Not only that, 0% of the effort has to do with the GNU part. The article title is accurate in using the term Linux. You get the kernel to run, then you grab a binary userspace from your favorite distro. Linux is what matters. The rest follows automatically because it is barely hardware specific if at all.
You only port GNU/Linux once to any given architecture. After that, all devices using the same architecture only require porting Linux to them.
Yes, because when I put Linux on a PS4 I certainly didn't spend several months figuring out how to write hardware-specific Linux components for the PS4.
But hey, I guess GitHub is some shady website that serves shady black box binaries, and implementing kexec as a hot-patchable module for the FreeBSD kernel is a decidedly shady technique. Right.
Little ARM and AVR chips almost always have embedded Flash memory, and high-performance chips like x86 CPUs and mobile phone SoCs almost never do. It has to do with silicon technology. It is not practical to put Flash memory into a cutting edge silicon process for a bunch of technical reasons.
IANAL, but as far as I know there is no such "exemption". You're probably thinking of Sega v. Accolade, where Sega used a trademark system to require games to have the string "SEGA" in them. That was chiefly about trademarks, not copyright. You're probably also thinking about the DMCA exemption for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes, but that is about anti-circumvention, it doesn't mean you get to distribute copyrighted data/code.
If you actually read the DMCA request, you'll see it's about data, not code. A game server needs data to know the allowed actions in the game, the entities in the game, the rules for interaction, the locations, etc, in order to maintain a common understanding of the world with the clients. It is this data that was copied from the WoW client and incorporated as a SQL database (into otherwise presumably bespoke server code).
You could make your own completely new game data (and somehow insert it into the Blizzard client too), but then the game wouldn't be WoW any more, just something else built on the same engine and with the same graphical assets.
That's because most Android phones do *not* do this and then succumb to the sudden death syndrome. That's what my Nexus 10 started doing after its battery went kaput. It would run for ages on standby or with the screen brightness on low and not doing much, but instantly die as soon as It tried to play back a video (but would boot right back up and the battery voltage shot up to near fully charged levels after shutdown). Internal resistance.
On the other hand, I have heard anecdotal reports from friends with some Xiaomi phones that the performance increased after a battery replacement, so I suspect those do in fact have this feature.
This isn't about making the battery last longer. It's about making the phone work at all. It has to do with battery chemistry.
Old batteries don't just "last less". They also have an increased internal series resistance. That resistance actually limits the amount of power you can pull out of it. The more current you draw, the more energy is wasted as heat, and the lower the output voltage. As internal series resistance increases, it becomes physically impossible to get more than a certain amount of power out of the battery, and this limit also decreases as the battery drains during a given discharge cycle. It's a hard physical limit. The I-V curve just never hits your power target. If you try, your voltage sags and then the phone shuts down. This is what triggers a common syndrome in old devices, where the battery meter shows 30% but then you try to open up a CPU-intensive app and the device immediately shuts down. Chances are that's not the battery meter being wrong or miscalibrated: there really was 30% charge remaining in the battery. It just wasn't capable of handling that much power draw at that charge level. There's 30% charge remaining and there's a hidden limit as to how fast you can drain it.
It's almost certain that what Apple did here was start throttling phone performance when battery voltage sags below a critical threshold, to prevent hard shutdowns. On older batteries, this would appear as a performance limit as the battery empties. But it was never about making the phone last longer. It's just a physical limitation. The alternative is your phone shuts down. That's obviously not good.
The right solution, of course, is to have a notification or something that tells users when this is happening. Something along the lines of "Your battery cannot supply enough power to keep your device working at full performance. To maintain optimum performance, a battery replacement is recommended.".
Meanwhile here I am, running Gentoo, with init scripts that have had real dependencies for over 15 years (as well as a bash-based but much nicer scaffolding to write them), with simple to use admin tools and fully based on text files, with cgroup-based process monitoring (these days), and I'm wondering why everyone else didn't get the memo and suddenly decided to switch to systemd instead and bring along all the other baggage it comes with. Debian and Ubuntu had garbage init systems, and yet it seems *nobody* ever took notice of how Gentoo has been doing things right for a decade and a half. You can also use systemd with Gentoo if you want, because user choice is a good thing.
