Moonfyre

🙃

[David AttenBruh @AlHendiify]

“Humans caused this” no. humans have lived alongside and even grew ecosystems for hundreds of thousands of years. What has caused this is European-driven and influenced settler-colonialism and mass industrialization. There’s no way around that.

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@Real_Landlord7 @plot_twistttt Define traditional wife

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@delhistarboy @plot_twistttt So you admit you only want someone financially dependent on you and does household work ?

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@RaghuVannekala @Chinmayi How desperate are you from a wife that you need someone mother to tell their daughter that they "have" to stay with you and only consider you as family? Do you honestly think the woman wouldn't stay with you if you were someone she liked?

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@vknath2019 @Chinmayi Protection from who bhai? Other "MEN"?

[Helle Lyng @HelleLyngSvends]

Being screamed at by an NDTV-reporter and an India Today host in May feels worth it today😂

Thank you to the reporters in NZ & Australia.

And always, thank you to the Indian press: The Wire, NewsLaundry, Scroll, Peek TV, The Unedited Media, HQ English and many more working every day to report truthfully. The heavylifters.

[ʚ₍ᐢ. ̫.ᐢ₎₊˚ emi ⋆ 🦭˚｡⋆୨୧˚ @littlemiksx]

Cuando las mujeres dicen que crean vida, un hombre de inmediato salta con "LOS HOMBRES HACEMOS EL 50%". Pero en el momento en que una mujer queda embarazada sin desearlo, de repente es "Bueno, tu abriste las piernas, así que es TU culpa"

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@almasonteam The world is dying from overheating and climate change due to data centres and we've got ai circuses....why go there? Look in the mirror to find a clown instead

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@YoongiCharmz You can't retract your statement unlike infold

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@rogueducknet I mean..we're destroying one irl anyway

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@spunchbawbII They'll open the one in Science City for this so that it isn't a disgrace to them... hopefully 🤡🤡

[hanan⁷ @santrasuga]

mumbai only has 45 days of water left???????????? girl aur pucho chat gpt ko ghibli art banane pagal logo

[𐌁𐌉Ᏽ 𐌕𐌉𐌌𐌉 @OrevaZSN]

I saw a post on Reddit that said that “The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth.” And I don’t think I’ve ever seen AI described so incisively.

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@Sharanyashettyy You forget the main issue .
Men

[CRG @Cantrushit]

Are boomers the weak men that created hard times?

[Malay Krishna @Malay4Product]

The CBSE story has gotten much bigger since the first expose.

Let me explain everything that’s happened so far.

First reveal.

A researcher named Nisarga found he could log into CBSE’s answer-sheet checking system as any teacher without a password, and even change marks. He reported it to the government in February 2025. Almost nothing was fixed for 15 months.

Then it kept getting worse.

He found that storage was left wide open. CBSE keeps all scanned answer sheets in an online locker. They forgot to lock it. Anyone on the internet, no password, no skill needed, could download any student’s actual handwritten answer sheet.

It wasn’t just CBSE. The same open locker is shared by several other institutions. One careless setup exposed many organisations at once.

Then, he got the keys to the whole grading system. Nisarga got the highest level of access to OnMark, the platform that grades exams for multiple universities.

With it, a person could change anyone’s marks, reset passwords, create fake teacher accounts, and message every student and teacher.

He also got full control of CBSE’s main servers. He showed complete control over the live machines running everything, and proved it by putting a “PWNED” page on CBSE’s own official website.

So this grew from small bugs, to answer sheets open to anyone, to master keys for the grading platform, to full control of CBSE’s servers.

In plain terms, your child’s answer sheet was sitting where anyone could open it. Your child’s marks were in a system an outsider could change.

CBSE’s response was a poster saying the system is “secure and robust” and “no problem reported.” That’s very hard to believe when the proof shows the opposite.

This also connects to the other story. A Class 12 student, Sarthak, showed how CBSE rewrote its tender rules to let this exact company win, by dropping security and data safety requirements. Nisarga is now showing the real-world result of dropping those rules.

My questions to the CBSE;

1. How long was the locker open?
2. Did anyone change any marks?
3. Can CBSE even prove they didn’t?
4. Why did the mandatory pre-launch security check get skipped?

This needs a proper investigation and a forensic check of whether any 2026 marks were tampered with.

[Malay Krishna @Malay4Product]

This is an unbelievable piece of work by Sarthak and something that requires amplification.

Let me explain what he found, in simple terms.

Sarthak is a Class 12 student from the 2025-26 batch, one of the 17 lakh students whose answer sheets went through CBSE's new On-Screen Marking system.

He spent days reading through CBSE's evaluation tenders, scraped all 576 tenders CBSE has issued, and tracked how the rules changed across three versions of the same tender.

The core finding is that the company that won the contract to scan and grade 17 lakh students' answer sheets is Coempt Eduteck.

