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.

Butterfly, the man’s hand outstretched.

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]

I feel it’s important to add that the clip ends immediately after the Doctor slaps Paris.

There are no men on the internet

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?

Then he just needs to appoint himself as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and become the President of the Senate to fulfill his dream of running the entire government.

Our former prime minister actually did something like this. He secretly appointed himself as health minister, finance minister, industry minister, home affairs minister and treasurer. It was quite a big scandal that only came out after the election that kicked out his government and threw a lot of ministerial decisions made during that time into legal doubt, though nothing ended up coming from it.

Morrison was a lazy shit and only used his secret ministerial powers a few times, he just wanted to have the power for himself. His stated reason was “in case the existing ministers became incapacitated by COVID”, but we already have assistant ministers that could fill in if that happened.

“Essentially infinite” is a bit of a stretch. The minimum warranty period is 12 months but it is true that there’s no defined maximum period. The reasonably expected lifespan of a consumer good generally increases with its value. Manufacturers and retailers are free to offer further warranties in addition to the guaranteed warranty period under the consumer law but this does not reduce or replace your rights under the law.

I will add that change of mind refunds are not covered by Australian consumer law and it is uncommon for retailers to accept them compared to the US. You can usually exchange something for another item of equivalent value or store credit, but you usually can’t buy a phone to try out and return it after 30 days for example.

(I assume) Australia

You assume correctly. Senate Estimates is usually a bit more dignified than Question Time in the House of Representatives though. QT is just a straight up circus with the way the opposition behaves.

Little Bobby Tables