20 years is outrageous and very unlikely given his probable experience and making sure no one would be hurt. There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm, and it being accident. Afaik this area is not even populated.
If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.
Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.
Stuff like this should of course be open source, with the optional possibility of self-hosting. E.g. Nextcloud style.
But, the bigger question is, for something shared here on hacker news where an abundance of developers dwell: why would we not create our own ~500 lines note taking synchronization function with built-in end-to-end encryption?
I mean use your favorite scripting language, even on your laptop, and you could theoretically make something that is very easy to audit and maintain. There is no need for extreme complexity with thousands of lines of code (or untrusted closed source software for that matter). Just something simple to keep your notes encrypted.
Oh wait, we got KeepassXC already (although that is a very complex program and hard to review for us outsiders that do not know the code. Etc. Etc.) I personally do not have time to review such code, and so, it remains a matter of trust for me. I still prefer it because it is open source.
This is of course an entirely useless study, because participants know when they are wearing a mask.
Logic dictates that very likely wearing the mask has no effect at all, and it is in fact other factors influencing quality of sleep. It would make sense to look into those, and it is very surprising it was not already done from the beginning.
E.g. Obviously a participant can not use their mobile phone or other screen devices if they are wearing a mask, and the mere fact they are wearing the mask may force them to do the one thing they can do: sleep.
In other words, it could simply be that the mask itself incapacitated and prevented other activities from being carried out by the participant. Equal or better results can be achieved if participants are told to concentrate on sleeping. Heck, you might even pay them just to sleep so they do not stress about the fact they have to waste time sleeping – this alone should yield some interesting results.
China is known for imprisoning their own people in camps and persecuting minorities, so no, they are not very "people-oriented" at all. It is, entirely, a different ideological system.
Perhaps you can compare it to a bee hive where the individual bee is more or less considered worthless on its own, but the entire hive, working together on a goal dictated by the top government is all that matters. Political opponents are suppressed, and threatening neighbors with wars is normal. E.g. China is practically in war with India at the border, and they are currently threatening Taiwan, all while being allied with Putin, a psychopathic mass murderer.
In practice that would only weaken the US infrastructure. E.g. If companies like Apple and Microsoft were to be broken up, then that would actually severely confine technological innovation, and potentially place the US at a competitive disadvantage, and for what gain? More competition between smaller companies?
More competition is not necessarily a good thing. However, you can regulate said companies, and limit their abilities to exploit people. E.g. Place limits on product pricing so it does not get to expensive - very important for life saving medication.
You have to understand, there are some very motivated political ideologies that want us to believe that breaking up companies is going to protect consumers. It will not. And in fact, it can be quite devastating for technological innovation. So is regulation, but to an lesser extent, and I'd pick the lesser evil of the two any day.
In practice, by breaking up a company, you are basically stealing from shareholders, forcefully taking their property and selling it at a huge discount. The owners (shareholders) may end up owning shares of both halves of a company that is being split, but it will not be the same company, and the new companies ability to make money may have been destroyed or significantly harmed in the process. Then government has to pay some sort of compensating dividend, and I do not see that realistically happen, because it is impossible to accurately determine the damage caused by splitting a company.
In another ownership structure, companies could be broken up on paper, but still operated in a sort of partnership, hence the breaking up might not even make any sense in the first place.
It contains a lot of copyrighted content, especially ebooks and software. This could be avoided if they would just follow the rules like everyone else.
This can be very bad news even in the west, but in context of the Chinese totalitarian dictatorship (Btw. Also allied with Russia), this is just an expression of an authoritarian regime suppressing private freedom. It's nothing but another abuse to suppress their own society.
If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.
Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.