of it, grind coffee correctly. Price / performance is just not there.
And I am not saying that any other mentioned "mid range" espresso machine is worth that money.
i can tell you that more often than not it will make 500% better espresso.
I've owned 5 machines from varying price categories and the number of features you get with a machine around ~1200 gets you the most consistent experience.
can you make a good shot of espresso with a ~250 euro machine? absolutely. can you make 2-5 back to back great shots? probably not. Can you use any bean you want and get a good shot? probably not.
Audiophiles are a bad analogy since you can setup a blind taste test of coffee equipment. And different people will make the same identifications. Which suggests that we all tasted the same thing. Where as you can’t tell the difference between cables.
I’m all for being skeptical, especially with something as subjective as taste.
But it always amuses me that people never bother to check their skepticism. Has it ever occurred to you that you might one day be wrong?
Someone actually did a blind study comparing flat vs conical grinders with over 150 coffee professionals [0] to find they could not discern a difference in how the coffee was ground before being brewed while controlling for other variables.
So it would seem that Audiophiles are the perfect analogy.
I’d love to see what grinders and specific burrs she used.
We also setup a blinded coded triangle test, there was only 3 of us and four grinders: one $5k grinder, 2x$2.5k, one $700. 2 flat 2 conical. The flats have teeth supposedly for filter brewing. One coffee.
We picked the grinders correctly. Obviously we could have better methods, but the differences seemed obvious between the flats and conical. Within the same geometry, I think I just guessed the better tasting one to me was the more expensive grinder which may or may not be true. This surprised us. We didn’t think we’d pick anything. But all agreed on similar tasting notes for the flats and conical with no proper discussion or even looking at the notes for the coffee.
Brewing espresso I even observe psychical differences during the brew. I have two sets of flat burrs from the same grinder. Different teeth pattern. Same coating. One set allows me to go much finer to hit the same grams per second out and always leaves a soupy mess in the basket regardless of setting. The other doesn’t leave a soupy mess and grinds courser. I don’t know what’s happening. But this is easy to reproduce.
But then again, I also have a hand grinder that tastes more like my flats. And was quite cheap. So flat vs conical may not matter at all and it’s the shape of the cutting surface.
The same bean on my setup with 2 pre-weighed doses at room temp. One dose is vacuum packed and frozen over night.
When making espresso, the frozen beans straight from the freezer, must be ground finer for the same rate of output. And it tastes slightly more intense. I would guess that TDS went up but I can't prove that. All I can prove is that the space between the burrs is smaller.
This is a very different difference than between flats and conicals. If you brew for cupping, that is grinds straight in water, the conicals produce a muddier coffee. Basically more fine bits of coffee are in suspension and you can feel it.
This woman was serving up filter coffee. If she used good filter paper, and ground coffee appropriately, I can totally buy that almost all the fines were removed from the final product and no difference can be tasted.
I find it cute that you think people arguing that 1250E is not that much for a quality espresso machine don't know Hoffman's videos like the back of their hands :)
Yeah, I am also curious to see coffees on both done by professional barista, blind tasting and the results.
edit: found something, but unfortunately, not the same barista and only two tasters. Plus decorations on milk gave a hint who made what...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YhsDPz2I0
But this is a wrong metric to use! _Can_ you get the same coffee out of 250E machine as from a 20kE one? Probably!
Will it take the same amount of work? Will it be as repeatable as the more expensive one? Will you need to temperature surf? How many wasted shots does it take me to dial in? Can you steam milk at the same time as pulling a shot? Can you do a ~19g dose?
If "taste under best possible conditiosn" is your _only_ metric, then, sure, I guess anything over a baseline espresso machine is frivolous.
But espresso is _very_ finicky to get right, even with the best and most expensive equipment, under the best circumstances. Having a reliable, repeatable machine removes one variable from the equation, letting you worry about one thing less.
Creature comforts and convenience are valuable too! A beat-up 1990 sedan will get you from A-B just the same as a 2024 luxury german car. But people value _nice things_.
So we agree on most important factor. You can get a great espresso from 5 times cheaper machine. This is what I was claiming. Price / performance, not worthy.
There always needs to be someone that overpays things or we would have those 1250 euro machines for 250 euros when market instead of hype would start working.
You could make the same argument about a 250 euro espresso machine and a 30 euro moka pot. If the materials are better and the buyer likes it, it’s worth it to them at least. I think most people who own an espresso machine understand it’s a luxury.
I don't disagree that a moka pot and espresso are completely different processes, I'm saying that a 250 EUR espresso machine is not going to be capable of making actual espresso (barring stuff like Flair that takes away components to make it work).
Just head to technical data and feel free to explain which parameter is wrong. Take the cheapest one, 213 euros. Is is 15 (12) bar of pressure? Some other type of heater, as 1300 Watts of input power is not enough?
Seriously, I don't understand what the limiting factor is? Not expensive enough?
Lack of temperature control is a minus, as that means that there will be some blends that won't taste good, these days most fancy machines have a pid (and if yours doesn't you should install it, or you are missing out).
Kind of related, lack of boiler at 1.5 atm means non-great milk foaming capabilities.
Also, you buy a good 1500$ machine, your grandchildren will be able to inherit it if you take care of it. That delhongi won't last two days further than the minimum required by guarantee.
