robhu

You need to scroll back about 2 days to get the latest info (and he refers to the Twitter accounts of others in the field who can give more information).

His Twitter profile is @ https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/

(Ewan is awesome - he is also (co)director of EMBL-EBI European Bioinformatics Institute, and I had the honour (as a Computer Scientist) of working there for nine years)

Perhaps a higher proportion of non-English UK people would answer otherwise.

Not sure why you think it struggles - even with the official firmware it easily and quickly gets up to 16mph. Sure you get a bit less range than a lighter person, but the difference isn't huge.

Tinkerboard has b/g/n 2.4Ghz wifi. Pi 3B+ also has 802.11ac 5Ghz wifi.

Tinkerboard has a superior sound chip, supporting 24-bit, 192kHz audio. Pi 3B+ has a totally garbage mono only analog sound (and presumably fine HDMI digital sound).

  irb(main):001:0> require 'set'
  => true

  irb(main):002:0> {'foo' => [1, 2, [true].to_set]} == {'foo' 
  => [1, 2, [false].to_set]}
  => false

  irb(main):003:0> {'foo' => [1, 2, [true].to_set]} == {'foo' 
  => ['1'.to_i, 2, [true].to_set]}
  => true

  irb(main):002:0> {'foo' => [1, 2, [true].to_set]} == {'foo' 
  => [1, 2, [false].to_set]}
  => false

  irb(main):003:0> {'foo' => [1, 2, [true].to_set]} == {'foo' 
  => ['1'.to_i, 2, [true].to_set]}
  => true

What behaviour do you expect the app to have and why?

We don't listen to Kim Jong-un when he or his courts declare that his citizens rights are not being violated, and neither is the interpretation of the Spanish courts very relevant.

Junker is not a UN human rights expert, he's a politician who has a history of making statements not because they are true but because they support his political aims. It's ridiculous to think that his statements have any meaningful bearing on determining whether Spain are violating international UN laws which they have signed up to. What matters is the understanding of the UN experts on those laws.

When the UN says '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies” they are saying that Spain has broken international law, laws that it is a signatory to and so has to obey.

The city of Manchester and the Catalonian people obviously have very different properties among those which are relevant to self determination as you are well aware. I know you realise this so I won't engage with your facile comparison further.

Your pragmatic argument fails for the same reason that: "Mugabe: The election is invalid because I ordered the police to go around beating up and arresting everyone who might not vote for me. Therefore the election has no legitimacy, because errr... I intentionally tried to ruin it because I was afraid of the people?"

Of course it will have legitimacy 'popularly' if you go around smashing the skulls of black people you create a situation where public support for them surges. Spain (and your) attempt to evilly suppress the Catalonians and deny them their fundamental human rights is morally evil and rightly draws support to their side (regionally and internationally).

Also - by stating that 1/2 Catalonians wouldn't agree you are giving away that 1/2 would. That's the point. If you are suppressing the fundamental human rights of 1 person you're violating them, and you admit they are violating about 3.5 million people's rights.

So they apply to the Catalonians in the same way that they apply to the people of North Korea, they are applicable to the Catalonians even if Spain specifically had a law saying they aren't. Of course Spain is a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to all of the UN human rights laws. So you are quite wrong that fundamental human rights do not apply in Catalonia. These laws enshrined in international treates are 'actual laws' as you put it - and they're serious, far more important and serious than any laws the Spanish government might otherwise pass.

This is all a discussion about what is 'legal', and while you can argue that the referendum is illegal and I can counter that making it illegal is in of itself illegal, this kind of misses the point. If Kim Jong-un passes a law stating it is legal to commit genocide within his borders a defender of his could argue that the killing is 'legal', but what good is it to know that? We know that the right to life is fundamental in the same way that the right to self determination is fundamental - violating either of them are morally abhorrent abominations which must be opposed by any right thinking person.

So we know for certain that Spains actions violate international law, and that their actions and those who defend them are morally abhorrent -- does this invalidate the referendum? You want to argue that the validity of the election is binary, but obviously that is ridiculous. When dictators shut down voting stations or kill voters that doesn't invalidate the entire election. Yes it makes it more difficult to know what would have happened had they not illegally and immorally violated people's fundamental human rights, but it doesn't make it impossible.

In fact if you think about it in many ways it makes the outcome easier to interpret. After all, the overriding reason why any political body acts to suppress the electorate's ability to vote is because they fear the outcome will go against them. When Spain busses in thousands of police to arrest people and occupy schools to prevent a referendum it is obvious that they fear if they don't do that the electorate will be heard and they will lose.

I watch this with quiet fascination - I am not Spanish (or Catalonian), I have no horse in this game. I'm English, and we had a similar situation play out over here, the Scottish people wanted to become independent. Like with the Spanish situation under our national law we had 'no obligation' to allow such a referendum, but I guess the British government have a different approach to our moral and international law obligations, and so the UK government granted the Scottish government permission to have a referendum. The Scots voted to remain in the UK, which I'm very glad about.

For those of us looking at Spain from the outside the actions of the Spanish government look pretty abominable, and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people are pretty horrifying. I see you energetically defending the Spanish actions on HN and I wonder whether you realise what your words and arguments sound like to someone on the outside who is not a 'true believer' in suppressing the Catalonians.

Your analogy is totally invalid anyway. This vote is not equivalent to a call for racism, it's a call for self determination. The Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples. The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, it is the Spanish government who are acting illegally in violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians.

In terms of legality according to the UN (as I have linked for you above) it is the national Spanish government who are acting illegally here because they are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians, which supersede and regional or national laws / constitutions. Spain has a moral and international legal obligation to not oppose the referendum.

The Consitutent Assembly wasn't brought about by referendum it was created by presidential decree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Constituent_Assembl...

The opposition did not take part in the election (not a referendum) where there is good reason to believe the result would be rigged so there was no way to vote for them. As you well know the situation in Venezuela is incomparable to the situation in Catalonia. Maduro has arrested the opposition and has totally destroyed the country.

The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.

The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, the Spanish government are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians. This is an illegal and wholly immoral act. It is not sufficient to declare that it is 'illegal' for them to attempt self determination.

This happened in the UK with Brexit. The government opposed it, the bank of England, all the major institutions opposed it, the government spent millions on propaganda leaflets, and so on. It was unthinkable that the Brexiteers could win, and yet against all odds they did.

In this situation of course the scales are tipped similarly - while the regional government may want to spend on influencing the election, the financial firepower of the national government (who oppose independence) totally outstrips them, so if the referendum would be unfair it would be because it would disproportionately be tipped against independence.

It's not a perfect system - but a referendum is the best system available for answering these questions.

This is just a bald assertion.

Yes I do think that people who care about the results of a referendum will go out and vote because that is what people do when they care about the result.

I also believe you that some of the people opposed will not vote, but that they do this because those opposed to a democratic referendum fear the likely result will go against them does not invalidate the referendum.

People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave.

Again, this is the sort of argument used by anti-democratic regimes to discredit referendums and elections. "Oh of course Yes won, there is a large silent majority of No voters who feel so strongly about this subject they thought it would be better not to express their vote and prevent a Yes landslide" (said no serious person ever)

This sounds like the sort of explanation a dictator would give for why a democratic vote would not tell the 'true story' of whether they really loved the dictator.