Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | generic92034's commentslogin

And this was all known for decades. Now everyone pays the price for the US leadership surrounding themselves with spineless yes-men.

> We could learn from our allies in Ukraine. Give them capital and manufacturing bases in America.

But Putin would not like that! /s


Even if mankind is lucky with everything else, in 500-800 million years the sun's increased luminosity will render Earth uninhabitable for higher life forms (as we know them) [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future


Possibly they think they can make up what they lost in good will and cooperation with blackmail and pressure. It is doubtful it will work as reliably as in the past, though (second order effects even left aside).

But the money is coming out of our pockets. The costs of the ads are added to product prices, which everyone is paying.

On essential goods the prices can still be high enough to make everyone poor.

A judge of a secret court, which are known to never deny any request?

This is simply not correct. Very few "cops" in the US can go to any kind of secret courts.

Also, what you're describing is still infinitely better than the European system! The cops get to issue the warrants themselves.


With any number of intelligence services in the USA I would not really be calmed by the prospect that an ordinary cop cannot do that.

What you are claiming about European cops is also not uniformly true. A German police officer cannot "just" self-issue a search warrant.


>What you are claiming about European cops is also not uniformly true. A German police officer cannot "just" self-issue a search warrant.

Yes. The more worrying situation is that Hungary can just decide that their police officers can self-issue search warrants, and then send those around the EU in the form of EIOs.


This is more of a theoretical concern, though.

[dead]


That delay is concerning, obviously. But how should we judge that, without any further insights?

However, usually it works more like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont#Arrest_in_Ge...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont#Arrest_in_It...

Usually LE in European countries will not respect warrants from another country if it does not make sense in the local jurisdiction as well.


Germany agreed to extradite Puigdemont, Spain did not want him. Perhaps because they wouldn't have been able to prosecute him for rebellion?

Rebellion is not one of the EAW listed offenses, so it would require German approval. Same is not true for most crimes.

Italy? I assume the prosecutor there told the Spanish there's no way the Rebellion will stick, and the Spanish told the Italians to just drop it.

I assume they'll keep him listed on the SIS in case they get a hit in some friendlier jurisdiction.

>Usually LE in European countries will not respect warrants from another country if it does not make sense in the local jurisdiction as well.

This is incorrect and goes explicitly against the intent of the relevant frameworks.


Sorry, but you should really read the links:

"On 5 April 2018, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher State Court) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein ruled that Puigdemont would not be extradited on charges of rebellion, and released him on bail while deliberating about the extradition on charges of misuse of public funds."

So, exactly as I wrote: The rebellion charge did not make sense to the court, so no extradition due to that. On the other hand they found that they could do something with the charges of misusing public funds (and thus needed longer to decide about it). If Spain had not dropped the EAW, Puigdemont's legal team would have had an opportunity to challenge any decisions of the court.

In general it is no fun if another EU country issues an EAW against you, but anything making no sense will be thrown out by the local EU country's courts and you have every chance to go against the decisions of the court.


>Sorry, but you should really read the links:

That's rather rude of you, I did in fact read the entire text of the link.

I hate citing wikipedia, but if you'll skip forward a few lines, you'll find this nugget:

"On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds"

Puigdemont would have almost certainly ended up extradited, but he would enjoy the EAW protections which would presumably not be desirable for the Spanish government.


It was not rude but a reasonable assumption. Let's revisit what we discussed:

>>Usually LE in European countries will not respect warrants from another country if it does not make sense in the local jurisdiction as well.

>

>This is incorrect and goes explicitly against the intent of the relevant frameworks.

But in the link you could clearly see that the court dismissed the EAW on charges of rebellion. If Spain had only issued the EAW based on this charge, or if Spain had issued two separate EAW for the separate charges, this is clearly showing what I was claiming.

What you have cited only confirms what I was writing earlier - if it makes sense to the court they might follow-up with the EAW. I am not sure at all, though, how you come to the conclusion that Puigdemont "almost certainly" would have ended up extradited. It is not given that the court would have found the charges valid and there are all legal means available to challenge the court's decision.

