TimePencil

@sunzu2

Nope and I was wrong.
@signalapp is only able to produce LESS information than I previously stated.

1. The phone number (which will already be known by the relevant authority.)
2. Last connection date.
3. Account creation date.

That's it. Nothing else.
Signal does NOT log users' IP addresses.

See this for more information:
https://signal.org/bigbrother/santaclara/

@maniacalmanicmania @9tr6gyp3 @signalapp

@9tr6gyp3

There is NO back-door to Signal.

@signalapp is blind to all communications. (Including, probably, this toot! 🤪)

Signal itself does NOT know who has messaged whom, nor when, nor how (e.g. the IP address is NOT known.)

If Signal was subpoenaed to produce my records, they could produce:

1. My phone number. (Actually, my number is the only way Signal could 'reference' my data.)
2. The date I joined Signal.
3. The date I was last active on Signal.
4. (This one is a maybe...) The existence of secondary devices that I use - such as the Desktop app.

I'm *fairly* sure that is all of it.
(Please let me know if I'm wrong.)

@sunzu2

@princessnorah

Ditto.
[at]gurnu[at]lemmy.world has been on my own 'blocked' list for a while.

An oxygen thirf who's worth nobody's time...

@PeterLG

@sabreW4K3

The government will LOVE this scheme...

1. Make children obtain a government issued ID card.
2. Increase the cost of the ID card from a 'nominal' payment to, say, $100 p.a.
3. Require e-bikes to be registered for a nominal fee.
4. Increase the registration fee.
5. Make insurance compulsory for e-bikes.
6. Require registration and insurance for ALL bicycles, including pedal powered bikes.

Then, in 10 years' time...
7. Spend a fortune on an advertising campaign trying to get people back on 'traditional' bicycles.

@Zagorath

Half a penny?
Where's the rest of it?

@FireWire400

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettamogah/_Pub

@DiaDeLosMuertos

@spiffmeister

Oh, increasing the dingo population (by any method) would, as you say, definitely impact the roo population. No question!

But the *location* of that roo population matters and affects whether any cull makes economic sense.

I was a spotter and offsider for a few pro roo shooters over a few seasons.

Culling roos usually only makes sense when it benefits the farmer AND value can be extracted from the roos.

Most culls I've seen were in cattle country that was still 'close to town', usually within 1-2 hrs' drive. (I'm sure that culls also occur down in sheep country, too.)

Primary producers rarely look upon dingos favourably, and there'd be little support for increasing them.

The 'predator-prey' 'boom/bust' cycles are still common, but generally where the station's size is measured in 1000's of sq. kms. In the 'back of beyond', diesel alone costs much more than can be made from any culled roos.

Edit: check out the dingo fence...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo/_Fence

@spiffmeister

Kangaroo populations will naturally go through "boom and bust" cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world's driest continent.)

Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That's nature, and it's a bad way to die

Having 'extra' dingos manage the 'roo population' would mean they'd suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.

When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available... including, as you say, livestock.

It's a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.

However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.

In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective...
... even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.

@Davriellelouna

@Taleya

I've not moved the goal posts.

This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."

You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."

I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.

You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

@Taleya

Thanks.

However, that report relates to 'filicide', and this thread is discussing 'working with children'.

Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

The report you provided seems related to 'domestic violence', and unrelated to the 'child care' sector.

@Taleya

"Statistically"

I would like to see those specific statistics.

Please tell me where I can see them.

@rowinofwin

@SuperMoosie

Look, here's the bottom line(s):

'Age verification' systems - where a person's ID is submitted - will not work.
Kids will find a way around them.
ID verification systems are a privacy nightmare and something only a dictatorship would implement.

Device/OS/platform 'age restriction' features are workable, but Labor is too incompetent to liaise with the EU to implement them.

It is for parents to supervise and control their kids' devices, NOT for everyone else to have to provide ID just to access social media.

@Zagorath