He’s done less than seven years of time, shows no remorse and even denies doing it in the first place. You dropped the ball on this Finland, don’t be surprised when he does it again. What a disgusting human being.
I'd bet good money that this dude has some sort of antisocial personality disorder, and really can't be "cured", so to speak.
Something tells me he'll try to sneak out of Finland (which is easy due to Schengen), purchase a new passport, and leave Europe.
I guess a silver lining here is the possibility that he'll commit crimes in countries with far harsher penalties than Finland.
I've lived in Finland myself, and currently live in Norway. Lax punishments for the sake of rehabilitation is the standard, and I'm fine with that. But some people, like this one, simply can't be rehabilitated.
No additional risk IMHO. If you can hijack my service IPs, you can establish control over the IPs or the domain names that point to them. (If you can hijack my DNS IPs, you can often do much more... even with DNSSEC, you can keep serving the records that lead to IPs you hijacked)
That’s kind of the conclusion I came to. I can make changes in my life, but when everybody else is sucked in by social media and doesn’t even see the issue trying to build bridges is futile. The only person you can rely on is yourself, the sooner you can accept being alone the better.
I lived in Japan for a while which is a much more solitary place than the UK. I think things in the West are going the same direction. More normalisation of solitary activities, increasing social distance, and fewer new families being started. Grim future.
Just because people appear to be doing more isolated things doesn’t mean it’s a ratchet that only moves in 1 direction. People adjust. When enough people feel too lonely, they will adapt and many of them will come up with a solution, likely swinging the pendulum in the other direction.
It is a ratchet though. South Korea's birth rate has been at an existential level for at least a decade and shows no sign of improving. Things won't improve while technology and tech companies are warping what it means to be human.
Now there's chatter about AI companions. If they take off and substitute real relationships it's game over. Swathes of the population will bed rot because they have no incentive to go outside for anything other than work.
The days are numbered on this technique working. After enough countries enact their own age verification laws tech companies will just make that the global default policy, and I'm sure the opportunity to harvest user data will not be left to waste. Many sites already block and throttle VPNs.
When that day comes I'll stop casually using the internet or search for the underground alternative.
Ask creators you follow to add Bluesky as a publishing target. Alternatively, someone builds a pull through cache and content is ripped from TikTok and Insta for serving on the ATproto fabric (yt-dlp still works well for ripping from Big Tech social media storage targets).
Not really seeing what's amazing about this. It looks like something very similar to what Fly already offers, just ad-hoc and snapshottable. Still Firecracker underneath.
I've been wanting to sandbox Copilot/Claude Code for a while, but I don't want to pay for a PaaS just to do that. I want to run the sandbox on my M4 chip instead of needing a constant internet connection to run code on an anaemic remote CPU.
In summer I was lying on a beach in Thailand and used an app on my phone to look at things in the sky. Pretty much every moving glistening object I could see was a Starlink satellite. I know nothing about how their constellation works but I wonder why so many are needed. Surely you only need one or two in line of sight for it to work? I was seeing many more than that.
They're in LEO which means approximately 15 minutes of visibility (horizon-to-horizon). The specific time will vary based on the orbital elements but 15 minutes is a good rule of thumb. To maintain coverage you need there to be some overlap in their visibility for a location. There's also a limit to how many connections each satellite can support.
Not all the satellites that you can see will be "looking" in your direction for a signal. They support some number of cells (specific, small, geographic regions on the ground). No one satellite can cover the entire ground visible to it while overhead so more satellites are needed.
And to add to the above, Starlink is using laser crosslinks to connect their satellites to each other for routing. This crosslink network is improved with more satellites visible to each other.
That would still only require a couple dozens or few hundreds of satellites. For example, Iridium has 60-70, and Globalstar has less than 50 or so.
The actual reason for these new megaconstellations having so many is spatial frequency reuse through directional transmission/reception beams: More satellites means less users competing for each satellite's spectrum-limited bandwidth.
