I see such a large number of these electric motorbikes that I’d started to doubt my understanding of the law. Like, maybe there had been a change that I just didn’t know about. But it turns out that the change I didn’t know about was Morrison undermining the law by messing with the import regulations.

It’s good to have some clarity on that.

Firefox is a commercial product. Is it not?

Well, it’s partially a matter of semantics. Perhaps different people have different understandings of the word ‘commercial’. For me, I’d say that Firefox is not something a user pays for. It’s existence is not about making a profit, or strengthening a business, or anything to do with money at all - and therefore it is not a commercial product.

I agree that the engineers should be paid, and that browser development is very difficult. But nevertheless, Firefox historically has not been about maximising a profit - or even making any kind of profit at all. (Although it does seem Mozilla leadership are looking to change that.)

The text you quoted sounds like a reasonable and normal definition of a sale to me. i.e. transferring to another business in exchange for something else of value.

So yeah, Firefox previously promised not to do this, “not ever”, and now they say they need to do sell your personal data “in order to make Firefox commercially viable”.

But hang on a second… Firefox is not a commercial product. So making it ‘commercially viable’ is highly questionable in itself.

It’s a shame that Mozilla’s current leadership is more interested in self-enrichment than in the past. But Firefox is still the very best option by far. I hope that the Ladybird project becomes strong the future, if for no other reason than pressure Firefox into staying good.

I’m no expect, but it seems to me that global politics is growing more and more unstable. China has gradually been becoming more assertive and provocative as they grow in power. The USA has become unreliable and somewhat unpredictable. And I’d say this makes other wars and tensions around the world a more volatile, and it makes it harder for Australia to maintain good relationships.

In a similar way to how feudalism is people?

I agree with that. But the claim was that capitalism puts profit above all else, not necessarily that individual people do that.

Well we are building more - but I’m sure we could build more. But if Australia is to have higher density living (such that is it common for families to live in apartments) then we have to reduce car dependency. Increasing the number of cars when the traffic is already maxed out can only lead to problems. So we have to add more people without more cars. i.e. more people who don’t drive cars.

I wonder… which kind of ‘think tanks’ are we talking about. Is it a enclosed isolated place where people can focus on their thinking undisturbed, or is it an armoured vehicle of information warfare?

Its true that many of the words used are unregulated. Generally speaking the more specific the better. For example, ‘cage free’ is very vague - essentially meaningless. But “500 per hectare” is more specific.

Without making yourself an expert in this, it’s pretty hard to know what is ‘good’. So in the end, it’s probably easier to find a reliable trustworthy supplier whose eggs are high quality, and stick with them. (And it probably isn’t going to be from one of the duopoly supermarkets.)

Cage eggs are a bit of scam anyway. They are super low quality. They’re the kind of thing that you buy become someone else told you to buy eggs and you just went for the cheapest to save money, but the quality is so bad that you’d never actually want those eggs. Like buying ‘maple flavoured syrup’ rather than actual maple syrup. It’s cheaper, but its so much worse that you’ve wasted your money anyway.

The penalties here seem harsh but submitting something to a court that is false and misleading is a big deal, even if it was inadvertent.

I think the penalties are too harsh at all. This person is suppose to be a trained professional. Their right to practice law is based on their skills and their knowledge. It’s a high barrier that prevents most people from taking that job. And in this case, the person outsourced a key part of their job to a LLM, and did not verify the result. Effectively they got someone (something) unqualified to do the job for them, and passed it off as their own work. So the high barrier which was meant to ensure high-quality work was breached. It makes sense to strip the person of their right to do that kind of work. (The suspension is temporary, which is fair too. But these kinds of breaches trust and reliability are not something people should just accept.)

I reckon there are better free ways to waste your time, and many don’t require moral corruption.

It really is shocking. For decades, copyright laws have been enforced; and various new laws and powers have been added to prevent people from sharing content with each other. And yet now, it seems governments are willing to accept that big companies are allowed to just take whatever content they want and put it into their own products to on-sell however they like. Like, governments have gone out of their way to block people’s access to sites like zlib; but their the entire zlib archive is just downloaded as a matter of routine business by mega-corps - not to be read, but to be exploited for profit, with nothing at all given to the actual source of the value; not even acknowledgement or a ‘thank you’. And certainly not with consent. Is this somehow ok?

The phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” was meant to be a hierarchy, where ‘reduce’ was by far the best option, and ‘recycle’ was the backup plan in cases where the others were not viable.

But somehow the message about recycling was twisted to the point where many people believe that mountains of waste are totally fine as long as it is ‘recyclable’. And so instead of reducing waste per person, we’ve increased it. Advertising and convenience seems to overpower any kind of good intention. Perhaps regulation is the only way.

This is why various necessaries were given offsets with the previous carbon tax. Problems like that can be worked around.

You have said in multiple posts that “women” should be doing more to address the issue of misogyny.

What are you saying now? That you don’t think teachers aren’t doing their jobs? Holy smokes man. It’s not what you were saying before, but it is similarly hateful.

Well, ‘majority’ just means more than 50% - so your claim is true. But that doesn’t mean what I said is “wrong”. The site you linked to says 61%. (Which I still think is relatively balanced compared to many fields of work.) And obviously that proportion will not be uniform in every school.

Why are you trying to push responsibility of the problem to women anyway? That’s pretty weird. I’m surprising you’re still pushing on this even now. It’s as if you actually feel strongly that women teachers in particular are the only people who can address this issue. I don’t know why you’d take that view.

In primary school most teachers are women, but in high school - which is what we’re talking about, it’s pretty balanced.

More to the point though, something is failing in classrooms. That’s what the article is about, hence the title “misogyny is thriving in our schools”. Obviously it is not being caused by the teachers. The teachers do not want this to happen. It makes for a horrible work environment - especially for the female teachers. Programs and strategies are being implemented to try to address the problem, but the root of the problem is not from the school itself.

I hope that answers your genuine good-faith questions on the topic.