I mean, that headline implies intentionality, no? I doubt the guy knew that his lunch would get him slapped with a $10k fine.
I know I don't Google every single item in my bag to make sure that something like the type of cotton my socks are made of doesn't get me thrown in jail.
I mean, I don't know that that changes my point at all, but if you'd really like me to rephrase it:
I don't Google every item in my suitcase to make sure the the type of cotton my socks are made of won't get me immediately deported and fined $10,000 that I don't have.
Check what though, that's the issue. I would never think that my carnitas burrito from Chipotle might catch me a 10k fine.
And let's be real, there's no reason to put that "(maybe)" in there. Are you suggesting the dude was like, "Ahahaha, my dastardly plan is in motion! I'm going to snuggle 4oz of pork hidden away in my lunch, in direct violation of import controls. It's so clever because I have absolutely no discernable reason I would want to do this on purpose!!!"
And what are you recommending me check? Google every item on the "ingredients" list on my coke zero to make sure I'm not smuggling red dye number 33 into a country that bans it?
Most civilized countries don't fine people $10k for breaking laws that it would be very reasonable they have no idea exist.
And let's be real, there's no reason to put that "(maybe)" in there. Are you suggesting the dude was like, "Ahahaha, my dastardly plan is in motion! I'm going to snuggle 4oz of pork hidden away in my lunch, in direct violation of import controls. It's so clever because I have absolutely no discernable reason I would want to do this on purpose!!!"
No.
I’m saying he might have known that pork was banned and didn’t think it was that big of a deal. that happens all the time.
Except it’s actually a really big deal. The ban on pork, specifically, is to prevent ASF from entering the local herd.
Bio controls are one of the few ways to prevent spread; and it takes all of five minutes to check what is or isn’t banned.
Further more he could have declared it- “hey I have this pork lunch,” which would have led to a very different conversation.
And what are you recommending me check? Google every item on the "ingredients" list on my coke zero to make sure I'm not smuggling red dye number 33 into a country that bans it?
It was literally called “chicken and pork combo.” Not exactly hidden.
You don’t have to google anything- except maybe to find their customs website where it’s all very plainly stated.
There are a dozen travel advisory warnings about pork products, specifically, and clearly stating that all pork is barred from entry.
More generally, meat and dairy products are almost always barred from entry (along with most every kind of ag product in general.)
I can't find the pork ban on the link you provided. The closest I saw was "Quarantine inspection of animals, plants and their derived products" which isn't a prohibition of anything in particular, and the link to the relevant authority literally goes to a dead page.
That literally says all live animals and product s from them are banned (with a few exceptions that wouldn’t apply.)
You don’t get to not spend five minutes checking customs before traveling to another country and pretend like you’re the victim for getting dinged.
Particularly since the customs agent is specifically asking if you have anything. “Do you have any food with you…?” (This would be your last chance to declare it).
Anywhere with a biosecurity law has signs posted in the most popular languages. And they'll usually tell you not to bring food or animal products into the country in any form. And there are convenient trash cans in case you did bring something you need to get rid of before you hit customs.
The guy was from Indonesia and routed to Taiwan via Hong Kong. There's a good chance there were no signs or announcements in a language he could understand.
Do you think he traveled to Taiwan without being able to speak any English or any Mandarin? Also there is a very solid chance that his flight company informed him of the rules as he was booking the flight. Also there is stuff like pictograms. Also Indonesia is majority Muslim country, so being part of a pork eating minority further increases the likeliness of being able to speak at least some other language.
They take pork products particularly seriously. At least on their flag carrier, China Airlines, it would be incredibly hard to ignore the video played prior to landing with the talking pigs specifically pointing this out.
The article states that the virus is very resistant to many environmental changes and can “survive” for a long time on clothes, boots, and even some pork products. This is probably one of many issues involved during an outbreak.
Almost no countries allow meat products due to potential exposure that couldn't be easily seen. Sometimes for commercially prepared meats there are exceptions but these are in relatively few countries. For countries with substantial livestock keeping diseases out is critical to their economy and therefore treated with such a high level of urgency.
Better Headline yet: Reckless visitor tries to sneak in forbidden food and gets a fine.
There is a reason for this ban, its announced everywhere, and you even have a chance to give it up before going through the checks.
Its your responsibility to obey local laws, whether you like them or not.
I accidentally brought pork empanadas into the US on my carry on. I didnt want to keep them, they were kinda gross and was looking to toss them, they still made me wait in line somewhere and I missed my flight.
