 |
| I saw this on CNA and am sharing it with you. Let's keep hoping. |
 |
| The reporter came to Bangalore. She reported on how technology helps. This time it is about how it helps agriculture |
 |
| At BrahmEarth, we are committed to a greener, healthier, and sustainable future. Our indoor farming and environmental monitoring products are designed to help you make a positive impact on the planet. |
 | ||
The founders
|
 |
| The data is relayed back to AI |
 |
| Measures soil,air and moisture conditions |
 |
| Briefly, the farm they just visited faced a deep drop in their output. It had gone down to 1/3 of its former output in the past twenty years. While farmers know the issues affecting it, excess use of fertilisers, rains and weather and so on. Lack of labor included. They are not able to act on time. Technology is able to help them to act well ahead They are hoping to get back to the good old days soon. |
 |
| The farmer looks happy! They have been farmers for many generations. The reporter is quite impressed! |
That the Indian Politicians learn from the Brazil election report!
India is in a confused state at the moment.
A few are dreaming of a regime change with or without an election. Or is it facing an attack from outside India as claimed by some! Anyway we are going on protests and counter protests.
Politics is at the lowest ebb! A few advocates/judges are disappointed with the Supreme court judges. Chief Election Commissioner is under pressure for conducting SIR in biased manner. He appears to be all-powerful, to be able to influence a million BLO's on the field to write off 13 crores of voters.
Meanwhile Brazil has refused to follow the American dream and have elected against it. I read that EVM's are 'mostly' used in Brazil!
I quote a few relevant comments...
What election-fraud narratives should we be watching for?
As DDIA has long shown, election-fraud narratives get recycled and repeated across elections and country contexts. The strongest clues for what we are seeing / are likely to see in 2026 come from the 2022 playbook.
In 2022, narratives included claims that electronic voting machines secretly changed or deleted votes, that particular models of machines were unreliable because they were produced abroad (mainly Venezuela), that the TSE has been hiding evidence of fraud, that the judiciary was conspiring against Bolsonaro, and that international actors or technology companies were helping determine the result of the elections. Following Sunday’s vote, and ahead of the second round, DDIA recommends watching for some of the same claims that generally fall under the meta-narrative that elections are fraudulent and can’t be trusted.
These may look like claims that Brazil’s voting machines are rigged, that the courts stole the election, that polls were fraudulent, that votes disappeared, or that Brazil’s establishment (especially the Judiciary) prevented the real winner from taking office.
As research shows , fraud narratives often begin before results are affirmed, making prebunking especially useful. Explain beforehand what normal vote counting looks like, what audits exist, why polls can differ from results, and what constitutes actual evidence of fraud.
Misleading information is more prominent than outright disinformation, in that a lot of what we see is content exaggerating facts, omitting context, or reframing authentic events to mislead.
The target of misinformative and disinformative attacks in Brazil has been expanded to include institutions. Falsehoods used to focus much more prominently on portraying a candidate as corrupt or unfit. Today, we see bad actors online increasingly claiming the election itself cannot be trusted, targeting Brazil’s electronic voting machines, vote counting, results, and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) or the supreme court itself.
Disinformation has also moved prominently into private messaging. Facebook appeared in 76.5% of Agência Lupa’s election fact-checks in 2018. By 2022, WhatsApp appeared in 92.4% of cases. That shift makes falsehoods harder to detect and correct. Journalists and researchers have a hard time monitoring encrypted conversations, and debunks rarely travel through the same networks as the original claim.
The full article:
No comments:
Post a Comment