Whenever you visit a Roman Fort marked on an O.S. map it’s pretty much always just a barely noticeable hump in the field where there may once have been a wall - if you’re lucky enough to see anything.
But they are taking about monitoring public facing social media - frankly I think it would be daft if they did not do this.
If a be teaching assistant starts publicly posting harmful harmful content there should indeed be systems on place to ensure this is identified and appropriate action taken.
If you post publicly you have to assume everybody, including your employer, might see it.
You definitely have a point with the public facing posts. However, I will disagree with you on two points.
“Harmful content” does not seem to apply here as the article implies that specifically posts criticizing government policies were flagged.
Even so, harmful content could just as well be classified through existing procedures such as members of the public filing complaints rather than simply “keeping score”.
It’s a bit different when your employer is the government as they should be held to a higher standard.
Definitely. Humanity is fucked. I have this username name because I had some extremly bad people fucking with me and no cops would help me. So now I hate America. I used to look at older people meant to help and guide with tears in my eyes and no one did shit.
Community is a lie where I am.
Now I have thick skin and a hardened personality and couldn’t give a shit about anyone or USA or Police.
It’s a fake community of real monsters only out for themselves and the power they can get to dominate others.
Cops won’t help you or I because we’re not the capitalist class. It’s even worse if you’re a minority. And same with most other people, unfortunately.
I live in small town South Dakota where people like to imagine they’re friendly, but they’re some of the most fucked up people you’ll ever have the displeasure to meet. I have the bad luck genetically to look like “one of the boys,” and so other men have disclosed to me their most unhinged thoughts and opinions, thinking I’ll agree. Don’t let them fool you – they’d absolutely commit murder or worse to get what they want.
I often think the best chance we’ve got is to curate a small group of people and live apart from all this. And what my husband’s been through too when he was a child, it makes me enraged. It’s like he says, humans are the most fucked up animal on the planet, and literally everything on earth would be better with us out of the picture.
That’s an interesting business to be in, it sounds like they just have power plants on boats they can dock where needed to provide power. So if they didn’t get paid they could literally sail away with the power plant 🤣
Probably makes sense for infrastructure in some parts of Africa.
So it's a good from Karpowership's parent company's POV but if its customers could afford their own power plants that would be a better solution for them.
Ty for the info. The ZA deal probably makes sense.
Tbh I’m disappointed at how small it’s recorded engine power is. Imagining it being able to apply it’s city sized power generation to its propeller and hydroplaning away 😂
How much time have you got? I guess the biggest factor is that referendums are hard to pass in Australia, especially when the campaign becomes partisan. And this one was VERY partisan. But also Australia has a particular type of racist ignorance when it comes to our First Nations Peoples and our colonial history in general. We’re now currently the only settler colonial nation that has not recognised its First Nations Peoples in their constitution. Settler colonialism is not a competition, but if it was Australia kind of wins the gold. I say that as a white Australian.
I’m Norwegian and even though the Saami have their own government within the nation state of Norway there are still plenty of people in denial of the apartheid that was done against them. For each year the Sami government is delegitemised and it’s done through nationalistic fervour.
Nationalism and intellectual suicide go hand in hand.
There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.
The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on
whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.
It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?
And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.
So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.
Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.
And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.
Racism and lack of bipartisan support were likely huge factors as other commenters said. There was also division between Indigenous people regarding the efficacy of the Voice to Parliament. Some saw it as a great step forward, others saw it as toothless or symbolic, others still believed it would delegitimise their sovereignty over the land. The Opposition latched onto this for their own gains I believe. Together with Fair Australia (conservative lobbying group) they dealed in fear, misinformation and distrust. They absolutely dominated over social media and took control of the narrative very quickly. This became a lot easier for them due to the cost of living crisis. Take a White Australian in the outer suburbs or rural areas, tell them to care about this thing they don’t understand instead of their rising mortgage payments and cost of groceries, when the Opposition is feeding into their latent ignorance and distrust of First Nations people that all Australians have, and you’ve lost them already.
This reads eerily similar, so basically the same parallel that the U.S. and Australia have been struggling with together for the last 20 years (and assuredly before then).
Not “AI”. It’s a standard machine learning model Seems to be some image segmentation plus extras using PyTorch. The original source never mentioned the term “AI”, so why did the Guardian decide to bandwagon jump? The research and discovery is just as exciting without smacking the AI label on it.
theguardian.com
Active