Iridium offers lower bandwidth and much larger cells than Starlink. But yes, the number of customers within a cell is also key to why there are so many Starlink satellites. Suburban (let alone urban) population density can easily consume the bandwidth available through one satellite.
Smaller spot beams are still technically possible for an Iridium-like constellation with fewer satellites. That's what e.g. ASTS is doing.
In fact, more than one (or maybe two, for geometric reasons near the equator where polar orbits are sparse etc.) satellite concurrently visible is pointless if the ground station/mobile device isn't also heavily directional, which is not the case for small, quickly moving handheld devices at least.
One other reason for wanting more satellites splitting footprint coverage between them would be if the satellite transmitters were transmit power limited.
> I wonder why so many are needed. Surely you only need one or two in line of sight for it to work?
Only if you're not bandwidth limited. Having more satellites per steradian of sky allows reusing the same frequency via (physically or electronically) aiming at a particular satellite.
I'm pretty cynical about both the current and previous government, but it feels like there's been a shift since Labour came into power. Historically this overbearing surveillance has been held back. There was chatter but it was met with resistance. Now it feels like the discussion is being squashed and there are invisible forces at work.
If by some miracle the UK and EU agree on a new Youth Mobility Scheme I'm out of here.
> it feels like there's been a shift since Labour came into power. Historically this overbearing surveillance has been held back.
I had hoped Labour would roll back the anti-protest legislation, snooper's charter, internet censorship and voter ID laws.
After all, it was mostly left-wing climate protesters getting arrested, and young (more left-leaning) voters being prevented from voting.
Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
With hindsight, it was naive of me to think the former Director of Public Prosecutions would share my scepticism about expanding the powers of the system the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at the head of.
> Turns out no, quite the opposite - if anything, Labour thinks these laws didn't go far enough.
That's basically how the news, including the BBC, tend to report on these laws. "Some think they are good. Others think they don't go far enough. Experts say risk remains." Never ever do they interview the EFF.
Since Cameron threatened them, they have been much more tightly under the central gov influence.
The editorial team for news has always been full of Tories (including some that either have tried running as MPs, were in the young conservatives etc).
When the left complains about the BBC they mean its news and political coverage.
The right doesn't like the diversity in its comedy shows.
Read this around 2007ish, shocked by what the previous labour government did, so I had zero hope this lot would be any different and it's worse than I thought possible.
As Blair got most institutionalised to the world of politics he became more and more authoritarian. Starmer appears to be listening to Blair who is now even worse than he was as PM.
Labour generally has a "paternalistic authoritarianism" to they way they govern, but this is dialed to 11.
My hope was that Labour would seize the opportunity and roll back the unpopular Tory policies too. It would've been easy points to score for the next general election. Instead, as you say, they just continued with and extended them.
There's a difference between filming the public in public-spaces (which is what the mass CCTV surveillance does) and reading everyone's private messages and every image uploaded from their devices. This is a step chance (if it goes ahead) and doesn't feel very different from what the Chinese State is doing to its citizens.
You refer to CCTV for state mass surveillance, and link to Wikipedia pages but it doesn't appear that you even read them.
> The vast majority of CCTV cameras are not operated by government bodies, but by private individuals or companies, especially to monitor the interiors of shops and businesses. According to 2011 Freedom of Information Act requests, the total number of local government operated CCTV cameras was around 52,000 over the entirety of the UK.
That doesn't make the UK appear to be monitored heavier than other locations when a single city in the US approaches half their total number of cameras.
There is a Wikipedia page on surveillance in Austria, and the US. Not sure what your point is, it's not like most of the west isn't under surveillance or that the UK is more monitored than other countries.
Policymaking in general has very little to do with what most people want. It's mostly a function of power structures and influence networks.
You can sometimes infer what's going on from looking at the before and after conditions, much like how particle physicists infer events from what particles flew out, but not seeing the event itself.
reply