It's a very subjective judgement and everyone is entitled his or her own opinion. But that one is very biased. As far as elections concerned Turkish election system is very solid as a process and implementation is solid. In the end Erdogan lost Istanbul in the last elections even after that election repeated for only Istanbul, and worse for Erdogan, the second round was much more decisive. People didn't like the election were repeated.
Also, don't fall to the expressions like, "Turkish here", "German there". These does not make anyone expert nor without bias.
To give everyone an idea of how solid the process is: consider that the opposition candidate widely considered most capable of beating the incumbent president was recently sentenced to two years in jail and removed from politics on the weakest of pretenses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Ekrem_%C4%B0mamo%C4...
Here are a few other biased sources offering their subjective judgements:
This is not to say that Turkey is full autocracy: the incubent president has a genuinely large amount of support and it's quite possible they would win a free and fair election. However, the upcoming election will not be free and fair as those terms are commonly understood.
> This is not to say that Turkey is full autocracy: the incubent president has a genuinely large amount of support and it's quite possible they would win a free and fair election.
This is kind of skewed though, if people can't go on TV or Twitter and say "Erdogan doesn't know what he's doing and his policies are foolish".
This is really the modern autocrat's secret weapon: have reasonably(-ish) fair(-ish) elections, but also rig things in such a way that people only hear one side of the story. It's not a surprise people support Erdogan if they only hear how brilliant he is with tepid criticism at best. Control the narrative → control the vote. Ergodan, Putin, Xi all play by this book.
Having a free press and free investigative journalism is critical; without it you don't really have fair elections, even if the actual business of casting and counting ballots is sound and free of fraud.
> This is really the modern autocrat's secret weapon
Hardly: Mussolini also had some sort of elections. It just happened that parliamentarians who were too much of a nuisance had unfortunate encounters with groups of hard batons, or were required to live on remote islands. In Putin's Russia they fall from balconies.
Erdogan literally imprisons any opposition leader who comes close to be an actual challenger. He's done it twice already in the last 7 years.
It's just not funny anymore. Some people in Turkey might enjoy living under a dictator (after all, many did in Italy and Germany, and many do in a lot of other countries today), but let's not pretend that water is not wet.
> Also, don't fall to the expressions like, "Turkish here", "German there". These does not make anyone expert nor without bias.
Exactly! I'm from another global south country. Usually when someone on these sites say "${their_country} here" I prepare myself for the worst takes because I know this happens in my country, usually it's some liberal who read/work in western leaning media and repeat what they hear. It's an echo chamber so huge that you can't touch it's walls so it's hard to know you actually live in an echo chamber.
Can we say that M1 will be much faster when those applications are compiled natively for M1? As far as I know there's a translation layer (Rosetta) at the moment.
I don't see mention one way or the other in the article but everything that was tested has a native version already so I'd assume Rosetta was not at play in these numbers.
What I don't get is that if this is a test car, how come the the driver did not take over the helm immediately. The driver in that car should be in full alert as if driving the vehicle himself and jump in as needed. Test should not mean to let loose an autonomous car.
Do you think you could maintain the required state of alertness, focus, and engagement necessary to hit the brakes and turn the wheel after 30 minutes (or whatever) of just sitting passively as the car drove you around?
I don't think the "safety drivers" do much other than provide liability-shifting for the company.
the drivers are employed by the company, doing company work. They may (misleadingly) shift the optics away from the automation, but they don't shift the liability.
Unlike all the other comments discussing charges, this one actually has a good point. Presumably the safety driver is there specifically to prevent this from happening. They'd still have to show that the driver was personally at fault. That would mean showing that the driver was e.g. sleeping/not paying enough attention, or something similar.
At the very least, it might call into question whether safety drivers are actually providing any real safety. Localities may start to crack down on using that kind of excuse for self-driving tests.
A test pseudo-"driver" ought to be doing stuff like orally making notes of the environment and car operation, collecting data the sensors might be missing, and monitoring the car's automated judgement. As a related effect, the human should be ready to emergency brake or swerve.
That attack was way too sophisticated beyond the capability of any home-made effort. The attackers tried to cover it behind "home-made" veil. At any rate it threatens any conventional army.
The article is somewhat misleading because the Russians claim that the technology was provided by a state actor and that it was only made to look primitive in order to provide deniability.
----
On Tuesday, the Russian Defence Ministry appeared to accuse the US of being involved in the latest attack, claiming that an American Poseidon intelligence aircraft patrolling over the base during the attack was a “strange coincidence”.
It also said in an earlier post that the perpetrators needed technology from “countries with high-technological capabilities” and the drones’ explosive devices had “foreign detonating fuses”.
When you do your research you will find that you are right.
A dictator gets over 95% of popular votes. Like in Syria, Egypt, North Korea. In 2015 elections (second in the last) Erdogan's party lost majority to form the government by itself (got 40%). After months of negotiations/bargaining political system could not produce a government and elections are done again and this time they could get the enough majority (49%).
The system in Turkey does not allow irregularities. All political parties have the right (and they do) to be represented at the voting polls. They are the very people who run the process at every polling station, from getting ID cards, finding voters in registries, counting the votes after polls are closed, etc. As you have said you can not find such fraud cases since other political parties and each one of them has to be complicit for a fraud.
Also, don't fall to the expressions like, "Turkish here", "German there". These does not make anyone expert nor without bias.