Nursie

A figleaf of "We gave ourselves permission on page 247, paragraph 3 of your user agreement"

I disagree, fundamentally.

Humans are walking grey areas. For any set of rules to be truly fair it must be flexible and be applied with compassion and understanding.

Indeed, and there are unrelated bananas like the Fe’i which are also seedless, pointing to repeated cultivation to a seedless state by people.

I don't get this attitude.

It'll never be enough until it is. Making porting lower-effort and higher performance can only help.

Yeah, but at 176 FPS, at first glance it seems competitive with the abilities of some fairly recent dGPUs from nvidia/AMD, though obviously we don't have benchmark-level details here.

I think this is an article allowing quiet optimism rather than all-out celebration.

I mean, some obvious things are there in the article, IMHO -

- App isolation and hidden profiles (up to 32 separate profiles)

- Verified Boot (tamper detection on every startup)

So you can do stuff on there that's not going to tip off someone who's controlling enough to demand to see your phone, and so you'll at least be tipped off if someone compromises it.

This is also what pushed a lot of people to get the PS3 earlier in its lifetime!

Sure, it wasn't cheap at launch and it marked a leap in console prices compared to previous generations, but it was around the same price as a standalone Blu-ray player as those were just coming to market.

So at that point, why not get the more capable console?

I'm not a fan of rules that aren't concrete

Then you are going to have a hard time in a society filled with other humans, or living with a legal system that takes human complexity and grey areas into account in so many different ways.

Outside of a parser or a maths class, rules are rarely that concrete.

(Reading your other comments, I am sorry that your experiences have lead you to be so scared going about your day to day life that you think recording every interaction is a necessary thing to do. I'm afraid you're not going to find a lot of people who agree with that, and many who will find the idea very intrusive, though I suspect you're far from the only one in your position.

FYI if you go down this route, in some countries it is a legal, not just social, requirement that people be notified that you're recording them, particularly when it comes to audio, see one-party or two-party consent jurisdictions etc, while recording of direct threats may be legit, blanket recording of all interactions or of other people's conversations, as a precautionary measure, may not be)

I agree there is a problem if even 1 person is treated like this.

I disagree that the American commentary on it is well informed, motivated by anything approaching principle, or really anything other than a desire to paint the UK in the worst possible light. Such figures being bandied around form part of a larger narrative along with false claims about "no-go" areas and hysteria about London having a Muslim mayor.

It's effectively rage-porn for the US right wing. We can see this in the continued framing as "12000 people arrested for inappropriate speech", when that number includes death threats as part of (for example) domestic violence cases.

Meanwhile, of course, let's ignore that the US President is weaponising the civil justice system in the US to silence critics and journalism he finds unfavourable.

(but may be entirely sound)

We know they're not entirely sound, because the category of offences is wide enough that the number of these offences which are not, in fact, related to expressing one's opinion on social media is substantial. The arrests cover stalking and harassment, making death threats and threats of violence, racial abuse, intimidation, and inciting hatred via any form of communication down to and including snail mail.

So if there's one thing we do know, it's that the actual number arrested for "posts they make online" that should really be considered free speech is unlikely to be anywhere near that, and as such the statistic itself is useless. It's like looking at the overall death rate for the US (approximately 3 million) and proclaiming to be shocked at the results of gun ownership. But it will continue to be thrown around because it fits a specific narrative.

Honestly it's been so long I'd be a liar if I told you I remembered anything specific at this point!

I think it can be a general rule without being a concrete one, and is heavily context dependent.

I agree that dash cams are for the most part OK, because for the most part they're recording for safety reasons and evidence in case of accidents. But sitting in a coffee shop as a private citizen, recording everyone that comes in without any particular justification would not really be OK, covertly or overtly. Even though the owner might be doing the same thing for security.

So perhaps "covert recording of other people in public without an accepted, socially justifiable reason, is not OK"

They arrest thousands of people under the communications act, which covers everything from the mail to Whatsapp. If I was your neighbour and I called you up on the phone and threatened to break your legs if your dog didn't stop barking, and you called the police on me, I'd likely be in those stats.

It's clear they arrest some people for posts online, and that is bad. But the numbers aren't clear at all, and the one bandied around most in public at the moments is so not informative that its use is basically propaganda.

It doesn't need to be thousands for it to be worrying.

I very much agree, which is another reason I think facts are important. There are real issues and discussing them using real data is great, productive etc.

But instead of rational debate what I see time and again is spurious figures like these thrown around by talking heads, repeated by posters like those above, trying to ... well I don't know, I don't fully understand why the US right wing thinks it's a smart move to demonise its allies at the moment, but here we are.

Armed police for 3 tweets on a political topic, seems like overkill in an unfortunately possible literal use of the word.

Yeah, it's a gross abuse of police power. Linehan seems like he's a bit of a nob, but being a bit of a nob in public shouldn't attract anything like this sort of attention. The police need to be reined in seriously, and to have pointed questions put to them about what they think is their damn job and where the money is going. At least it looks like he won the day in court, and the policy has changed - https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/jul/09/graham-lineh... - but IMHO heads should be rolling over this.

That's exactly what I mean by comically exaggerated. I don't need to defend it, or go out of my way at all. Do you understand what that figure covers?

It's everything from sending death threats in an email or SMS to your ex who finally got up the courage to leave your abusive ass, to sending unsolicited dick-pics on whatsapp, to bomb threats old-school paper-mailed to a school, to direct, public incitements to mass murder on twitter during a riot, hoax calls to emergency services and a ton of other stuff. But it gets thrown around as if it's all about people making 'edgy' social media posts. I believe at least some of these would be grounds for arrest in the bastion of free speech that is the USA too?

