The social aspect might be underappreciated. My guess is people are mainly introduced by family and friends and it becomes a big part of their identity. It becomes difficult to separate the individual elements.

This policy is not genuine. The intention is to delay or destroy fossil fuel alternatives to protect fossil fuel investments. If it creates political division and an impression of leadership then it is icing on the cake. I would expect the coalition to become increasingly divided if this was ever realistically pursued. Coalition voters do not want to foot the bill for this idiocy. The market has already voted. Renewables won on time to market and ROI.

For context I am not opposed to nuclear power generation at all. There has been a lot of misinformation about safety and waste for generations that has poisoned debate and I would like to see a more rational debate. I think it irresponsible for countries like Germany to turn away from nuclear and create huge energy security issues as well as increased emissions.

Carbon emissions are a global problem and each country has a responsibility to address it as effectively as they can. We can support nuclear power by supplying uranium and it doesn't matter for carbon reduction if the reactors are in Australia or overseas.

Our construction costs are very high and we don't have local expertise. Our research reactor was designed by Argentina. As much as some of us would like to see nuclear power come to Australia it is fantasy economics.

Not a fan of how Boeing managed Starliner but this headline is clickbait. This is the time to find remaining issues with the vehicle so they can be corrected before it begins regular operational flights. Running tests on the service module in space is good value because after it separates for reentry it is destroyed.

NASA doesn't always feel like a totally trustworthy source. They appeared to downplay problems with Artemis I but the OIG blasted the Artemis I Orion and said the numerous problems represented a significant risk to crew safety that could lead to a future loss of crew. The problems with Starliner could be more serious than they look but it has successfully de-orbited and landed twice and I think there is a very good chance it will again with crew onboard.

It makes no economic sense. Fucking idiot.

I like silent laptops but sometimes I want to max out the power budget and get work done without worrying about thermal throttling. Having a fan and customizable power settings gives users a choice. Apple takes that choice away.

I don't think about Microsoft at all mostly. I supported their stuff professionally in the past and friends/family but otherwise total avoidance. They own some big game studios so I probably use some of their products like Minecraft but I haven't used their operating systems or applications for decades and I dislike and distrust cloud services and theirs is no exception. All big companies tend to be the same. Try not to depend on any of them.

Reality. 'AI' application just spyware that tracks your spending habits and sells them to mega corps that then adjust the products and pricing to you to maximise profits. Uptake is below investor expectations as most intelligent people realise the service is an expensive con. VC funds run out and backend is shut down. User left with expensive non-functional device.

The first Polaris mission is on an existing proven vehicle and the suits look to be in the final stages. It seems to have taken a lot longer than anticipated but I don't know if cancellation is likely. If aspects look too difficult they can alter the mission. The risk for the later Polaris Starship program is that Starship gets stuck in development hell which is still very possible.

There have been a number of tech companies that produced very successful and innovative products only to run into a brick wall with a successor product that was too ambitious or made wrong choices and either never made it to market or arrived too late.

The booster, raptor engines and launch infrastructure have been impressive and a lot of fun to watch but now we get to re-entry, full and rapid re-use, orbital refueling etc and the risks of a serious roadblock that eats all the cash and time increases in my opinion. I think it is great that companies are literally pursuing moonshot projects but we have to manage expectations.

I usually roll on desktop/laptop and upgrade on headless. Just seems most practical.

So basically the same as half the school administered laptops full of remote spyware. We had one of those bought home, supplied to teaching staff, the spyware was never disclosed and it used to sit on a desk in the bedroom. The rule now is we buy and control our own devices, even if they have to run shit like Windows for compatibility on some. Enterprise versions of Windows will almost certainly ship without crap like Recall as it might conflict with the enterprises third party spyware. Unfortunately there is still intense institutional resistance to moving away from the Microsoft ecosystems in some organizations.

No it isn't racist anymore than consensual sex is rape. There is nothing adverse or hateful here. I wish groups like this didn't exist. I wish women didn't need to circle the wagons and create safe spaces and we could all participate in open source as peers. I don't know if people troll with these sorts of comments or lack emotional intelligence. If you don't want these divisions to exist then don't be part of the problem.

Don't give a fuck about Microsoft. The last notable products they invented were Windows 95 and Office on the Mac. It has all been downhill since. An NPU isn't going to make gcc or games run faster so who the fuck needs it.

Lindt is positioned as a premium supermarket brand in some places where it is usually a little better and more expensive than the default brand eg Cadbury. For many people it would be seen as a bit of a treat over their regular supermarket brand. Some markets have more appreciation and better access to good chocolate than others but it is a relative thing.

I have been wanting to watch this since release but it isn't showing anywhere near me or streaming or available to purchase and ironically I haven't pirated because I figured everyone was in the same situation so good quality rips would be scarce. This movie is a spectacular example of all that is wrong with geographical distribution rights. I will probably still wait for a legit stream on this one because I want to send a positive signal if any service grabs the rights but I can't blame people for making other choices. Copyright is supposed to protect the rights holders so they can profit from their work but in cases like this it just stops them connecting with their audience and they get nothing, neither money or exposure. I don't think piracy is harming anyone in this situation.

Wait until they hear the language used to implement OpenBSD. Imagine being one of the authors of seL4 encountering a member of the rust cult.

I think we are more or less on the same page within the bandwidth limits of online conversation.

Australian courts can't enforce their orders directly outside Australia. That is just a fact so there is no point even entertaining it except to incite a mob that doesn't know better.

The only way such things happen is through international agreements. IP and CSAM are just about universal. I don't think many services would refuse to take down revenge porn so that is something else that doesn't seem controversial.

Musk seems intent on turning his plaything into 4chan. Any normal large media company would likely have complied without the tantrums. Anything to get attention I guess.

We might be a bit ahead of the curve with respecting adult victims of crime. Not always a bad thing. We were ahead on tobacco packaging, plastic money, HPV vaccines and other things. The US still can't adult when it comes to sensible gun regulation. I don't think we should apologize for trying. This is the rule of law in a moderately functional liberal democracy and couldn't be further from authoritarianism. It is an overreach for sure but Musk has been aiming for Mars for years.

It is reasonable for courts and legislation to have powers to protect victims of crime and their families from distribution of images and video of their suffering. It is a secondary victimization. How far that protection should extend is up for public debate. Our courts have a limited jurisdiction and it is just a matter of fact that we can't enforce our domestic laws outside out borders anymore than an autocracy can suppress foreign reporting of their human rights abuses as much as they may try.

We broadly have two fairly obvious sets of international agreements that can get material taken down through most of the world. The first is child abuse material and the second is IP infringement.

Be a 24 year old Aussie battler with a part time job. Copy a Japanese manufacturer's shitty kid's game. You now owe $1.5 million dollars. Copyright is enforceable in practically every jurisdiction we care about.

Find the person who took the video, fairly compensate them for the rights, then issue a DMCA notice to Twitter. Job done. Censorship already exists. It is called IP rights and is enforced internationally through treaties.

I think we could have an argument that on the scale of stuff that should be censored to stuff that shouldn't, protecting adult victims of violent crime seems like it should fall somewhere between child abuse and IP rights. It is a straw man argument to lump it in with the censorship demanded by authoritarian states.

It might be better to legislate more power and enforcement capabilities to regulate social media companies. Many of them are close to monopolies in their niches and their network effects make competition almost impossible.

I do believe there are areas where it is more ethical and efficient for government to operate services (eg policing, public hospitals, emergency services, schools) but I don't believe social media is one of them.

I believe Musk would censor anything that upset an authoritarian regime if it aligned with his business/political interests. I don't believe his arguments are in good faith.

Attempting to enforce the laws of our country against foreign companies that operate here is fair game. We have some leverage. We can have a debate domestically about if we think this should be enforced or not.

Personally I don't see a problem with protecting victims of crime, their families and community whether it be child abuse material or graphic video of violent crime. I struggle to see a public interest or freedom of political speech angle that would justify a reasonable individual or company ignoring a sensible request to cease distribution.

Not all censorship is equal nor all enforcement mechanisms. We need more freedom here to criticize public figures as our defo laws are bonkers. Also the government should not attempt to apply wrong-headed technical impediments that would have unintended consequences because they don't have sufficient expertise or the foresight to understand such actions.

Micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS) are extremely successful. You have them in your phone and lots of other devices. It turns out semiconductor manufacturing techniques could be leveraged to make some useful devices but that is about it. There is obviously a lot happening at these scales in biology, semiconductors, materials science etc but the grey goop of nanobots turned out to be a fantasy based on extrapolations that don't seem to hold up well with physical materials thankfully. One less thing to worry about. Now we only have climate change, pathogens, war etc. Hopefully the machine learning bubble will blow over in a similar fashion, genuinely revolutionary in some areas but increasingly difficult/uneconomical to scale into others.