A1kmm

joined 2 years ago
[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

By population, and not land area, certain more remote geographic places are well known but have quite a low population. 'Everyone' is a high bar, but most adults in Australia would know the following places (ordered from smaller population but slightly less known to higher population):

  • Wittenoom, WA - population 0 - well known in Australia for being heavily contaminated with dangerous blue asbestos (which used to be mined there until the 60s), and having been de-gazetted and removed from maps to discourage tourism to it.
  • Coober Pedy, SA - population 1437 - well known in Australia for its underground homes and opal production.
  • Alice Springs, NT - population 25,912 - well known for being near the centre of Australia in the rangelands (outback) - most larger population centres in Australia are coastal.
[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 1 points 4 days ago

Seriously great question at this point. In 2016 it was commonly accepted knowledge that if Putin released a video of Trump getting pissed on by a woman in a Moscow hotel, that would be the end of his political career.

Since then, he’s been found to be a rapist in court, has attempted to overthrow the government, and has been found guilty of about 3 dozen felonies with more charges pending - which doesn’t matter any way since Trump’s judges have granted him legal immunity to anything he wants to do. And he was just convincingly reelected with his party winning both the House and Senate.

He is not going to run for president again ever in a free and fair election in accordance with the US constitution; that would require changing the constitution in ways that the Republicans don't have the numbers for, or at least interpreting the existing constitution in a way that is so contorted I don't think even the most conservative supreme court judges could support it.

So in other words, he does not need anything from the American public anymore. He has no reason to care if part of his base opens their eyes to what he really is (at least, as long as at least 1/12th of the public will vote not to convict on any jury - but he can also self-pardon for anything except impeachment).

I therefore don't think the kompromat theory holds much water today.

More likely, the Russians calculate that this is an opportunity to sow division in the US - they'd hope for a civil war as the best case. Supporting Trump, as a divisive president, was a start, but they wouldn't want too many people happy with Trump either, so they want to make the haters hate him even more than is rational, and the sycophants continue to love him more.

Of course, the risk for them is that they make Trump want to support Ukraine to a greater extent than the US currently is, instead of the opposite. They probably calculate he is incompetent and nothing much will change for them either way. Trump is certainly installing yes-men who will be loyal to him but likely not the most competent leaders; this is an effective way to disrupt a government, but it is likely that a declining narcissist who has structured things to remove all dissent will not be at all effective in achieving outcomes that require complex strategy and coordinated execution. So I think they probably consider this risk to be acceptable.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 4 points 4 days ago

Self-hosted Gitea or Forgejo. It's pretty easy to host, and if you've got a reliable Internet connection and an always on computer, you can host it from home without too much effort.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 19 points 5 days ago

Russia already had an agreement with Ukraine to respect the 1994 boundaries of Ukraine - the Budapest Memorandum.

It's like if someone promised not to burgle your house. Then they burgle your house anyway - but promise they'll stop burgling for real if you promise to let them keep the stuff they already took, and throw in some more, and promise to never to lock your doors.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 4 points 6 days ago

Stargate SG-1, Season 4, Episode 6 has a variant of the loop trope, but everyone (including most of the protagonists, and everyone else on earth) don't remember what happens, while two protagonists remember every loop until they are able to stop the looping.

They debrief the others who don't remember at the end (except for the things they did when they took a loop off anyway!) - but they didn't miss too much since everyone else on earth missed it.

Another fictional work - a book, not a movie / TV show / anime - is Stephen Fry's 1996 novel Making History. The time travel aspect is questionable - he sends things back in time to stop Hitler being born, but no people travel through time. However, he remembers the past before his change, and has to deal with the consequences of having the wrong memories relative to everyone else.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

IANAL (and likely neither is anyone here) - and I think the answer would be "it depends" on other details if you asked a lawyer to make a decision on what you've shared. So I think that is the only route if you can't get YouTube or the blogger to do the right thing.

Some relevant things this might hinge on:

  • Is the person posting this doing making videos as a business venture - e.g. by making videos that they hope to profit from (e.g. by including advertising in it, or through YouTube monetisation)? If this was done as part of a business, that could make a big difference (generally businesses are held to a higher standard).
  • Which country did this happen in? Laws are different between countries.
  • Did they deceive you in any way to get you to do what they wanted for the video?
  • Are you a public figure in any way (prior to the video)?