For 1000$ difference in price, I wont buy those blends, there are zillions of others to try. So simple. Anyway, I have checked and there is some temperature control + you can get more if you turn up the steam making and turn back to espresso making. A "hack".
So, if I buy 5x Dedica (edit, just checked: 167 euro in my country, so it is actually 8x) for the price, and package them NEW for my grandchildren, this doesnt count?
Actually higher end ones are at 20.000 euros, so I will rather drink my 6666 espressos in bar, made by professional, on 20k euros machine with zero effort. I am good for next 18 years.
Dont miss part 2, part 3,... and skip non health care related, you might not want to hear them.
And anyway, believe me that everyone rather waits in line (which is not really the case, if you are an urgent case, you trough the line), that not even go to the line as their medical insurance doesnt support the needed therapy as it would make their family bankrupt.
And yet, the only country in the world with more Americans living in it than the other way around is Australia.[1] Revealed preferences expose the truth that no number of videos with cherry-picked participants do not.
[1] That's on an absolute basis. Since the US has 20 times as many people as Australia, the odds an Australian will move to the US is still far higher than the odds an American will move to Australia.
Sure, you have quite a few USA citizens living in Australia talking about how messed up the USA is. You just need to study the material.
And feel free to show "cherry picked" material, where such amount of people are claiming otherwise. From the people that have left USA for more than vacations.
Did you?
Asking as I have always loved this Mark Twain quote, “Travel is fatal to prejuidce, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
I regularly use it on local far right "peasants" in my country, that are sure, there is nothing better than their own turf while never stepping far away from it.
Personally I am not touching the "homegrown stuff" vegetables from the home growers I don't personally know as: a few years back, it was uncovered (not Croatians only, this was wide spread in Adriatic region) smuggling EU forbidden pesticides from non EU countries into EU and selling them as they did improve harvest a lot. You can imagine this practice is impossible to control effectively and this is a huge issue, but also a huge potential for earnings.
It was also shown, that the home growers have mostly no education about pesticides usage and are using them by "over the thumb" rule, where the levels in vegetables can quickly go over the allowed levels (from before the pesticide was forbidden) and as such can be far more harmful than controlled vegetables from store chains/distributors that have their own laboratories to check for the toxic content - they are responsible and fined for what they distribute.
You can imagine, the nearest countries to Schengen borders were most affected. At that time Croatia wasn't in EU and it was source of pesticides for nearby EU countries, now they are probably coming from Serbia and Bosnia, while homegrown vegetables are not controlled and just sold on markets.
Same goes for homegrown vegetables in Hungary, Slovenia and Italy. If you personally know the seller, go for it, their vegetables are surely better by taste then hydroponically grown in greenhouses, but I wouldn't take risks by random seller.
Now for the "Adriatic islands" (and coastal region overall) vegetables, they have very poor soil, not a lot of it and also the rain is scarce, so any improvements for larger harvest are very welcomed to the locals (that are barely able to supply themself, not million tourists flocking to the country each year) and I would imagine the risk is even higher there.
I don't want to say, that this is a general behavior, but without any effective control, there is just no way to know.
Europol as source, not some tourist influencers or fake news site:
Absolutely, I know someone, who knows someone doing exactly what you described. EU has been eating a lot of “locally grown” garlic actually grown in China and other similar things.
This is something else (faking country of origin, basically a very common scam) and actually not an issue in regards to toxicity as you cant import the china garlic into EU without checking it for forbidden chemicals. It is not locally grown, but it is not harmful as you couldn't import it in this case.
Similar scam is getting a fish or squid in local Adriatic coast restaurants, where in most cases you are getting frozen fish/squid from Asia. There is barely any restaurant serving local fish (and they will lie about origin and mask the taste with excessive amounts of garlic), as most of local fish harvest is being sold immediately in the morning to fish markets internally, to Zagreb and Ljubljana. Barely any fish stays in coastal region as capital cities users are able to pay much more for it. While you will pay dearly for restaurants that are actually able to get a grasp on fresh local Adriatic fish, you can forget about 20 euros bills, and rather add another 0.
Or "home made" virgin olive oil mixed with olive oil from cheaper countries or even ordinary oil. Most of tourists will never be able to figure it out. Another thing that shouldn't be bought from someone you dont know personally.
The warning I have posted is about poisoning the locally grown and uncontrolled vegetables with forbidden pesticides bought on black market.
Btw, it is a rarely known fact that the cacao was really bad regarding the pesticide content before the EU took a hit on cacao producers and they needed to adapt to be able to sell on EU market. Now the whole world is eating much more healthy chocolate. :)
> actually not an issue in regards to toxicity as you cant import the china garlic
Well, import they did from what I heard. It was more of a smuggling operation than. The key was to smuggle small batches at a time and go through certain crossings where the officials are bribed. Then in EU it was presented as “locally” grown. But I definitely agree, buying produce at a local market you can’t always be sure. Growing stuff is hard and buying cheap stuff is too tempting. So some farmers found a “way”. Some more shady than others.
I agree, I was using K9 until FairMail came out. It has all the features from K-9, it is open source and from very reliable developer which I trust more than Mozilla with its fishy additions to firefox (author of NetGuard (https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard ) which is the first software I install on any new phone. Firefox is the second, FairMail is the third).
I can only wish all the software would be of this quality, congrats M66B.
Another protocol, something completely new? Good luck with that, i would rather bet on global warming to put us out of our misery (/s)...
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
reply