bobby_bob

This is poor satire.

"In an emergency" has always been allowed reason to leave home during the Victorian lockdowns.

1 - https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/how-we-live

Volume / Passenger Capacity

With a lower limit and some way of subsidising a portion back for verifiable, occupational need.

The devils were introduced to the mainland (a National Park in NSW) intentionally in 2020.

It's now using natural gas:

...drawing power from the plant’s 106-megawatt generator now fueled by natural gas.

There were some interesting profiles following the NotPetya attack on Maersk in 2017 where Maersk claimed to have 1,200 - 1,500 applications, 49,000 laptops, 6,200 servers.

Maersk are entering into block-chain "distributed ledger technology" with IBM and similar modern solutions. But one article put $300 of every $2,000 of shipping costs for administration and paperwork[0].

I think you're right, there is a massive advantage to be had, and companies are chasing that advantage. But from my (tangential logistics) background, even the biggest shipping companies have the usual range of legacy systems, heavy administration overhead, plenty of paperwork, excel-based-tools and huge integration headaches.

0 - https://www.supplychaindigital.com/technology-4/maersk-and-i...

For example, Nestlé purchased "Vital Proteins" last year and are making their collagen products to their Nestlé Health Science portfolio.

https://www.fooddive.com/news/nestle-to-acquire-majority-sta...

Looks like they applied on 30 Jan this year.[1] Currently: "Awaiting Examination". it appears that Amazon released the copy in November last year.[2]

[1] https://uspto.report/TM/90489397

[2] https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B084CG43XD

If you're looking a 20 x 20 x 20 meters of gold (i.e. 8000 cubic meters, not a 20m3 cube) then that's more like 154,000 metric tons.

Which Wolfram Alpha helpfully confirms is approximately equal to the mass of all gold ever mined. There is some contention about this value, the World Gold Council posit 197,576 metric tons (and up to 3000 additional tonnes per year) [1], USGS suggest a cube with 28 meter sides, or 244,000 metric tons [2].

400,000 kg probably comes from 20 cubic meters of gold (386,000 kg).

[1] https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-...

[2] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world

Also fun, Australian company "GME Resources", trade on the ASX as GME, got to 40% up from its Monday opening price.

I wonder if this is a clever-ish social media algorithm trading, shrewd fund managers or really just desperately mistaken retail traders.

The "generally understood" purpose of prison is for:

retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation

The US skews a more towards the retributive (i.e. "just punishment") than other jurisdictions. For example, the federal sentencing guidelines explicitly prohibit reduced sentences in order to facilitate rehabilitation (except drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs).

It's easy enough to imagine a society where prison has a significantly less retribution focused, instead focusing on how a criminal can be rehabilitated (education opportunities, community corrections orders e.t.c). Popular example being some Nordic prisons.

Likewise in Australia, there's some great collections which you are free to wander through at your leisure.

Pretty much any publicly funded gallery has free admission.

There is considerable variation in how pardons are applied around the world. