Unfortunately the metric it uses is whether they were ever incarcerated for any reason. Someone hostile to those results would probably dismiss them as due to police racism.
One could try to use homicide and victim surveys as a mostly objective proxy for all violent crime (very difficult and impossible, respectively, for racist police practices to affect), compare that to the violent crime rate of each racial group, and use any disparity to estimate how racist the police and justice system are being.
But then one would risk getting a result one doesn't like.
Yes, Western journalism is famous for uncritically praising the West, holding it up as the realization of a perfect, flawless ideal, to which all other societies can only aspire to. But when it comes to those other societies, the headlines are filled with dire warnings that they will taint our perfect system with their backwards or dystopian ways if we allow them to immigrate.
> It seems to be a very common theme in Western journalism to describe Asian countries as dystopias or dystopias in the making.
Whereas they would never describe their own countries this way. Just look at the praise heaped upon Britain:
London’s police department said on Friday that it would begin using facial recognition to spot criminal suspects with video cameras as they walk the streets, adopting a level of surveillance that is rare outside China. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-fa...
For several years now, the British media have been telling us that theirs is a surveillance society. "It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere," Luke Baker wrote in a representative Reuters article published in 2007, going on to note that "Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people." - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/londo...
What's most painful is that an email client would silently degrade files sent with it. A typical case of "we know better than the user". Which client did they use?
> A whopping 43% of white students weren’t admitted on merit. One might call it affirmative action for the rich and privileged [..] benefits that white people are now supposedly [emphasis mine] left out of
Funny how the article is entirely lacking in plain demographics, focusing exclusively on the legacy sub-category. Lets fix that, shall we?
So Harvard is 28% non-Jewish white, compared to 59% of the US overall (And even that is too much, according to the Guardian. White people must be really dumb! Of course the Guardian didn't bother to include direct proof of this, such as, say, average SAT score of undergraduates by race). And 10% Jewish, compared to 2-2.4% of the US.
But the Guardian is more likely to report that until 43 years ago Harvard limited the number of Jewish students, rather than to honestly report on what the status is today:
How elite US schools give preference to wealthy and white 'legacy' applicants [..] Many institutions, including Harvard, used a discriminatory quota system to limit the number of Jewish students. - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-school...
What does the number of Jewish students at Harvard have to do with anything? Furthermore, it is not safe to assume that all Jewish students at Harvard are white nor that the local Hillel chapter's estimate is accurate. I fail to see your argument.
> In a nutshell, the revised Article 45 would force browsers to suspend the ‘root store’ policies that are essential for maintaining trust and security online. [..] At the same time, the types of website certificates that browsers would be forced to accept, namely QWACs
Can someone explain where this 'force' comes from? I wasn't aware the EU had such authority to decide how programs on a users private computer must behave. Would e.g. making a fork of Firefox that does not comply with this digital identity framework be illegal? Or is this just hyperbole from Mozilla, and the browser would be merely non-compliant?
> I wasn't aware the EU had such authority to decide how programs on a users private computer must behave.
Why not? They publish directives that result in criminal law in member states all the time.
A directive is published, member states are obligated to turn that into domestic legislation, and yes, ultimately a state can criminalise lots of things if it wants to.
Key word "such". Prescribing which certificates I am obligated to trust is many many steps beyond e.g. banning DRM circumvention (which is itself a step too far IMO).
Well, the original document states that "Web-browsers shall ensure support and interoperability with qualified certificates for website authentication referred to in paragraph 1...". I'm not sure, however, what punishment, if any, is there for the browsers that don't comply with that regulation.
Not the browsers will be reprimanded. That would be webservices like Youtube that only allows browsers providing a certified ID to let users look at the more controversial cat pictures. It is an extremely transparent power grab.
> Would e.g. making a fork of Firefox that does not comply with this digital identity framework be illegal?
No, this only applies to medium to large companies shipping browsers and they only have to follow it after operating for 5 years. If you fork a browser and edit it then that is working as intended, and if you fork it and distribute binaries that is also ok since you aren't a medium big company. Possibly the company label refers to CA or site, but the 5 year window gives you plenty of time to refork every 5 years in the worst case, and this only apply if you operate as a browser provider so you can use it yourself forever.
"Web-browsers shall ensure support and interoperability with qualified certificates for website authentication referred to in paragraph 1, with the exception of enterprises, considered to be microenterprises and small enterprises in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC in the first 5 years of operating as providers of web-browsing services"
The EU has exactly as much authority as we believe it to have, and as much as the member states are willing to enforce.
Those of us not within their bounds could just decide not to comply with their nonsense, and there isn't a great deal that they could actually do about it.
Instead we're letting Europe pull a California, to the detriment of the entire internet.
I imagine most people in the West would find sacrificing parenthood pointless. They have had sub-replacement fertility for about 50 years, yet their population somehow keeps growing. How can you then ask them to reduce their population even faster, and expect to be taken seriously?
Do you think math education needs an overhaul so it sets up more students for success and is more useful for work and life? Or do you think the way math is taught should largely stay the same?
"Do you think we should make things better or leave them the same?" - objective journalism from the paper of record.