Everyone* switched to systemd because everyone* was using something that was much, much worse. Traditional sysvinit is a joke for service startup, it can't even handle dependencies in a way that actually works reliably (sure, it works until a process fails to start or hangs, then all bets are off, and good luck keeping dependencies starting in the right order as the system changes). Upstart is a mess (with plenty of corner case bugs) and much harder to make sense of and use than systemd. I'm a much happier person writing systemd units than Upstart whatever-you-call-thems on the Ubuntu systems I have to maintain.
The problem with systemd is that although it does init systems *better* than everything else*, it's also trying to take over half a dozen more responsibilities that are none of its damn business. It's a monolithic repo, and it's trying as hard as it can to position itself as a hard dependency for every Linux system on the face of the planet. Distros needed* a new init system, and they got an attempt to take over the Linux ecosystem along with it.
* The exception is Gentoo, which for over 15 years has had an rc-script system (later rewritten as OpenRC) based on sysvinit as PID 1 but with real dependencies, easy to write initscripts, and all the features you might need in a server environment (works great for desktops too). It's the only distro that has had a truly server-worthy init system, with the right balance of features and understandability and ease of maintenance. Gentoo is the only major distro that hasn't switched to systemd, though it does offer systemd as an option for those who want it. OpenRC was proposed as a systemd alternative in the Debian talks, but Gentoo didn't advertise it, and nobody on the Debian side cared to give it a try. Interestingly Poettering seems to be *very* careful to *never, ever* mention OpenRC when he talks about how systemd is better than everything else. I wonder why. Gentoo developers have had to fork multiple things assimilated by systemd (like udev) in order to keep offering OpenRC as an option.
What matter are the circumstances behind the vote. If you boycott a perfectly legal, organized, supported referendum, then you're an idiot. But what people are "boycotting" here is a referendum that has been ruled illegal, that is being haphazardly organized, unilaterally pushed, and basically being used as a political weapon.
Actually I had a thought experiment the other day. Why not let the Catalan people decide on who gets to decide? Polls show that ~30% of the Catalan people actually do think other Spanish people should have a say in their independence. ~50% don't (the rest is no answer/invalid).
Hold a referendum that asks two questions in Catalonia: whether the rest of Spain should get a say, and whether Catalonia should be independent. Hold a referendum everywhere else that asks whether Catalonia should be independent. Scale the answers to the first question to 100% - if it's 50/30 (20% blank/invalid), that's about 62% vs 38%. Now weigh the results based on that: Catalan people's vote accounts for 62% of the outcome, while all of Spain's (this includes Catalonia as well) accounts for 38% of the outcome. So if, say, 70% of the Catalan people but 20% of all of Spain want independence, the outcome is 70% * 62% + 20% * 38% = 51%, a win for independence. If only 60% of the Catalan people voted yes, then that's an overall no.
This way, the rest of the country gets to vote too, but only as much as Catalan people think they should.
Because they're not random unweighted Internet polls, I'm referencing an official poll conducted by the very government that is pushing the referendum. An official poll that they themselves, of course, never bring up.
The difference in outcomes we're talking about here is much, much larger than the error in the US polls. This isn't a "the polls are wrong" situation. This would be as if US polls predicted a 55% win for Hillary and then Trump won 80% of the vote. That's not polling error, that's a much bigger effect, and it can be readily explained by more detailed polls that ask people both what they think and whether they'd vote at all, which show a very large bias in participation towards "yes" voters.
You contradict yourself, the legitimacy has everything to do with what the Spanish government thinks.
Indirectly, not directly. What the Spanish government thinks doesn't matter per se. What matters is that a good third or so of Catalans think it does, and won't vote in the referendum for that reason.
then it's impossible to have a legitimate vote that's unsupported by the Spanish government.
