stifle867

China has no say in letting it happen. The company is not based in China. He is a Canadian citizen and resides in the UAE. He was born in China but it's a little late for them to get involved in that.

As long as you're bisexual in need of illegal money laundering then they don't discriminate.

Perhaps anyone listening to the plane announcements, looks at any one of the multitude of signs on arrival, or anyone (everyone) who fills out the incoming passenger card? It's not at all unclear what you have to do when you're there. They make it clear to declare everything at multiple points. There is no penalty for declaring something even if it's not allowed in.

On the first side of the incoming passenger card, half of it is taken up by the question:

Are you bringing into Australia:

[...]

6. Meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables?

7. Grains, seeds, bulbs, straw, nuts, plants, parts of plants, traditional medicines or herbs, wooden articles?

8. Animals, parts of animals, animal products including equipment, pet food, eggs, biologicals, specimens, birds, fish, insects, shells, bee products?

It's great to see the attempt and also an example of what the C4 guidelines are made to avoid.

Notice how many comments are little nitpicks about this and that. Completely stalling the commit and getting further away from the original point of C4 which is to reduce contributor friction and avoid these kind of endless discussions on PRs.

I don't want to be too critical because some of that is a clear lack of understanding of the motivations of C4 which is explained more thoroughly in Pieter's blog posts. You don't want to adopt a contributor guidelines that you don't understand of course.

IMO it's better just to implement it as-is and start using it in practice rather than bikeshedding.

Great, then declare it and there shouldn't be any problem. Where the problem comes in is people not declaring it. If it's hidden somewhere in their luggage or on their person how is anyone supposed to know that?

Granted it is harsh in this case which I already said but customs has no interest in letting people skirt the rules just because.

Best practices for minimizing complexity:

1. Try out “stacking”
2. Simplify software design

I didn't say there wasn't information in there but the above paraphrased quote goes to the heart of what my comment was about.

Firstly, how is purchasing their product considered a "best practice"? It's not generally accepted or the standard superior option by any stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, the option they give to minimizing complexity is to simplify your software design. Ignoring a couple problems with this statement, if they're being honest this should be above the recommendation to "try out stacking".

It doesn't have to be that deep. You can give it a quick read and take from it what you will, but it is an ad for their product more so than it is an article that contains broadly useful information. They have every right to do so and maybe their product really is tremendously great but I'm just calling it how I see it.

It was probably a lack of attention combined with a genuine mistake. She claims she slept through the flight. Lots of people are also unaware how strictly we deal with it and think they'll be fine instead of fined. We have an entire TV show about it.

I don't want to be too harsh on her as it's relatively minor and the fine amounted to 10% of their combined remaining life savings. It was her mistake.

We do. There's announcements on the flight and there's signs everywhere.

The department spokeswoman pointed to biosecurity announcements on flights which told travellers what their declaration obligations were, as well as signage about it around arrivals areas in Australian airports.

It's the fact that there is no extradition treaty in place that would give a legal basis to get him back making it not so easy. Also, the justice department only agreed on letting him out on bail only because they could thought they could manage the flight risk by imposing travel restrictions. It says all this in the article.

This part is my opinion but seeing as he helped launder money for terrorist groups, many of which are based in that region of the world, combined with the other resources at his disposal, there is a definite risk that he has a "change of heart" and attempts to evade his sentence.

Knowingly and willfully laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, and people engaging in the exploitation of children is definitely villainous. More so than Trump.

“Chicken meat poses a significant biosecurity risk to Australia, particularly the risk of highly pathogenic notifiable avian influenza (HPNAI) virus which can cause severe disease and mortality across Australia’s poultry industry, and may also affect wild bird populations.”

We do have a reputation for taking these things very seriously, as we should. We were even going to kill Johnny Depp's dogs at one point but settled for the "hostage video". Despite that, it does seem excessive in this case and should have been overturned on appeal at the very least.

Thankfully someone stepped up and ended up paying the fine on their behalf.

If it's an official commentary you can usually find them via torrents if you download the disc rips. It's usually not the most popular torrent for that movie as the file sizes tend to be much larger.