Is there a problem with police in the UK overreaching on speech on social media? Yes I believe there is, and there are specific examples to show that. Is that figure you've got there in any way meaningful? On its own, no. Is it a delicious tidbit for people with scant regard for the truth and a specific agenda to push? You betcha.

think you're talking to them

Yeah that's still weird. Last time it happened to me was in the City of London near Liverpool St (ironic as we're talking about banking phonecalls). Out of nowhere a guy walking towards me starts speaking, for all the world like he's trying to talk to me, so I stopped and said "Hey, can I help you?"

Nope, strides on past, then I noticed the airpods.

Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms.

Monitoring everything around you, all the time.

And what you've heard about the UK police is likely to have been comically exaggerated by people with an agenda. There are problems, yes, they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no.

(I'm rate limited and can't reply below - when people look into these figures what they tend to find is the majority are people getting arrested for using services like whatsapp or facebook messenger to stalk, harass and threaten others, often in a domestic-violence situation. These are categorised as social media-related but it's not what is often described or assumed by american commentators, that they said something politically sensitive in public, and OH MY GOSH just look at the state of free speech in Britain. It's often much more along the lines of abusers threatening to kill an ex that finally managed to leave them.)

Yeah you could definitely have a go.

Where is the exact line - i.e. can you use Lidar? Infrared depth-sensing? Or do these provide too much data such that the scene could be recreated?

(I'm exploring this as a thought experiment, in general I agree that people shouldn't be carrying hidden cameras on their faces, and if those cameras are at all connected to Meta then it's much worse!)

The problem I see is you're going to want a camera built-in for vision reasons for your amazing reality-overlay, and at that point, well, you've got a camera built-in.

Easy - covert recording of other people in public is not OK.

This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people.

If you genuinely wish to understand the attitude, may I recommend doing a deep dive into the many fine articles written about this back in 2013-15, when Google failed to launch the original glasshole-wear.

UK arrests thousands every year for what essentially amounts to mean tweets.

Somebody is peddling lies in your direction. These claims don’t hold up to any sort of cursory examination.

I'm with the "This whole article is a non-sequitur" crowd.

The old pervert using his camera shouldn't be doing that. His behaviour was not OK.

Nobody is talking about keeping kids off social media because their behaviour is not OK. They're talking about keeping kids off social media because they believe it's harmful to them, and that the companies designing the products know it's harmful and addictive.

We can disagree about whether or not that's true, or what actions might be helpful (or not), but there is no common thread with the example given.

And this is why we need to continue to shame "glassholes" whenever we encounter them.

There are various limits on this, likely country dependent. And being free from legal sanction doesn't mean being free from public condemnation and shaming.

So, legal limits - if your behaviour constitutes harassment especially if you're targeting certain individuals, then it's likely to be illegal. Or if your behaviour constitutes 'disturbing the peace' in some vague way the police might put a stop to it.

But beyond that you're talking about the law but not everything is about the limits of the law, and the law is only a loose guide on morality. You can behave in a legal manner and still be doing something most people would consider wrong.

If you take your camera and try to record someone's kids up close in the park, you should absolutely expect to be told to GTFO, possibly by a whole gang of people. "Oh but it's in public I'm not breaking any laws, you have no expectation of privacy here" doesn't mean squat. Nor is it OK to film a bunch of girls like a drunken old pervert and try to say "It's not illegal".

What would be the drawback or problem with showing a header or pop-up on mobile browsers, offering to install them as (web)app?

In this world, every single site now pops up asking to be installed. No thanks.

At least part of the story is a cautionary tale about electing the LNP. The NBN was originally going to be as you describe, but then Tony Abbot came along, under instruction from his pal Rupert Murdoch, and threw a major spanner in the works.

He decided it was waaaaay too expensive and big-governmenty to do that and besides, Uncle Rupert had a satellite tv business to defend, we don't want him to have to compete with the likes of Netflix now do we? So he told Australia that it was too much money for a "glorified video delivery service" and that 25Mbit was enough for anyone for the foreseeable, and threw out the original plans.

The plan was downgraded to "Fibre in some places, we'll reuse copper where possible". This ended up taking longer and costing more than the original plan, delivered worse service, and we're only now getting towards where we should have been under the first plan. A lot of the work has had to be repeated due to the initial poor rollout and then needing to upgrade as that 25Mbit started looking woefully inadequate. Just last year a further $5 billion was pledged to replace more FTTN/Copper with FTTP.

It's still more expensive than other markets I'm aware of, a lot of people who aren't far from cities and major towns are on wireless connections (theoretical 400Mbit, actual ~150), and the real bush "Sky Muster" system tops at 100/5 (actual ~55-83) and is having its lunch eaten by starlink.

tl;dr the Liberal (conservative) party got in and fucked it up.

Even less reason to read it then, well known as an unreliable source.

No, better to make him look like a corrupt loser running up against a guy in a bin costume. And it works!

An opinion piece in an American right-wing tabloid? That's surely the end of the argument then!

How do international high energy costs single out the UK and make our energy costs the highest?

Because of the marginal energy pricing scheme in use, which pays for all generation as if it were the most expensive. That and taxes etc. The UK energy market needs reform, blaming the Net Zero effort is ... well it's just wrong.

Net Zero is not the cause of high energy costs in the UK. The cause is international al energy costs, a way of setting the benchmark price per unit against the most expensive power, and tax.

Clean, renewable power is a way out of the mess.