Zagorath

Uh, mods? The comment that I’m replying to was very obviously not antisemitic.

Yeah pretending that the state of Israel represents all Jewish people seems kinda antisemitic to me. [You’re] Just eras[ing] Jewish people all over the world.

Is the obvious intended parsing of it.

has to stand up to scrutiny

But to what scrutiny, precisely? If a judge decides that certain specific problems with the evidence are inadmissible (including police misconduct and chain of custody issues), what other scrutiny could be given to the evidence?

Judges already have a lot of leeway over how they run trials even within the law, and we’re talking about a country that has removed even the pretence of rule of law in the past six months (more, if we go back to the Trump v United States ruling last year).

This is assuming that everything you’ve just described is permitted into evidence.

But a strike can’t bring back in someone who has been eliminated. You can use your strikes to whittle away people who have a property likely to be bad for you, but you can’t use it to include people with a quality that would be good for you.

The jury will be told that they have to find according to the letter of the law, and they’ll almost certainly be screened by the prosecution during jury selection to avoid people who know nullification is a thing.

It’s certainly possible that it could occur regardless, but they’ll do everything they can to avoid it.

Oooohhh. I thought you had somehow completely flubbed typing the word “big”, or something like that.

Man I hate it when I’m around someone with a istg dick complex.

Yeah I think this one became particularly tricky and wormed its way into a lot of people’s minds even who would otherwise be wary of it, because even Labor and the Greens stood in favour of it (with some minor tweaks), due to poor tech literacy.

Happy cake day!

I’d be happy for the Australian government to take them to task over this one. But I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Murdoch propaganda with the journalism thing.

They weren’t “using our journalism”. They provide a direct benefit to the news organisations. It’s a mostly symbiotic relationship, with people going to Google and Facebook because it’s a good way to find news that interests them, and news organisations being funnelled traffic directly to them for free. But honestly, if money should be flowing in any direction, it’s to Google and Meta. The financial benefit for news organisations of the existing relationship is far greater for news organisations than it is for Google and Meta. People would still be Googling things and sharing on Facebook even if news didn’t make up part of that.

Jeff Jarvis is a great thinker and communicator in this space, and he moderates a great discussion on the topic here. About 34 minutes into the video they hear from a QUT professor who is pretty scathing towards the NMBC.

I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid

I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.

Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.

Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It’s now been 6 months, which means we’re 6 months away from when it’s supposed to come into effect, and we still don’t have any idea how it’s actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there’s only more and more research coming out to support that.

Omg thanks for linking that thread. The amount of removed and deleted content on Lemmy is so frustrating. I hate the fact that removed or deleted posts also completely nuke all the comments on it.

Reddit’s approach is so much better in this respect. A removed post removed the OP’s text, but if it’s a link post the link remains, and all the comments remain.

That’s definitely at least a 2nd rank spell.

The problem comes when it’s not an app you’re using for the app’s sake, but because it’s the app of some company you have a real-world relationship with. Your bank’s app being the most important one that comes to my mind, considering I’ve already heard about some banks trying to restrict users to only Google’s flavour of Android before this.

I’ll admit I’ve not looked into it. My computer won’t even upgrade to Windows 11 if I wanted it to, thanks to MS’s artificial restriction on compatibility. Maybe it is all on-device. But if so, whence all the privacy complaints? And does it not allow syncing between devices?

Nothing they mentioned in the article seems too egregious in truth

Doesn’t it? To be honest, if the article is telling the truth and not exaggerated, I find this pretty egregious. How you installed an app should be irrelevant, so the idea of an API to say “did this come from the Play Store” is fucking shit. And the ability to block installation of apps that call certain APIs entirely is even worse.

One could argue that it’s a feature that could be done on-client without sending to a server. Or with its server component doing nothing more than syncing with E2E encryption.

Yikes this really doesn’t look good. Is there any reporting on it from independent journalists (or anyone else who isn’t also advertising their own competing operating system)?

Installing fuck

No, your local Git knows the branch isn’t tracking any upstream branch, so it never makes a request to the server.