That may very well be the case (unless the vote is so far towards the "yes" side that low "no" participation becomes immaterial). That's the thing here: the Catalan government is trying to pass the referendum as legitimate when, under the current framework, it just isn't. They're passing this attempt as true democracy when it isn't. Now, that may very well be because the central government is opposed to it, but that doesn't change the outcome: that the vote, as it is intended to be conducted, won't be representative of the actual desires of the Catalan people.
I'm not saying this is a pretty situation. I'm not saying I have a magical solution. I'm just saying that a "yes" outcome won't actually mean the majority of Catalans want independence. And the Catalan government knows this but is pretending not to.
If it was a case of the union side boycotting the vote out of petulance - like the right wing in Venezuela that deliberately sat out the elections for the constituent assembly and is now whining about its make up - then maybe they should have gotten their asses to the polls.
Again, the issue here is that that time it wasn't a real referendum (it was thinly veiled as a "popular poll" to skirt around the laws that are now being used to charge those running the current for-reals-except-not referendum). If a real referendum with a solid legal footing happened and the "no" voters still didn't bother to show up, then you can blame them. But do you really expect the overwhelming majority of the population of a region to show up to an event that is by some rather fair accounts an illegal act? Of course with the shenanigans surrounding this vote a large fraction of people either won't bother or actively won't want to have anything to do with it.
Think about it. If the Governor of California said "screw the US, we're seceding" and called for a vote without any support from the rest of the US and a good chunk of the state itself, while the feds were calling it an illegal act of unilateral secession, and a bunch of shenanigans involved (including things like strong-arming polling locations and cities into collaborating even if they disagree with the premise) do you really expect the majority of Cailfornians would vote in a fair manner that is representative and would make the result valid?
If you think it's a bullshit argument, why was the "yes" side blatantly overrepresented in the 2014 attempt? Nobody seriously believes 80% of Catalonians are pro-independence. That's wildly out of whack with even the polls that have been most favorable towards that side. In fact, polls that ask both questions (would you vote at all and what would you vote for) and thus provide the proper breakdown universally represent this fact: the outcome hovers around an even split among all Catalonians, but is overwhelmingly "yes" among those who actually intend to vote in the referendum if it is held.
You're confusing being opposed to the issue with being opposed to the referendum itself. The problem with this referendum is that it is being held against Spanish law (as judged by the Constitutional Court anyway), pushed unilaterally, and it has limited support or recognition from the "no" side. Going to vote means recognizing the referendum itself as legitimate, which a lot of people voting "no" do not agree with. For a referendum to be valid there has to be consensus that it is a legitimate referendum. You may think the issue is silly, you may think a referendum is not needed, but if you (and a large fraction of the population) don't even believe the referendum is valid at all and therefore refuse to vote, then that makes it de facto invalid and unrepresentative of the will of the people.
The referendum wasn't overtly rigged; the simple problem is that when a "referendum" (what happened in 2014 wasn't really one) is unilaterally pushed by the supporters of one outcome participation winds up severely skewed towards that outcome. Because if I think you're running an illegal pro-independence referendum and I don't think independence is a good idea anyway, why would I show up to vote? While if I think independence is a great idea and I believe I'm being oppressed by the central government of course I'll vote.
The ~40% figure is, in fact, from a recent official poll conducted by the local government, where the current party in power are the promoters of the referendum itself (of course, they never bring up said poll in their talking points). The difference is that a poll picks people at random, while a referendum requires people to voluntarily go to vote. To have the result be meaningful, there needs to be wide consensus that the referendum is legitimate to begin with, that asking the question is a good idea, and there needs to be significant campaigning by both sides of the debate. None of that happened in 2014 and none of that is happening this time either. Without that, the result is meaningless, and the vote just amounts to a political weapon to attempt legitimize an undemocratic unilateral secession plan.
I sure hope that won't happen. If the Catalan independentists get credit for anything it's going about their business peacefully (at least in the physical sense; lots of political mudslinging going on, of course).
No, this isn't about what the Spanish government thinks. The referendum as it is being currently attempted is fundamentally illegitimate because it all but guarantees a "yes" outcome by severely biasing participation towards "yes" proponents. That makes it invalid in to every rational pair of eyes. To have a legitimate referendum, you need to have high participation that is balanced between supporters of all sides, which, in a functional democracy, means both sides have to agree to hold the referendum (or at least agree to let it happen and then campaign for their side), which isn't the case here at all.
See, the thing is the current Catalonian independentist government has said they will declare independence 48 hours after a "yes" victory.
Basically, the referendum is a political tool to illegitimately declare independence unilaterally (illegitimately, not only for legal reasons, but especially because the referendum will be obviously biased, the way it is being pushed by one side only). And that's why the central government doesn't want to let it happen.
Seriously, you guys (as in the vehemently pro-independence crowd) just delegitimize yourselves by going down to Trump's "biggest inauguration crowd" level. This is obviously a contentious issue and the population is pretty much evenly split. An independent Catalonia would screw over half of Catalonia's population as much or even moreso than the status quo screws over the other half. Yes, this is a difficult problem, and yes, you have every right to campaign for independence, and yes, a solution that magically pleases everyone would be great, but it certainly isn't an open-and-shut-case.
The referendum that is to be held in 1-O is about much more than language, cultural identity or economics: it is currently about defending the civil rights of the country and the ability of catalans to be able to freely decide their own future, exactly as it happened in other more democratic countries such as Canada or the UK.
But it isn't. It would be, if it were done legally, with general support, completely in the open, with fair campaigning for both sides, and with central support (which is what happened in the UK). But 1-O isn't a fair expression of the Catalan people's right to self-determination. That's just a thin veil based on a fair, but right now unattainable, ideal. What is really going on under the hood is basically an illegitimate power-grab by the pro-independence parties. Running a "democratic" process that is single-handedly controlled and promoted by those with an interest in a single outcome isn't democracy, it's the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, because the outcome will inevitably be what they want (as those who disagree will have a much lower participation in the poll than those who agree).
Yes, this is tough for the Catalan people, because they have not been given a fair chance to express their will yet, but this isn't it by any stretch of the imagination. 1-O isn't about self-determination, it's a bullshit political move that rises up to the political bullshit standard of the central government (which is legendarily full of it too).
The proof is that the outcome wildly differed from random polls.
It's a pretty obvious conclusion that if a referendum is unilaterally pushed by the party with one outcome as their agenda, that there will be a large bias for that outcome. Yes, it's difficult to make these kinds of polls perfectly fair (just look at Brexit or the US election for examples where things *probably* went the opposite way of what the population truly wanted by a small margin), but to even have a chance at approximating fairness the whole process has to be significantly backed by both sides. Otherwise there's no chance and it just becomes, at best, a publicity stunt, and at worst, an authoritarian attempt to force an outcome on the populace under a thin veil of "democracy". Democracy only works if we all at least agree on the *process*; without such agreement there can be no democracy.
The vote was already illegitimate; this is just going to slant it further. They already tried a non-binding "referendum" in 2014 with predictable results: 80% pro-independence (even though fair polls show more like 40%). The only way to have a fair referendum is to do it in a way that is approved and legal; the moment it becomes dodgy in any way, it severely biases the results because of course participation is going to be severely skewed towards people who want to vote yes.
This is why the central government only really has two choices: they can either support a completely legitimate referendum (whether this can actually be done legally or not based on the Constitution is unclear), or they can wholly suppress attempts. They can't allow an illegitimate referendum to go through because the result is going to be obvious and not representative of the citizens' will. The pro-independence regional government has stated they intend to declare independence within 48 hours after a "yes" victory; this would be ridiculous in this case given that result would in no way be accurate with the current circumstances surrounding the referendum.
(Note: I don't approve of the censorship part, just trying to explain what is going on.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, 0% of the effort has to do with the GNU part. The article title is accurate in using the term Linux. You get the kernel to run, then you grab a binary userspace from your favorite distro. Linux is what matters. The rest follows automatically because it is barely hardware specific if at all.
You only port GNU/Linux once to any given architecture. After that, all devices using the same architecture only require porting Linux to them.
Jesus, how did I manage to fuck up the links so badly. Link, link, link. And some bonus stuff.
Yes, because when I put Linux on a PS4 I certainly didn't spend several months figuring out how to write hardware-specific Linux components for the PS4.
Oh, wait, I did. I also happened to reverse engineer the Radeon GPU microcode instruction set. So now every AMD Radeon user can benefit from being able to understand what their GPU firmware is doing, which they couldn't in the past.
But hey, I guess GitHub is some shady website that serves shady black box binaries, and implementing kexec as a hot-patchable module for the FreeBSD kernel is a decidedly shady technique. Right.
Little ARM and AVR chips almost always have embedded Flash memory, and high-performance chips like x86 CPUs and mobile phone SoCs almost never do. It has to do with silicon technology. It is not practical to put Flash memory into a cutting edge silicon process for a bunch of technical reasons.
So yes, it's ROM. Mask ROM. Not writable.
IANAL, but as far as I know there is no such "exemption". You're probably thinking of Sega v. Accolade, where Sega used a trademark system to require games to have the string "SEGA" in them. That was chiefly about trademarks, not copyright. You're probably also thinking about the DMCA exemption for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes, but that is about anti-circumvention, it doesn't mean you get to distribute copyrighted data/code.
If you actually read the DMCA request, you'll see it's about data, not code. A game server needs data to know the allowed actions in the game, the entities in the game, the rules for interaction, the locations, etc, in order to maintain a common understanding of the world with the clients. It is this data that was copied from the WoW client and incorporated as a SQL database (into otherwise presumably bespoke server code).
You could make your own completely new game data (and somehow insert it into the Blizzard client too), but then the game wouldn't be WoW any more, just something else built on the same engine and with the same graphical assets.
That's because most Android phones do *not* do this and then succumb to the sudden death syndrome. That's what my Nexus 10 started doing after its battery went kaput. It would run for ages on standby or with the screen brightness on low and not doing much, but instantly die as soon as It tried to play back a video (but would boot right back up and the battery voltage shot up to near fully charged levels after shutdown). Internal resistance.
On the other hand, I have heard anecdotal reports from friends with some Xiaomi phones that the performance increased after a battery replacement, so I suspect those do in fact have this feature.
This isn't about making the battery last longer. It's about making the phone work at all. It has to do with battery chemistry.
Old batteries don't just "last less". They also have an increased internal series resistance. That resistance actually limits the amount of power you can pull out of it. The more current you draw, the more energy is wasted as heat, and the lower the output voltage. As internal series resistance increases, it becomes physically impossible to get more than a certain amount of power out of the battery, and this limit also decreases as the battery drains during a given discharge cycle. It's a hard physical limit. The I-V curve just never hits your power target. If you try, your voltage sags and then the phone shuts down. This is what triggers a common syndrome in old devices, where the battery meter shows 30% but then you try to open up a CPU-intensive app and the device immediately shuts down. Chances are that's not the battery meter being wrong or miscalibrated: there really was 30% charge remaining in the battery. It just wasn't capable of handling that much power draw at that charge level. There's 30% charge remaining and there's a hidden limit as to how fast you can drain it.
It's almost certain that what Apple did here was start throttling phone performance when battery voltage sags below a critical threshold, to prevent hard shutdowns. On older batteries, this would appear as a performance limit as the battery empties. But it was never about making the phone last longer. It's just a physical limitation. The alternative is your phone shuts down. That's obviously not good.
The right solution, of course, is to have a notification or something that tells users when this is happening. Something along the lines of "Your battery cannot supply enough power to keep your device working at full performance. To maintain optimum performance, a battery replacement is recommended.".
Meanwhile here I am, running Gentoo, with init scripts that have had real dependencies for over 15 years (as well as a bash-based but much nicer scaffolding to write them), with simple to use admin tools and fully based on text files, with cgroup-based process monitoring (these days), and I'm wondering why everyone else didn't get the memo and suddenly decided to switch to systemd instead and bring along all the other baggage it comes with. Debian and Ubuntu had garbage init systems, and yet it seems *nobody* ever took notice of how Gentoo has been doing things right for a decade and a half. You can also use systemd with Gentoo if you want, because user choice is a good thing.
Everyone* switched to systemd because everyone* was using something that was much, much worse. Traditional sysvinit is a joke for service startup, it can't even handle dependencies in a way that actually works reliably (sure, it works until a process fails to start or hangs, then all bets are off, and good luck keeping dependencies starting in the right order as the system changes). Upstart is a mess (with plenty of corner case bugs) and much harder to make sense of and use than systemd. I'm a much happier person writing systemd units than Upstart whatever-you-call-thems on the Ubuntu systems I have to maintain.
The problem with systemd is that although it does init systems *better* than everything else*, it's also trying to take over half a dozen more responsibilities that are none of its damn business. It's a monolithic repo, and it's trying as hard as it can to position itself as a hard dependency for every Linux system on the face of the planet. Distros needed* a new init system, and they got an attempt to take over the Linux ecosystem along with it.
* The exception is Gentoo, which for over 15 years has had an rc-script system (later rewritten as OpenRC) based on sysvinit as PID 1 but with real dependencies, easy to write initscripts, and all the features you might need in a server environment (works great for desktops too). It's the only distro that has had a truly server-worthy init system, with the right balance of features and understandability and ease of maintenance. Gentoo is the only major distro that hasn't switched to systemd, though it does offer systemd as an option for those who want it. OpenRC was proposed as a systemd alternative in the Debian talks, but Gentoo didn't advertise it, and nobody on the Debian side cared to give it a try. Interestingly Poettering seems to be *very* careful to *never, ever* mention OpenRC when he talks about how systemd is better than everything else. I wonder why. Gentoo developers have had to fork multiple things assimilated by systemd (like udev) in order to keep offering OpenRC as an option.
What matter are the circumstances behind the vote. If you boycott a perfectly legal, organized, supported referendum, then you're an idiot. But what people are "boycotting" here is a referendum that has been ruled illegal, that is being haphazardly organized, unilaterally pushed, and basically being used as a political weapon.
Actually I had a thought experiment the other day. Why not let the Catalan people decide on who gets to decide? Polls show that ~30% of the Catalan people actually do think other Spanish people should have a say in their independence. ~50% don't (the rest is no answer/invalid).
Hold a referendum that asks two questions in Catalonia: whether the rest of Spain should get a say, and whether Catalonia should be independent. Hold a referendum everywhere else that asks whether Catalonia should be independent. Scale the answers to the first question to 100% - if it's 50/30 (20% blank/invalid), that's about 62% vs 38%. Now weigh the results based on that: Catalan people's vote accounts for 62% of the outcome, while all of Spain's (this includes Catalonia as well) accounts for 38% of the outcome. So if, say, 70% of the Catalan people but 20% of all of Spain want independence, the outcome is 70% * 62% + 20% * 38% = 51%, a win for independence. If only 60% of the Catalan people voted yes, then that's an overall no.
This way, the rest of the country gets to vote too, but only as much as Catalan people think they should.
Because they're not random unweighted Internet polls, I'm referencing an official poll conducted by the very government that is pushing the referendum. An official poll that they themselves, of course, never bring up.
The difference in outcomes we're talking about here is much, much larger than the error in the US polls. This isn't a "the polls are wrong" situation. This would be as if US polls predicted a 55% win for Hillary and then Trump won 80% of the vote. That's not polling error, that's a much bigger effect, and it can be readily explained by more detailed polls that ask people both what they think and whether they'd vote at all, which show a very large bias in participation towards "yes" voters.