But even if he had been extradited due to the charges of misusing public funds, whatever is wrong with that? There are extradition treaties between many countries and that would be an absolutely valid case for extradition, if the charges make sense in the local jurisdiction. Should every criminal be safe as soon as they are crossing a border?

The important thing is that a court is checking the charges and that there is legal recourse, before any extradition.

So, in summary I feel not threatened at all by the existence of those instruments in the EU and you failed to make me understand why I should. The chance of an abuse of power or unjust persecution in any single country (EU or not) is so much larger than a scenario where this happens in two countries at the same time.

However, this is a bit exhausting, so I am done with this discussion.


>It was not rude but a reasonable assumption. Let's revisit what we discussed:

Yeah, variations of "did you even read the link" are rude. Yours was perhaps particularly aggressive.

>But in the link you could clearly see that the court dismissed the EAW on charges of rebellion. If Spain had only issued the EAW based on this charge, or if Spain had issued two separate EAW for the separate charges, this is clearly showing what I was claiming.

"Another important advantage of the EAW compared to extradition proceedings is that for 32 categories of offences, there is no verification on whether the act constitutes a criminal offence in both countries. The only requirement is that the offence needs to be punishable by a maximum period of at least 3 years of imprisonment in the issuing Member State."

The dual criminality check does not apply to most crimes. It did apply in the basically unique case of "rebellion", but the EAW largely did away with dual criminality checks.

>It is not given that the court would have found the charges valid and there are all legal means available to challenge the court's decision.

There are no meaningful legal means to challenge the validity of the charges in the EAW process, the entire point of the process is to skip that. You get to challenge the validity of the charges after you've been extradited and brought in front of the courts of the requesting country.

>But even if he had been extradited due to the charges of misusing public funds, whatever is wrong with that?

Specifically in Puigdemonts case I do not wish him extradited as I doubt he would be treated respectfully in Spain. But his case is obviously one-of-a-kind.

>There are extradition treaties between many countries and that would be an absolutely valid case for extradition, if the charges make sense in the local jurisdiction. Should every criminal be safe as soon as they are crossing a border?

EAW is completely different from regular extradition treaties.

>The important thing is that a court is checking the charges and that there is legal recourse, before any extradition.

The whole purpose of EAW has been to get rid of as much legal recourse as possible, and over time various CJEU decisions have been further eroding practices some national courts had established.

>you failed to make me understand why I should

You'll probably receive better replies in the future if you avoid the unnecessary personal attacks.


In ERP software there are MLOCs without any technical documentation. And nobody would spend a dime to create one. So, the deep expert knowledge on how business processes are supposed to work (in full detail) and how they are implemented is mostly in the heads of a couple of people.

AI is most excellent at reading and understanding large codebases and, with some guidance docs, can easily reproduce accurate technical documentation. Divide and conquer.

Reading a large codebase...perhaps if it is not too large. Understanding... why a tool exists, what is the motivation for its design, what the external human systems requirements for successful utilization of the internal facing tools... especially when that knowledge exists only in the memories of a few developers and PMs... not so much. Deep domain expertise is a long way from AI capability for effective replacement.

Again, nobody would spend a dime to create the technical documentation, even if it could be done somewhat faster with AI support. Also, in my experience AI is not so great explaining the consequences to business processes when documenting code.

Accuracy/faithfulness to the code as written isn't necessarily what you care about though, it's an understanding of the underlying problem. Just translating code doesn't actually help you do that.

> They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like [..] Iran

That remains to be seen, though. Really winning that war requires either lots of boots on the ground and a long occupation (where the outcome might still be like in Afghanistan) or using nukes, which could escalate quite badly for us all. There is a reason no other POTUS has attacked Iran before.

Of course Trump can at every point in time just declare victory and leave the mess to all others for cleaning up. That is the most likely outcome, IMHO.


> And of course, my original thread of consciousness will still be ended, so this is some alternate copy of me.

Mine ends several times every night. I am probably generic92034#60000 and counting.


Actually, what is continuity anyway, your consciousness is an emergent phenomenon updating itself every Planck time!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: