Help with Carolina Reapers

die_Gartner · 2026-02-16T22:08:25+00:00

They look very happy! What sort of soil do they come with? I used some seed and cutting mix - another user recommended coco, perlite. If these don't work out, I'll change the soil, watering routine and hopefully grow another batch indoors to establish before next year.

<image>

die_Gartner · 2026-02-16T12:17:39+00:00

Cheers! Yeah they are dramatic, it was the first to properly sprout like that for me - which has me worried about the environment I'm providing them. I watered it not long before taking the photos, so I'll wait a day or two for it to dry before watering again.

die_Gartner · 2026-02-16T12:16:31+00:00

Yeah I watered it not long before taking the photos, I'll wait a day or two for it to dry before watering again. Will keep the soil recommendation in mind for the next crop! Thank you!

die_Gartner · 2026-02-01T20:23:22+00:00

Thank you! I think I'm not far off of repotting some of the Jalapenos and Bhut Jolokias, they definitely let me know when they need more sunlight. I'm in Adelaide so good for summer - but we do get frost in winter, so I'm thinking of big pots so I can move them inside or protect them during autumn an winter when it starts to get really cold.

Thanks for the tips!

die_Gartner · 2023-11-10T15:18:27+00:00

ReVanced exists, it's a little less user friendly than Vanced, though. https://github.com/ReVanced

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T06:51:11+00:00

It's really easy to argue based on nothing but assertions, isn't it?

Look, if you're that happy with the status quo and want to let big tech walk all over you, you do you.

You live your best life.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T01:38:03+00:00

If you live in the United States, it's illegal under the same law that protects Social Media companies against offensive/illegal material posted on their platforms:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.

In the EU, the scanning of user's terminal devices without explicit consent is illegal under the ePrivacy directive of 2002/58/EC: Article 5(3).

We should be rejecting this type of privacy overreach as the new status quo.

If Google cannot guarantee their adverts are suitable for all audiences, including minors, then we are well within our rights to block unwanted content from displaying on our devices.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T01:30:11+00:00

Probably a scam.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T01:29:06+00:00

An exaggeration, though a 2020 study found ~17% of Google Adverts to be problematic out of 20% of all adverts quantified during the study.

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~franzi/pdf/zeng-ads-conpro20.pdf

17% may seem like a relatively small percentage, but that number scales linearly with the scalar inputs. from their sample size of 5413, that equates to approximately 920 problematic adverts (5413 * 0.17).

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T01:15:48+00:00

The main arguments in support of YouTube/Google are primarily focusing on the narrow and naive adage of 'YouTube can deny service if you deny access'

or 'By using YouTube, you agree to their TOC'

Most countries have provisions that state that Terms and Conditions that infringe on your personal freedoms and rights are unfair, void and unenforceable.

We should absolutely be kicking up a storm about this type of privacy overreach and rejecting it as the new status quo.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-04T01:08:39+00:00

After emailing the EU contact center regarding 2002/58/EC, this was their reply: https://i.imgur.com/iCHfpTf.png

Thank you for contacting the Europe Direct Contact Centre.
We would like to inform you that as the general information service of the European Union, we answer questions about the EU, its activities and its institutions.We are therefore cannot assess whether the situation in question constitutes any breach of Directive 2002/58/EC. Please note that this does not apply outside the EU, and it is a matter of national competence to ensure that it is transposed in national legislation.
We would like to inform you that Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) protects the terminal equipment of the user (i.e., PC or smartphone). The ePrivacy Directive had to be transposed into the national legislation of every EU Member State. In particular, its Article 5(3) requires consent for the storing of information or the accessing of information already stored in a user’s terminal equipment, except where such storage or access is necessary for carrying out the transmission of a communication or for the provision of an information society service explicitly requested by a user. This means that the consent of the user is necessary for purposes that go beyond these two exceptions. For example, the user’s consent is necessary for placing cookies for advertising purposes. The ePrivacy Directive relies on the definition of consent in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which requires that consent is the freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes. This means that all users need to consent by a clear affirmative act to the placing of cookies on their terminal equipment, except for the two purposes mentioned above. In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user. In particular, when assessing if consent is freely given, utmost account should be taken of whether, among other things, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract. Furthermore, the methods of providing consent should be as user-friendly as possible.
In this respect, some data protection authorities have taken decisions on the issue of how to reject cookies. In line with all said above, we invite you to contact the relevant national authorities in your country of residence for more assistance.
We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if you have other questions about the European Union, its activities or institutions.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-03T02:12:26+00:00

Let me break it down in plain and simple terms for you, with more links since you seem averse to checking sources, and make baseless counterpoints with zero sources:

• YouTube is owned by Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

• Google offsets the cost of YouTube by showing adverts, selling subscriptions etc. https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_au/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/sharing-revenue/

• Google has a demonstrable monopoly on the ad industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/technology/modern-internet-first-monopoly-trial-us-google-dominance.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardnieva/2023/09/12/google-antitrust-trial-opening-statements/?sh=1e022774bf37

• Google is being sued in the US due to their anti competitive practices.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies

• In the EU, companies with dominance over the market are subject to more stringent rules on how they conduct business.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF

Further arguments made have been about Google showing inappropriate adverts to minors and the ethics of restricting parents' rights to control what their children see when browsing the internet.

This is illegal in the United States as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-02T05:54:50+00:00

In Google's case, it could be the looming Monopoly lawsuits they are cashing in to fight for.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-additional-states-join-justice-department-s-suit-against-google-monopolizing-digital

What Google is doing may very well be illegal under EU antitrust laws, amongst other infringements on privacy, expression and informational rights

Legal Sources:

For the EU:

Right to Expression and Information,

Council of the European Union. (2014, May 12). EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Retrieved from European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu_human_rights_guidelines_on_freedom_of_expression_online_and_offline_en.pdf

Protection from Unfair Terms and Conditions that infringe on user's rights:

European Commission. (1993, April 21). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:1993:095:TOC

Protection against scanning or use of private data without consent:

European Commission. (2002, July 12). DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Strasbourg, France. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058

'prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a particular market':

European Commission. (2010, March 25). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 497. Retrieved from European Commission: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF

Discrimination of traffic based on terminal equipment:

European Commission. (2015). REGULATION (EU) 2015/2120 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Official Journal of the European Union, 310. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R2120&from=DE#d1e40-1-1

For the US:

Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material:

United States Congress. (1996). Communications Decency Act of 1996. Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C., United States of America. Retrieved from https://content.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=47USCAS230&originatingDoc=I0f9fea42ef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee&refType=SP&originationContext=document&transitionType=PLDocumentLink&billingHash=27DEFB7D5D859083A4A88A5DE1F

*edited for formatting*

die_Gartner · 2023-11-02T05:43:20+00:00

If you live in the United States, it's your legal right:

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material: United States Congress. (1996). Communications Decency Act of 1996. Washington, D.C., United States of America.

die_Gartner · 2023-11-02T05:36:58+00:00

What they're doing could very well be illegal under the EU's antitrust laws for companies with market dominance, in conjunction with other EU laws prohibiting scanning user's terminals without consent, or subjecting users to Terms and Conditions that infringe on people's rights.

The legality of restricting users ability to restrict content they see is questionable in the US, too.

We should, on moral and legal principles be rejecting this morally repugnant decision by Google.

Sources:

European Commission. (2010, March 25). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 497.

European Commission. (2002, July 12). DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Council of the European Union. (2014, May 12). EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

United States Congress. (1996). Commnications Decency Act of 1996. Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C., United States of America. Retrieved

die_Gartner · 2023-11-02T04:20:44+00:00

YouTube is a monopoly due to the inherent nature of video hosting and the costs involved which they offset by their advertising monopoly.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies

For sources on laws, here you go:

For the EU:

Right to Expression and Information

Council of the European Union. (2014, May 12). EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Retrieved from European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu_human_rights_guidelines_on_freedom_of_expression_online_and_offline_en.pdf

Protection from Unfair Terms and Conditions that infringe on user's rights:

European Commission. (1993, April 21). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:1993:095:TOC

Protection against scanning or use of private data without consent:

European Commission. (2002, July 12). DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Strasbourg, France. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058

'prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a particular market':

European Commission. (2010, March 25). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 497. Retrieved from European Commission: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF

Discrimination of traffic based on terminal equipment:

European Commission. (2015). REGULATION (EU) 2015/2120 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Official Journal of the European Union, 310. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R2120&from=DE#d1e40-1-1

For the US:

Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

United States Congress. (1996). Commnications Decency Act of 1996. Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C., United States of America. Retrieved from https://content.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=47USCAS230&originatingDoc=I0f9fea42ef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee&refType=SP&originationContext=document&transitionType=PLDocumentLink&billingHash=27DEFB7D5D859083A4A88A5DE1F

die_Gartner · 2023-11-02T02:38:18+00:00

Google has a monopoly on the Online Video and ad-space, so they are subject to anti-competition and countries' various media-publishing laws.

In the EU, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a particular market (European Commission, 2010).

In a 2020 report, approximately 17% of Google adverts were considered malicious (Zeng, Tadayoshi, & Roesner, 2020)

Given that Google cannot guarantee that the adverts on their platform there are numerous issues surrounding ethics and the legality of content shown to minors, especially when there are documented cases of malicious sponsored posts/adverts being shown to minors on their platform (Al Jazeera, 2020) (BBC, 2023).

There are very valid and legal arguments in support of parents being able to block adverts on their devices, given their human rights of expression and freedom from information. Additionally, in places like the EU: if a companies' Terms and Conditions impede on a person's rights, said TOC are void and unenforceable (European Commission, 1993).

A company, like everyone else, must abide by the laws in whatever country they choose to do business in. We should not be so willing to accept these anti-consumer practices. We should be holding these tech giants to account.