Indirectly, not directly. What the Spanish government thinks doesn't matter per se. What matters is that a good third or so of Catalans think it does, and won't vote in the referendum for that reason.
That may very well be the case (unless the vote is so far towards the "yes" side that low "no" participation becomes immaterial). That's the thing here: the Catalan government is trying to pass the referendum as legitimate when, under the current framework, it just isn't. They're passing this attempt as true democracy when it isn't. Now, that may very well be because the central government is opposed to it, but that doesn't change the outcome: that the vote, as it is intended to be conducted, won't be representative of the actual desires of the Catalan people.
I'm not saying this is a pretty situation. I'm not saying I have a magical solution. I'm just saying that a "yes" outcome won't actually mean the majority of Catalans want independence. And the Catalan government knows this but is pretending not to.
Again, the issue here is that that time it wasn't a real referendum (it was thinly veiled as a "popular poll" to skirt around the laws that are now being used to charge those running the current for-reals-except-not referendum). If a real referendum with a solid legal footing happened and the "no" voters still didn't bother to show up, then you can blame them. But do you really expect the overwhelming majority of the population of a region to show up to an event that is by some rather fair accounts an illegal act? Of course with the shenanigans surrounding this vote a large fraction of people either won't bother or actively won't want to have anything to do with it.
Think about it. If the Governor of California said "screw the US, we're seceding" and called for a vote without any support from the rest of the US and a good chunk of the state itself, while the feds were calling it an illegal act of unilateral secession, and a bunch of shenanigans involved (including things like strong-arming polling locations and cities into collaborating even if they disagree with the premise) do you really expect the majority of Cailfornians would vote in a fair manner that is representative and would make the result valid?
If you think it's a bullshit argument, why was the "yes" side blatantly overrepresented in the 2014 attempt? Nobody seriously believes 80% of Catalonians are pro-independence. That's wildly out of whack with even the polls that have been most favorable towards that side. In fact, polls that ask both questions (would you vote at all and what would you vote for) and thus provide the proper breakdown universally represent this fact: the outcome hovers around an even split among all Catalonians, but is overwhelmingly "yes" among those who actually intend to vote in the referendum if it is held.
You're confusing being opposed to the issue with being opposed to the referendum itself. The problem with this referendum is that it is being held against Spanish law (as judged by the Constitutional Court anyway), pushed unilaterally, and it has limited support or recognition from the "no" side. Going to vote means recognizing the referendum itself as legitimate, which a lot of people voting "no" do not agree with. For a referendum to be valid there has to be consensus that it is a legitimate referendum. You may think the issue is silly, you may think a referendum is not needed, but if you (and a large fraction of the population) don't even believe the referendum is valid at all and therefore refuse to vote, then that makes it de facto invalid and unrepresentative of the will of the people.
The referendum wasn't overtly rigged; the simple problem is that when a "referendum" (what happened in 2014 wasn't really one) is unilaterally pushed by the supporters of one outcome participation winds up severely skewed towards that outcome. Because if I think you're running an illegal pro-independence referendum and I don't think independence is a good idea anyway, why would I show up to vote? While if I think independence is a great idea and I believe I'm being oppressed by the central government of course I'll vote.
The ~40% figure is, in fact, from a recent official poll conducted by the local government, where the current party in power are the promoters of the referendum itself (of course, they never bring up said poll in their talking points). The difference is that a poll picks people at random, while a referendum requires people to voluntarily go to vote. To have the result be meaningful, there needs to be wide consensus that the referendum is legitimate to begin with, that asking the question is a good idea, and there needs to be significant campaigning by both sides of the debate. None of that happened in 2014 and none of that is happening this time either. Without that, the result is meaningless, and the vote just amounts to a political weapon to attempt legitimize an undemocratic unilateral secession plan.
