brisk

Word. It's not hoarding it's "yeah I'd pay $16 dollars for that one game and I'll give a couple of others a go". I didn't just never get around to Kane and Lynch, I never had any interest in it.

My government, my company, my former university and even my former highschool have all identified "understanding consent" as a significant social problem worthy of significant spending on PSAs and education programmes.

But even as people are learning about how consent is like tea, they are being exposed every day to software and services that treat it as informed consent if you don't dig into settings to disable something, don't actively delete your account when they arbitrarily change their terms of service, or offer a "contract" with a piece of software you've already purchased that you can't negotiate.

It shouldn't need to be said but...you don't get to skip getting informed consent just because it would be difficult or time consuming or annoying or expensive.

• Sarah Jamie Lewis

In some fields Malinauskus is more right wing than his Liberal party predecessor. Urban development is one of the big ones.

This is the premier who says "urban sprawl is not a dirty word", totally killed the right to protest in South Australia and is dedicated to commercialising the parklands. But he did undo the insane privatisation of the rail system so he's not totally blind to a good thing.

They absolutely do, and you're arguing for the opposite position of the person above you

I love this. Is it with reference to anything specific? (Apart from Voyager and its inconsistency ofc)

Mine (Miele) actually says to close the door completely to reduce the possibility of small children or pets entering. We ignore that bit though.

The actual document is linked in the first paragraph. These are the only sections I can find that seem to care about account holding

I don't see anything in the document suggesting that, although there's also nothing stopping companies from doing that.

I don't see anything in the document as written that would stop users who aren't logged in from turning off safe search etc.. Of course it's in the company's interest to interpret it that way, but I would think an honest interpretation based on the current document would dramatically reduce the user value of being logged in to a search engine.

Introduction for some context

The applications before this tribunal have their origin in a social media post insulting Teddy Cook, a transgender man. The post, which among other things refers to Teddy Cook as a woman, has been blocked in Australia as a result of action by the online safety regulator. The person who posted the material and the platform on which it was posted have both challenged the decision of the regulator to issue a removal notice. The broad question to be answered is whether the post meets the statutory definition of cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult. The more focussed question is whether I can be satisfied that the necessary intention to cause serious harm to the subject of the post has been established. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it has. Consequently, the decision of the eSafety Commissioner to issue a removal notice is set aside

Interestingly apart from effectively mandating "safe search" on by default, this doesn't appear to attempt to restrict users who aren't logged in.

Bicycle bells are to make people aware of your presence, not to tell them to get out of the way.

I know cars suck. But you're meant to cycle on the road

This is not true everywhere.