Meta (Facebook and Instagram's parent company) will start using Australians' social media posts and activity dating back to 2007 to train their artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
This policy update will take effect on June 26, 2024.
Only users in the European Union and the U.S. state of Illinois can currently opt out, due to AI protection laws like the GDPR.
Many Australians were unaware of this policy change and expressed concerns about privacy and the impact on artists' livelihoods.
Artists like Sara Fandrey and Thomas Fitzpatrick are worried this will negatively impact their work and the creative industry.
Experts explain that while this may not be copyright infringement, it poses a threat to artists' economic assets and business models.
Advocacy groups have launched complaints against Meta in the EU, and some users are migrating to alternative, artist-run social platforms like Cara to avoid AI-powered content generation.
If you're among the majority of Australians with Facebook or Instagram accounts, your social activity on those platforms is about to start training Meta's artificial intelligence (AI) tools – and if you live in Australia, you can't say no.
When that policy comes into effect, Meta will start taking user data from as far back as 2007 and use it to train and improve their AI tools.
Dr Joanne Gray, a lecturer in digital cultures at the University of Sydney, explains: "The precedent in the US suggests that these companies are doing it under fair use, a US exemption that allows you to do some copying and create something new.
Speaking of legal cases, advocacy group NOYB (none of your business) has launched 11 complaints against Meta in the EU in relation to this new policy.
They've now added a "Made by AI" label, requiring users to have all realistic appearing AI-generated content carry it.
Cara incorporates a project called Glaze, "a system designed to protect human artists by disrupting style mimicry in the training of generative AI models".
The original article contains 879 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Everything you make is already copyrighted by default. Copyright is limited in what it lets you do, however. AI training likely isn't restricted by it.
I know, but not paying to begin with created the incentive to have such an infrastructure to spy on people, even if these people decide to pay. And I am not saying it's users' fault.
The thing is, now that the game changed with machine learning techniques, there’s 0 incentive not to use it regardless of what previous deals existed in the past.
Google promised to be carbon free by 2030.... Just as other have done and never even moved an inch towards that goal
The point is exactly to get gullible people like you to think it's all good until 2030 when some responsible people will battle to out that Google did nothing in reality to get there... Then they'll promise it again for 2050
Sorry I was a little wrong. Apparently 100% of Googles annual electricity consumption is matched with renewable energy that is supplied back to the grid. So basically, at night when there is no sun they use power from the grid and during the day they compensate it with excess renewable energy production.
It's not 100% carbon neutral. But it doesn't sound that bad either. There is worse things than that.
Sorry I was a little wrong. Apparently 100% of Googles annual electricity consumption is matched with renewable energy that is supplied back to the grid
Not even... what they do is "pay" someone for renewable energy (not the energy they consume, nor do they produce energy on solar panels or anything renewable to go back into the grid)
This is their own statement: "In 2022 – for the sixth consecutive year – Google matched 100 percent of its global annual electricity consumption with purchases of renewable energy" (source)[https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/cleanenergy/]
And even that is not true since their actual report says that in 2021 they barely made it to 66%
Globally, 66% of the electricity use at Google data centers was matched with carbon-
free energy on an hourly basis, 5% higher in 2019 but 1% lower in 2020. We expected
this fluctuation: in 2020, we brought a large number of CFE projects online, leading to a
large jump in our 2020 CFE % and thus a high baseline for calculating changes between
2020 and 2021
(source)[https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/2021-carbon-free-energy-data-centers.pdf]
So, in a nutshell... they are throwing some money at it and pretending they are not polluting anymore.
It’s not 100% carbon neutral.
Google declared itself carbon neutral (whatever they think that means) back in 2007
But they are not even using said energy themselves.... that is like throwing my garbage right on the street but paying someone in India to pick some garbage over there (for at lot less)... if you are my neighbour, would you think it's fine?
I don't need google "producing" clean energy... I want them CONSUMING clean energy... as it is, they are pollution just as much as ever (more every year) but they pretend to be clean by throwing money at it... at the end of the day, the planet keeps getting polluted and the climate nicely on its way to cooking us alive
That surely won't result in an alarming use rate of words like n****r and f****t. Hell, that's the window of the hit YouTube video entitled "N****rF****t" starring... A member of the defuct comedy group (Derrick Comedy) that made the film, Donald Glover.
Bizarre how fast the changes we've seen have happened. The video was purposefully 'edgy,' but still.
abc.net.au
Oldest