Some potential causes of action that your lawyer could consider if they apply:

  • Misleading conduct - if they used deception in the course of their trade.
  • Fraud - if they obtained valuable consideration (your video performance) through deception.
  • Privacy Infringement - if they processed (including collected) your personally identifiable information (e.g. including images / videos of your face, or the identifiable sound of your voice) without consent or another lawful basis / denial of right of erasure. Some of this could apply to Google too - you might be able to submit a Right of Erasure (right to be forgotten) legal request, and at minimum they might need to blur your face and mask the audio so you aren't identifiable.
  • Copyright infringement - potentially what they recorded counts as a performance and you have a copyright interest in the video. Another one that could apply to Google and be used to take it down.
[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

54 kg of fentanyl is an insane amount to have all in one place.

Just to put it in perspective:

  • Assuming the lethal dose (LD50) of fentanyl in humans is similar to in mice (probably a good assumption), it is 7 mg / kg of body weight by injection. Assuming an average body weight of 70 kg, 54 kg is enough to kill 110,204 people.
  • Apparently for opiate tolerant people (e.g. addicts), the therapeutic dose for strong pain relief is 12 μg / h, so in a month, an addict wanting to stay dosed up the whole time might use 8.64 mg total. 54 kg is enough to supply 6.25 million addicts for a month.
  • According to a UNODC estime, in 2023, there were about 60.3 million opioid (including opiate) users worldwide, including prescription drug users. So that one stockpile could supply 1/10th of the world's opioid users for a month. It almost certainly isn't for supplying prescription drug users, and many opioid addicts likely try to avoid fentanyl, and there are other competing sources - so 1/10th is a lot.

I'm not sure why they'd stockpile so much in one place, given they apparently have the capacity to manufacture more - unless they were planning to use it to kill people (see: they also had a weapons cache and explosives) instead of to sell as a drug. Or perhaps the 54 kg is an exaggeration and includes packaging and so on.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No point asking them to justify why they have to ask, they probably don't even know. Just say "Sorry, I don't give that out". I've never had a store push back after that - they probably get it all the time.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 23 points 1 month ago

TIOBE is meaningless - it is just search engine result numbers, which for many search engines are likely a wildly inaccurate estimate of how many results match in their index. Many of those matches will not be about the relevant language, and the numbers probably have very little correlation to who uses it (especially for languages that are single letter, include punctuation in the name, or are a common English word).

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Modems also make noises when connected. However, the noise of them connecting is more distinctive because they go through a handshake where you can hear distinct tones, but then negotiate a higher baud rate involving modulation of many different frequencies, at which point to the human ear it is indistinguishable from white noise (a sort of loud hissing). If you pick up the phone while the modem is connected at a higher baud rate (post the handshake), you'll hear the hissing, and then eventually you picking up the phone will have caused too many errors for the connection to be sustained (due to introducing noise on the line), causing both ends to hang up. You'll then hear the normal tone you hear when the called party has hung up the line.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Note that this looks like non-FLOSS (but source available: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi/blob/master/LICENSE.md).

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 6 points 1 month ago

Not legal advice, but I believe denying all facts even the ones that are obviously true is setting himself up to pay costs for proving those facts, even if he was to win overall.

Nintendo are over litigious and have a reputation for weaponising copyright laws to shut down legitimate competition - but I suspect this might not be a good test case for challenging this.

 

The new laws are coming into force in the current election. It is a sweeping change impacting all councils. It makes councils much less representative - it means that one ticket of councillors can have 51% support but 100% of all seats on the council.

Based on the speeches, it sounds like basically everyone was against Labor on this, both the VEC expert recommendation, and also pretty much everyone in state parliament except Labor - see the linked hansard starting from page 30. That said, when the Greens proposed an amendment to it, the Liberals voted with Labor to defeat it, and the single-member ward thing became law.

 

Stallman was right - non-Free JavaScript does hostile things like this to the user on who's computer it is running.

view more: next ›