snake_case gang represent

God damn it, that headline got my hopes up for a second.

I’d say Eric is more like Buster because if they had a Michael they might not be in so much trouble.

Just announce that you’re running for office, then the charges become election interference.

The bar for proving defamation is already high enough that there’s no risk of accidentally chilling honest political speech.

Not in Australia, the bar for defo is stupidly low. The defendant basically has to prove their innocence. The law is fucked and the new “public interest” defence failed its first test in court. Defamation law is abused by the rich and powerful to suppress free speech and silence critics. Even if you can successfully prove substantial truth or genuinely held opinion you’ll still be ruined by all the legal costs.

The true American patriots are the ones who take the case on the side of the prosecution.

That’s the Spirit!

If Rupert Murdoch was still in Australia, he’d be supporting the Liberal Party.

Rupert Murdoch (through his media companies) still very much does support the Liberal party.

Because the reports go unheeded by management until it costs them money, at which point the quality department get their arses kicked for not fixing the problem that management ignored.

This one looks like a pressure seal, which as the name suggests seals by tightening the cap. In my experience from a packing QC standpoint the potential problems with a pressure seal are either the seal not sealing fully because the cap isn’t tightened enough, or the seal getting damaged by the cap being over tightened. This looks like a cheaply made seal wad to me. I dare say the QC department complained about it but management wanted to save a few cents.

Not every member of the Commonwealth has the British monarch as head of state (in fact the majority do not).

No, the full context of the code snippet doesn’t appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it’s most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.

undefined

I have a web dev joke but [object Object]

That is a trickier question. My gut feeling is that while it makes sense for a person’s likeness to enter the public domain after they die, it feels a bit morbid and disrespectful for it to become possible to start running AI generated ads of a celebrity the day that they die. I hate how long copyright lasts now, but I feel like there should be at least some period after someone dies before their likeness enters the public domain. I don’t know how long that should be, but definitely shorter than copyright currently is (which should also be much shorter).

My other concern is that if studios can freely recreate dead celebrities then new talent won’t get a chance to make a name for themselves. Hollywood would much rather milk existing celebrities for every cent possible with AI (which is part of the reason for the SAG/AFTRA strike I guess). I don’t have an answer for this right now.

Yes and yes imo. A person’s voice is part of their likeness, and people should get to decide how their likeness is used and get paid for such usage.

Not to mention that the bar for a referendum to pass is very high. For the non-Australians, you need not only a majority of voters nationally to vote yes, but also a majority of states to vote yes (the so-called “double majority”). Only 8 of the last 44 referendums before now have passed and partisan referendums have never passed, so this one was doomed the minute Dutton decided to play politics with it.

I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?

I look forward to fighting Clippy as a raid boss