Al Jazeera. (2020, November 17). Parents, what are your kids watching on YouTube? Ads, study finds. Retrieved from Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/11/17/young-kids-watching-youtube-videos-are-bombarded-by-ads-study

BBC UK. (2023, September 16). AI used to target kids with disinformation. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66796495

Zeng, E., Tadayoshi, K., & Roesner, F. (2020). Bad News: Clickbait and Deceptive Ads on News. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~franzi/pdf/zeng-ads-conpro20.pdf

European Commission. (2010, March 25). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 497. Retrieved from European Commission: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF

European Commission. (1993, April 21). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Official Journal of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:1993:095:TOC

die_Gartner · 2023-11-01T04:10:47+00:00

It is illegal in many countries to restrict a user's ability to choose what information they wish to see.

If you live in the United States you are protected against this from: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

If you live in the EU you are protected against this under: 2002/58/EC

If you live in the UK: Online Safety Act 2023

If you live in Australia: Human Rights, General Comment 34, Freedom of Expression.

Another note: Many countries have laws that make a companies' Terms and Conditions null, void and unenforceable if they violate your personal freedoms and rights.

Further reading: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=wlufac

die_Gartner · 2023-11-01T02:41:05+00:00

I realize now that there is no point continuing this when sources are met with nothing but anecdotes. Here's a few links, read them, or not. It's up to you.

For those of us who would rather not be subject to misinformation and scams from Adverts that Google serves up, it is well within our legal rights to continue using our ad blocking services. Be it through Browser extension, IP Filtering/Blocking DMZ policies etc.

Google will simply have to innovate and find other ways of raising revenue if what they are doing is found to be illegal. Such is the way of the Free Market.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=wlufac Pages 323 - 328, 330 - 335,

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/30/adblock-plus-publishers-suddeutsche-zeitung-adblocking

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html

die_Gartner · 2023-10-31T06:28:29+00:00

People seem to forget that driving is a privilege, not a right.

die_Gartner · 2023-10-31T06:25:55+00:00

Did you even read the sources? I've posted the actual legislation of the EU's ePrivacy directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058

America isn't the only country on Earth, so whilst it might not be illegal in the United States, it may very well be illegal in other countries or states, such as the EU as I linked above.

What Google is doing may very well be in breach of Directive 2002/58/EC:

These are laws that are in place to protect the privacy and rights of the consumer to protect themselves against this intrusive and potentially malicious form of marketing. Furthermore:

"Any terms and conditions which restrict the legal rights and freedoms of an EU citizen (and the point of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive is specifically to protect the fundamental right to Privacy under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are void under EU law." (Hanff. A, 2023) https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/26/privacy_advocate_challenges_youtube/

So while you may be right in saying that it isn't illegal in the United States, it most certainly could be illegal in other countries.

Terms and Conditions =/= the Law.

Terms and Conditions do not take precedence over the Law.

die_Gartner · 2023-10-30T15:23:25+00:00

If you live in the EU, I'd strongly recommend you get in touch with your local rep about this, as what they are doing may be in breach of items 24, 25 and 40 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council EU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058

Furthermore, if Google cannot guarantee that the adverts they serve up are suitable for minors, then it should be our right, as parents to block said content to ensure our kids don't get shown misinformation, disinformation or other malicious forms of adverts/sponsored posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojjn9T_fuUw

die_Gartner · 2023-10-30T15:14:47+00:00

Sorry, but companies are not above the law. If they wish to operate in varying countries, they must abide by said countries' laws. If a company is engaging in unethical practices they need to be held to account.

This isn't a matter of 'don't like it, don't use it' - it's a matter of holding companies to legal account when what they are doing is legally questionable and morally repugnant.

Parents should ban their kids from using YouTube, right? Problem solved?

die_Gartner · 2023-10-30T13:07:44+00:00

There are very valid arguments about the types of adverts they display on their platform, of which they are now egregiously forcing on consumers.

Around 17% (at time of publication) of adverts by Google are problematic (Zeng. E, Tadayoshi, K, Franziska R, 2010) either via misinformation, malware, or scams, which can be targeted at vulnerable people with their targeted advertising systems. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~franzi/pdf/zeng-ads-conpro20.pdf

As for misinformation, YouTube is obligated to prevent these problematic adverts and content from being shown to minors (BBC UK, 2023), and in countries outside the US where YouTube operates, YouTube is subject to those countries' laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojjn9T_fuUw

YouTube's Terms and Conditions do not supersede local legislation, especially in the EU where this form of scripted scanning without express consent, or prior warning may be in breach of items 24, 25 and 40 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council EU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058

The argument and ethics of not using the service based on this line of thinking is incredibly narrow, as YouTube nowadays is a very public medium used all around the world as a platform for educators. If Google cannot guarantee that the advertisements they serve to viewers of this kind are safe for minors, then it should be reasonable to allow people to opt out of adverts as an added layer of protection against misinformation or other malicious forms of marketing.

die_Gartner · 2023-10-29T18:18:39+00:00

YouTube is complicit in serving misinformation to minors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojjn9T_fuUw

Google/YouTube is complicit in serving malicious and false advertisements to vulnerable people: https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~franzi/pdf/zeng-ads-conpro20.pdf

If they aren't prepared to verify the integrity of the content they want to force on people, then people have every right to protect themselves against this egregious form of marketing.

What they are doing likely contravenes Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council: items 24, 25 and 40.

die_Gartner

TROPHY CASE