Zagorath

What's the excuse? It's just a fact. Israel and it's supporters deliberately conflate the nation of Israel with the religion. That part is undeniable.

If you're being charitable, it's because it allows them to brush off criticism of their genocide and apartheid state as being "antisemitic". If you're less charitable towards Israel's government and supporters, it's that, plus it has the added "bonus" of inflaming the kinds of actual antisemitism that help drive support for Israel's cause.

The irony being of course that Israel's own stance is itself antisemitic, and as such it is the world's number one source of antisemitism.

Also if they weren't being fed antisemitic propaganda by the Israeli government and its supporters, conflating the nation-state currently committing genocide with an ethnoreligious group, in a deliberate attempt to cause exactly this sort of thing to happen.

@non_burglar@lemmy.world is correct, but is perhaps not explaining it perfectly for the practical questions you seem to be asking.

If you have, say, two Docker containers for two different web servers (maybe one's for your Wiki, and the other is for your portfolio site), you can have both listening on ports 80 and 443 of their container, but a third Docker container running a reverse proxy which has access to your machine's ports 80 and 443. It then looks at the incoming request and decides which container to route the request to (e.g., http://192.168.1.2/wiki/%s requests go to the Wiki container, and all other requests go to portfolio site).

Now, reverse proxies can be run without Docker, but the isolation Docker adds makes it all a lot easier to manage, in part because you don't need to configure loads of different ports.

I was wrong in my previous comment, because I accidentally used a calculator that did percentages wrong (it converted percentages of a circle, but in measuring grade, percent is rise over run (or height over width, if you imagine it as a right-angled triangle—you can take the tangent of the angle to get the grade). So 100% would be 45°.

So 15° is actually just under 27%.

The steepest hill in my city is 31%, so that's not outside the realm of possibility. But it is very, very extreme. Heck, even 15% is an extremely steep climb. An extremely steep popular climb near me averages out to less than 9%. It gets decent stretches which probably average to 12%, and those are exhausting to get up.

Sorry mate, but you've got it wrong. The Prime Minister has specifically come out and said that this law is aimed only at companies, and that children or the parents of children who are able to get onto social media anyway will not be punished. Only the companies that let them slip through.

And you only need to read the legislation to see that that's true. There are no penalties associated with accessing social media under the age of 16. Only with "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform...failing to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts". Or less closely related, "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not collect information...for the purpose of complying with [the above requirement] if the information is of a kind specified in the legislative rules", and another similar "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not...collect government-issued identification material...for the purpose of complying with section [the above requirement]", but this last clause "does not apply if...the provider provides alternative means...for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user". It is also the case that a person who provides an age-restricted social media platform "must comply with a requirement...to give to the Commissioner, within the period and in the manner and form specified by the notice [about that person's compliance with the law]...to the extent that the person is capable of doing so."

That's it. That's all the new penalties that can be applied.

Here's a page from the eSafety Commissioner that also confirms it.

Are there be penalties for under-16s if they get around the age restrictions?

There are no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers.

I don't disagree, but this law could have been an opportunity to give parents better tools with which to parent.

It is far, far too difficult for any parent today to impose parental controls on their kids' devices. Parental controls are an afterthought, put in place barely enough to tick the box saying "we have parental controls", and not effectively doing much of anything. The law could have forced tech companies to do better and make it easy for parents to use effectively.

Account's deleted, now.

I'm thinking it's probably the latest of that posting bot that appears from time to time.

Yup, exactly. The best case would have been real legislation targeting the actual problem—thr algorithms. Failing that, something as simple as giving parents the tools they need to be able to parent effectively is what should have happened.

I'm gonna assume you meant 15% hills? 15° isn't very much!

Anyway, the regulations around PMDs are different from ebikes. There aren't power requirements, I believe, only speed ones. But it's not an area I know much about because I've never really cared much about it.

Power cap is still useful to limit acceleration to safe levels and to minimise the level of danger if the motor gets de-regulated.

Ooh, TLDR. They're great! This was a pretty good summary of the situation, though I would have liked it to go into a little more detail about the criticisms.

The fact is, right now we know that Facebook has at times made a deliberate, conscious choice to leave in aspects of their algorithm that were causing harm. Their own studies have shown this. Making that practice illegal—knowingly causing harm with your algorithm—would be a good place to start with regulation.