Coempt used to be called Globarena Technologies. Globarena was the company behind the 2019 Telangana intermediate exam disaster, where software failures led to 3.8 lakh students getting wrong or missing marks, and 23 students died by suicide.

A government committee found systemic failure and negligence. Six months later, Globarena rebranded to Coempt Eduteck.

So a company with that track record won a contract to handle 17 lakh CBSE students. Sarthak's investigation is about how the rules were rewritten to let that happen.

The tender was issued three times.

> First tender, February 2025. It existed, then disappeared from the public GeM portal. Sarthak scraped all 576 CBSE tenders and this one was missing from the archive entirely.

> Second tender, May 2025. Four companies applied including TCS and Coempt. All four failed the technical evaluation. Cancelled.

> Third tender, August 2025. Coempt won. Between the second and third tender, a series of rule changes happened, and every single one made it easier for Coempt to qualify.

Here is what changed, one by one.

01. The old rules disqualified any company with a history of abandoning work, failing to complete contracts, or financial weakness. The new rules deleted this clause entirely. Coempt's Telangana history stopped being a barrier.

02. The old rules disqualified any company that was "blacklisted earlier." The new rules changed this to "currently blacklisted." Because Globarena rebranded after Telangana, removing the word "earlier" effectively erased their past.

03. The rules required Rs 50 crore average turnover over three years. Coempt's exact average came to Rs 50.86 crore. They cleared the bar by less than 1%. Earlier, a smaller company had asked CBSE to lower the bar to Rs 30 crore for fairer competition. CBSE refused. So the bar was kept high enough to block small players, but sat exactly low enough for Coempt to scrape through.

04. Software maturity is measured on the CMMI scale, 1 to 5. The old rules required Level 5. The new rules dropped it to Level 3. Coempt is a Level 3 company.

05. The cooling-off period for engaging retired CBSE officials was cut from two years to one. This makes it easier to use recently retired insiders to influence the process.

06. The old rules required experience with large projects of at least 5 lakh students each. The new rules removed the student count and counted cumulative answer-book volume across small projects instead. Coempt has many small fragmented university contracts. This helped Coempt and hurt TCS.

07. The old rules required bidders to own their own data centre and disaster recovery centre on Indian soil. The new rules allowed third-party MeitY-empanelled cloud hosting. Coempt runs on AWS and Azure. This helped Coempt and hurt TCS, which owns its own data centres. It also means student data is no longer on sovereign, Indian infrastructure.

08. The old rules required the bidder to own or control the complete source code of its software. The new rules deleted this. Coempt's platform runs on Microsoft's proprietary IIS, which they don't own.

09. A last-minute corrigendum, issued right before bid submission, removed CBSE's own power to blacklist the firm if its software failed catastrophically. So even a Telangana-scale failure couldn't get Coempt banned from future government tenders.

10. The penalty structure shifted from punishing mistakes to punishing delays. The old rules fined the vendor for wrong scanning, merged pages, and unscanned books. The new rules dropped those and instead levied Rs 50,000 per day for delays. This incentivises rushed scanning over accurate scanning.

11. The old rules had a hard accuracy threshold, error rate not to exceed 0.5%. The new rules removed this number entirely.

12. The old rules specified proper book and robotics scanners. The new rules just say "sufficient scanners." The definition was vague enough that, as Sarthak notes, the scanning could be done with a phone on a stand.

13. On the security side, the contract required a VAPT (vulnerability and penetration test) certified by CERT-In before go-live, and a restricted beta phase before launch. The system clearly wasn't restricted, because the other researcher, Nisarga, was able to access it and find vulnerabilities four days before go-live. So the mandatory security audit appears to have been bypassed.

These are more than a dozen rule changes, all between the failed tender and the winning tender, all pushing in the same direction, all benefiting the one company with the worst track record in the field.

The security holes Nisarga found last week now have an explanation. The system was built by a vendor that was specifically allowed to skip the security certification, the source code ownership, the data sovereignty, and the quality thresholds the original rules demanded.

Following things need to happen immediately;

1. An immediate CAG audit of the tender process.
2. A parliamentary debate on the topic.
3. An independent investigation into
> Why the first tender vanished?
> Why the disqualification clauses were deleted?
> Why the turnover bar was held exactly where it was?
> Why the security level was dropped?
> Why the blacklisting power was removed at the last moment?

Sarthak, this is genuinely exceptional investigative work. Far better than most journalists with full resources ever manage. Take a bow. :)

[Moonfyre @Moonfyre2]

@narendramodi Have you considered saving the ecosystem protecting it? Idk, seems like the government's job to me.

[Dark Pill @darkandcrude]

One day they will patent “Hinduism” & get a Nobel prize of putting forth theory of Hinduism

Buggers don’t even credit the source while blatantly ripping off