I sure hope that won't happen. If the Catalan independentists get credit for anything it's going about their business peacefully (at least in the physical sense; lots of political mudslinging going on, of course).
No, this isn't about what the Spanish government thinks. The referendum as it is being currently attempted is fundamentally illegitimate because it all but guarantees a "yes" outcome by severely biasing participation towards "yes" proponents. That makes it invalid in to every rational pair of eyes. To have a legitimate referendum, you need to have high participation that is balanced between supporters of all sides, which, in a functional democracy, means both sides have to agree to hold the referendum (or at least agree to let it happen and then campaign for their side), which isn't the case here at all.
See, the thing is the current Catalonian independentist government has said they will declare independence 48 hours after a "yes" victory.
Basically, the referendum is a political tool to illegitimately declare independence unilaterally (illegitimately, not only for legal reasons, but especially because the referendum will be obviously biased, the way it is being pushed by one side only). And that's why the central government doesn't want to let it happen.
Except, you know, the independentist regional government's own poll that puts the split at 49.4% against/41.1% for independence.
Seriously, you guys (as in the vehemently pro-independence crowd) just delegitimize yourselves by going down to Trump's "biggest inauguration crowd" level. This is obviously a contentious issue and the population is pretty much evenly split. An independent Catalonia would screw over half of Catalonia's population as much or even moreso than the status quo screws over the other half. Yes, this is a difficult problem, and yes, you have every right to campaign for independence, and yes, a solution that magically pleases everyone would be great, but it certainly isn't an open-and-shut-case.
But it isn't. It would be, if it were done legally, with general support, completely in the open, with fair campaigning for both sides, and with central support (which is what happened in the UK). But 1-O isn't a fair expression of the Catalan people's right to self-determination. That's just a thin veil based on a fair, but right now unattainable, ideal. What is really going on under the hood is basically an illegitimate power-grab by the pro-independence parties. Running a "democratic" process that is single-handedly controlled and promoted by those with an interest in a single outcome isn't democracy, it's the hallmark of authoritarian regimes, because the outcome will inevitably be what they want (as those who disagree will have a much lower participation in the poll than those who agree).
Yes, this is tough for the Catalan people, because they have not been given a fair chance to express their will yet, but this isn't it by any stretch of the imagination. 1-O isn't about self-determination, it's a bullshit political move that rises up to the political bullshit standard of the central government (which is legendarily full of it too).
The proof is that the outcome wildly differed from random polls.
It's a pretty obvious conclusion that if a referendum is unilaterally pushed by the party with one outcome as their agenda, that there will be a large bias for that outcome. Yes, it's difficult to make these kinds of polls perfectly fair (just look at Brexit or the US election for examples where things *probably* went the opposite way of what the population truly wanted by a small margin), but to even have a chance at approximating fairness the whole process has to be significantly backed by both sides. Otherwise there's no chance and it just becomes, at best, a publicity stunt, and at worst, an authoritarian attempt to force an outcome on the populace under a thin veil of "democracy". Democracy only works if we all at least agree on the *process*; without such agreement there can be no democracy.
The vote was already illegitimate; this is just going to slant it further. They already tried a non-binding "referendum" in 2014 with predictable results: 80% pro-independence (even though fair polls show more like 40%). The only way to have a fair referendum is to do it in a way that is approved and legal; the moment it becomes dodgy in any way, it severely biases the results because of course participation is going to be severely skewed towards people who want to vote yes.
This is why the central government only really has two choices: they can either support a completely legitimate referendum (whether this can actually be done legally or not based on the Constitution is unclear), or they can wholly suppress attempts. They can't allow an illegitimate referendum to go through because the result is going to be obvious and not representative of the citizens' will. The pro-independence regional government has stated they intend to declare independence within 48 hours after a "yes" victory; this would be ridiculous in this case given that result would in no way be accurate with the current circumstances surrounding the referendum.
(Note: I don't approve of the censorship part, just trying to explain what is going on.)