Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
> people who expect and are excited for their refund.

and then pay % of your refund as a fee to CPA, so they help you maximize your refund.

Comment · 2 years ago
I can access both including old subdomain while on VPN.
Comment · 2 years ago
> "managing out" process.

as someone who is unaware of related laws in UK/US, can you elaborate more? or if possible cite some examples? Thank you.

Comment · 3 years ago
> BBC Documentary on PM Modi: Delhi court issues summons to BBC, Wikipedia, Internet Archive on defamation case by BJP leader

> The suit states that the documentary has defamed RSS, VHP and BJP and created an atmosphere of terror.

Comment · 4 years ago
> While the tech bodyshops (TCS, Infosys, etc.) might have a poor reputation in the US, these companies have been absolutely critical in helping move tens of millions into middle-class respectability.

couldn't agree more. In my previous comments, I've criticized bodyshops for their business model but this is so true. While I never worked for any of the WITCH company but I worked with few product based and service based companies, In my case, we do not had our own house, in my 10 years of Software Engineer career, I was able to bought house and also paid my whole housing loan. Own a second hand car. I could also buy a new car but I decided to go ahead with used car instead. For those who don't know, car is necessity in US but in India it is considered a semi-luxury.

Agreed, I would say, I am relatively good at what I do so it also translated in to comparatively higher salary (and still way less than what I could have made if I would have moved to Bengaluru - "Silicon Valley of India")

Comment · 4 years ago
> This is a complete fabrication.

it isn't fabrication, when fingerprint authentication was (may be still) the ONLY option provided by Jio. I went to buy Jio sim and decided to not buy only because there wasn't other option like submitting copy of document which all other telecom companies provide.

Comment · 4 years ago
> The Ambanis are no one's poodles all Indian Politicians are their poodles.

I am not denying that. But the way, current government is working, good luck with current situation improving anymore. And BJP or Congress or any other party politicians, especially in India, like to enjoy absolute control over citizens. So by some miracle if other party got in power in future then also they will not work to correct wrong done by current government.

Comment · 4 years ago
Comment · 4 years ago
other comment mentioning that "Ambani’s Reliance co will launch search next month." is not realistic. I mean even Bing is not able to capture significant market share of Google after all these years.

> Google forbidding Indian telcom companies and Chinese smartphone manufactures from installing adwarecrap has made the ultra-cheap smartphone experience somewhat tolerable for hundreds of millions of people.

however, this comment is also related to Ambani’s Jio (Subsidiary of Reliance) are planning to launch Android devices. And mind it, Jio is one of the largest telecom provider in India with the blessing of ruling party. Jio also have suits of all kind of applications like chat, payment, audio streaming like Spotify, and what not, etc. which is less of utility app and can be use as surveillance system for the government in the future.

India is heading towards government system like deadly mix of Russia in terms of democracy and China in terms of surveillance system (look at the recent telecom act amendment proposed by government in last month. Basically it can force any VoIP services such as WhatsApp to verify user identity.)

Current government was not approving WhatsApp license for UPI for years until after WhatsApp decided to invest in Jio [https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/24/india-approves-facebooks-5...] At that time few peoples were discussing that this investment is nothing but to bribe government and/or Jio to get UPI license. Now WhatsApp got that permission [https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/13/whatsapp-permitted-to-exte...]

Comment · 4 years ago
I checked on homepage and I didn't see any story about it so I posted it. But later, I tried to delete this but i can't see an option to delete. Maybe Hide will works?
Comment · 4 years ago
Here is the link to original order [https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/press-release/details/261/0]

some experts

13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the Commission has imposed monetary penalty as well as issued cease and desist order against Google from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of the measures that were indicated by the Commission are as follows:

i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst Google’s proprietary applications to be pre-installed and should not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications, and (b) deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart devices.

ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to OEMs shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing Google search services, Chrome browser, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail or any other application of Google.

iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app developers and its existing or potential competitors. This would ensure interoperability of apps between Android OS which complies with compatibility requirements of Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android forks.

iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on OEMs, as presently being done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do not have Google’s proprietary applications pre-installed, OEMs should be permitted to manufacture/ develop Android forks based smart devices for themselves.

vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for not selling smart devices based on Android forks.

vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.

viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points. Users should have the flexibility to easily set as well as easily change the default settings in their devices, in minimum steps possible.

ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.

Comment · 4 years ago
I can understand but my reply was with reference in parent comment

> A great opportunity right now for CloudFlare to win some goodwill and PR by helping out EasyList for free right now.

Comment · 4 years ago
modified the title to keep within allowed 50 chars limit
Comment · 4 years ago
some experts

13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the Commission has imposed monetary penalty as well as issued cease and desist order against Google from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of the measures that were indicated by the Commission are as follows:

i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst Google’s proprietary applications to be pre-installed and should not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications, and (b) deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart devices.

ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to OEMs shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing Google search services, Chrome browser, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail or any other application of Google.

iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app developers and its existing or potential competitors. This would ensure interoperability of apps between Android OS which complies with compatibility requirements of Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android forks.

iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on OEMs, as presently being done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do not have Google’s proprietary applications pre-installed, OEMs should be permitted to manufacture/ develop Android forks based smart devices for themselves.

vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for not selling smart devices based on Android forks.

vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.

viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points. Users should have the flexibility to easily set as well as easily change the default settings in their devices, in minimum steps possible.

ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton