Reform has said it had opened investigations where activists or members had “clearly behaved inappropriately”, adding there was “no room for racism” in the party.

If there's no room for that they'll have to fire most of their staff, and then they'll only be left with the ones who are only corrupt.

 

The intitial investigation is in.

In a “bizarre and unprecedented” cyber-attack, hackers had remotely overridden the temperature settings on thousands of freezers, fridges and chiller cabinets pushing them from as low as -27C (-16.6F) to well over 50C (122F).

If shop managers first assumed it was an isolated failure, it soon became clear up to 700 stores – including those from the Intermarché, Coopérative U, Carrefour, Leclerc and Monoprix chains along with a number of smaller independent shops – had been victims of a cyber-attack.

The hackers had pirated the controllers supplied by the Danish company Danfoss that controls the freezers and fridges. Most supermarket cold aisles are connected to the internet to allow remote maintenance and alerts for system failures. Initial investigations suggest the hackers disabled alarm systems before tampering with the thermostats, or extended the defrost programme by several hours to avoid triggering alarms.

Danfoss said it had identified security flaws last year and had “long recommended” that customers install updates or replace obsolete unsupported systems. The affected refrigeration units were “running outdated firmware”, it said. In the days following the first wave of attacks, France’s cyber-attack alert centre ANSSI confirmed supermarkets using controllers from two other companies were also targeted.

[–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

One thing that was missed in this article but included in the (imo slightly better) Independent one

It adds that “where clinical needs and same-sex accommodation requirements cannot both be met, clinical needs are the priority”.

Such occurrences, where a trans patient was placed on a ward of their gender identity, are described in the guidance as likely to be “rare” and reasons should be “clearly recorded and reported nationally as breaches of this guidance”.

So respecting the gender identity of trans people is so scary that they have to report it nationally when it does happen.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Well, you cant see porn in the UK without giving ID anyway, so I assume no one actually accesses these sites from the UK anyway (without a VPN), so this will have no effect.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Personally I actually think this is more reasonable. If you're going to go as far as to charge everyone for it, you might as well do it means-based and have to compete with other funding.

    The only problem with this is it potentially gives less independence from the government, which means that they will become even less critical of their agenda, and may lose more credibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC. Under the proposed changes it would be expanded to cover all other online providers, such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube, which are currently exempt.

    The Whitehall source explained that the move was “because people are able to use them to avoid paying currently”. They added: “It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”

    Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying "everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet".

    At that point, you might as well just take it from the government budget.

    [–] [S] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    I've heard a lot of cheap Chinese devices have telemetry or malware on them. I'm almost surprised this does not.

    Chinese stuff also tends to not rely on Google Services, does it have casting support? Maybe that's on an app-to-app basis anyway.

    Thanks, I'll have a look.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 23 points 3 days ago

    From The Independent:

    While Mr Polanski had wanted the controversial motion to be amended, he has pushed back against claims that it was antisemitic.

    Earlier this week he posted on social media: “As a British Jew, I'm deeply concerned about the cynical blurring of Zionism & Judaism. Whatever our political differences, Jewish people must never face prejudice or discrimination. So after the Labour government apologised over Gaza: why are they still arming Israel?”

    I agree with him on this one, personally.

  • source
  •  

    Andy Burnham has ruled out a coalition deal with the Greens over the party’s recently-passed conference motion on Zionism, calling it “antisemitic”.

    Burnham said: “It is wrong. It is antisemitic. This side of the House will have nothing to do with it”, adding that “we cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted”.

    How, pray tell, is it antisemitic?

    The more I hear people say that it is, the more I am convinced that the motion is actually correct. Calling things antisemitic that are not antisemitic is the most common move of the Israel shill to poison the well.

    If his criticism were simply that it's too broad, solutionizing for another country or not great policy that would be one thing. I could take that as legitimate criticism. Calling it anti-semitic just discredits his opinion.

    [–] 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    He said he believed fraudulent claims had led to more scrutiny of genuine applicants.

    That's the neat part, there doesn't have to be widespread fraud for authorities to try their best to deny you what you are due. They will do it just to save money, out of hatred of poor people or for other nefarious reasons!

    Just look at the claims by right wingers of widespread voter fraud, when confirmed cases are in less than double digits over decades.

    Same sort of thing for benefits claimants. We make them go through so many, humiliating hoops that a not insignificant amount of them give up. The media then creates clickbait articles about isolated cases of fraud which makes people believe they are more widespread than in reality, and then you cause mistrust of people who need help.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago*

    Big Cheese doesn't want you to know this, but there's a trick where you can still eat some cheeses while lactose intolerant, even without pills.

    Some cheeses have very low lactose, even though they don't advertise it. My brother is lactose intolerant but eats plenty of Emmental and he's fine.

    The trick is to look at the sugar content when you buy cheese. If it's zero or close to it then you are much more likely to be fine after eating it. That's because lactose is a sugar!

    Of course, not every country or every place selling cheese marks it this way, but it's a neat trick when you can use it.

  • source
  • submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
     

    I've had a Chromecast for almost a decade, and it had mostly been great. They cost £30 at the time, and let you cast from most media apps, even if they didn't really have their own UI. You could take it to a friends house / hotel, power it off of the USB port on the back of most TVs and you'd be off to the races.

    Given that they are now discontinued and my old one doesn't support 4K and casting from some newer apps (maybe a lack of AV1 / h265 support?), I'm looking for a replacement.

    I'm looking for a privacy-respecting device in a vaguely stick-like format that will support casting from Android. It having support for apps is a nice to have for me.

    Before you say "well if you use YouTube / Plex it's not private because they collect data about what you watch", sure, that may be true, but I'd rather not have the stick itself also do ACR on everything I cast as well.

    view more: next ›