aragilar

Nope, they're not blocked from youtube, they simple cannot have accounts. Nor are are providers required to check ID.

Doubt they'll go over well in Australia as well, given the media bargaining code.

Nope, the whole point of this is to remove the coupling for UTC. You can either have monotonic time (or at least per-observer monotonic time), or you can follow earth's rotation. Choosing monotonic time is perfectly fine (and feel free to pick your epoch and time unit), but like we have timezones such that 12:00 means something (mostly), having the human conception of what time means does imply that we do kinda need to look at what's happening outside.

Then those chromium flags should not exist.

I'm not sure what you think specifically needs maintaining, it's the same as LAMP, LEAN, JAM and the various stack acronyms? The BSD you choose is naturally maintained by the various BSD distros (though there's an implicit assumption of OpenBSD as will become obvious), C is C (so defer to your C-complier), httpd comes from OpenBSD (https://man.openbsd.org/httpd.8), and SQLite is SQLite. You can naturally choose to add additional libraries (some are suggested on the site, I don't know what their status is, but the article includes libcurl and libsodium, which are also well maintained), but as the example shows, you don't need much to start with. A key thing that's a bit hidden is the use of CGI and the various OpenBSD hardening tools (e.g. pledge, unveil), which make exploiting the C binary much harder than on other systems.

Given https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-10/how-firmus-the-bigges... and the above, I'd say we're already primed for a fall. Given 5 years is a pretty long time (that's 3 US elections cycles where politics can increase uncertainty about AI), and the length it took for the subprime market to create the GFC (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subprime_mortgage_origina...) looks to be about 3-5 years, I'd be 99% sure the crash would happen by then (with the 1% covering both the uncertainty in the cycle and something odd happening).

Absent either strong unions (or similar bargaining capability) or laws, businesses (and employers more generally) do get to dictate the terms of employment. The gig economy is an excellent example of it, no 40-hour work weeks there (which to be clear, I think is a bad thing, we need stronger employment laws). Furthermore, when bargaining you need to work out your aims, what conditions you are willing to trade off. By far the simplest way to reduce your hours is to take a pay cut (and similarly, to reduce the number of days with the same pay is to work more hours per day), so again, unless you want a pay cut, I don't see where the less hours in winter come from (I'm not located somewhere it snows, but maybe you could do a hybrid WFH where you left early to ensure your commute was in daylight and argue that it's a WHS improvement)?

Except you're not going to be more productive working those additional hours in the summer, so as unless you're willing to take the respective pay cut for working less hours, this proposal is a non-starter. Personally, I'd argue that more (smaller e.g. 15 minute) shifts would be better (and you could more closely track sunrise), and avoid the hard shift which it feels is the main complaint people have with switching timezone.

That is exactly the same as timezones, except uncoordinated, so even more of a mess.

You can have smaller timezones.

Exactly, time zones exist (and have always existed, they only appeared once you needed to coordinate time across different places) as a coordination mechanism. Who and what you need to align with (e.g. where you sit on the international date line, your latitude and longitude for the solar phase) is the important part, not the actual number that appears on the clock (or on someone else's clock for that matter).

Unless you only use what's in the "main" section (which is surprising small, far more things are in "universe" than you'd expect), then you are getting the same software (or sometimes even older) than Debian.

Debian and Arch are the same, grub at the end.

Pretty sure it's supposed to be parody.

Planets travel along the ecliptic, so they're pretty easy to map.

No, that is not what I said, and you repeatedly misreading what people write is noticeable.

Except Thunderbird now does run on donations (though is looking a relevant additional funding sources, e.g. providing hosted email: https://www.tb.pro/en-US/). This is not to say Mozilla can't seek out other sources of money, or develop appropriate ancillary services, but the absence of an option to just give money for Firefox (and Firefox only) is noticeable.

And killed its add-on ecosystem. If the choice is between (as it was then) a slower browser missing the add-ons you were used to, and a faster browser missing the add-ons you were used to, then you're going to need some other motivation to stick with (as I did, to be clear) the slower browser.

Pocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_(service) for those who aren't aware of it) is an excellent example:

1. Pocket was an external company, which Mozilla bought (and claimed they would open source), which already had a web extension. There was no need for the pre-acquisition integration, or to buy it later on.

2. After buying it, Mozilla did nothing with it, including failing to open source it, and seemingly failed to get enough revenue from that they shut it down last year.

This saga provided no benefit to Firefox users who did not use pocket, and at best for pocket users left them with a dying solution that they would need to migrate from (given the failure to open source it). It's not clear how much Mozilla paid for Pocket, but those funds could have been spent on something more valuable.

Then let me pay for Firefox. I don't need a resold Mullvad (which incidentally took forever to come to my country) or an AI chatbot (which seemingly are the options Mozilla provides to give them money), and donations to Mozilla don't go to Firefox. It took them ~20 years to work out that was the solution for Thunderbird, they shouldn't spend another 20 years flailing about for Firefox.

The questions is, how much are you willing to pay (because the cost of this is not free, especially in this cloud era), and what is the scientific return for access to the uncalibrated data? There is significantly more value in a well designed pipeline for everyone (which is where anyone who would work on the pipeline would slot in) than bespoke pipelines which are poorly built and unmaintainable.

This isn't normal?

The obvious question is what limits getting more data? Astronomy (especially in Australia) has been quite good at designing surveys to answer multiple scientific questions with reasonable amounts of data (and then fed into ML systems like the cannon). Sadly one of the consequences of the LLM hype is the increasing cost of doing this, so "AI" is actually making things worse not better.

"an invitation-only programme that lets you earn money from the performance of your eligible public reels, photos, stories and text posts." implies this is only available to a subset of people?

I think it depends on whether what Meta states about the "Content Monetization" program being invite only is true? If it is, that's effectively commissioning, if it's not, well Meta is lying and then the question is why lie?

I'm not aware of the issues with the SF <-> LA high speed rail, but I had in mind https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-30/many-factors-behind-t... (where an apartment block started collapsing causing the whole of northern Sydney to lock up for multiple days, delays to the project which nearly bankrupted the owners, and residents naturally suffered significantly) and https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-19/nsw-government-strike... (which hasn't caused as many issues thankfully). Both were pushed through quickly and suffered for it.

As for fast tracking, there's a reason property developers are banned from donating to political parties here (corruption findings relating to property developers are fairly common, the latest one has caught up the opposition leader of Australia). Make the process open, make it fair, have a proper plan and then less money need be wasted.

But if new evidence comes in which changes the basis for approval (e.g. lets say you need to do some earthworks and as part of performing them it becomes apparent these earthworks will damage nearby buildings), presumably the approval can be revoked until suitable changes can be made (or if that's not possible, the approval no longer holds)? The linked Wall Street Journal appears to give more details, suggesting this went through a fast-track process (with seemingly minimum community input). I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation (given it's likely more expensive in the long run).

I think it's the zoning rules (based on https://www.wsj.com/us-news/how-amazon-built-a-data-center-i...), which seem to provide an expedited process (which for large scale projects like this always seems a bit odd, and seems like it would increase the risk of corruption)?

Arguably if new information arrives which changes the risks or impacts of a project, especially if the project was initially on some kind of fast-track process, then projects should be subject to re-reviewed and scrutiny (which I would expect to have a standard legal process).

Why not give everyone access for free?

Copyright law varies across jurisdictions, and it's not obvious how training for AIs would align with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing (and it appears a recent push to re-examine copyright law in Australia ended due to AI companies getting involved).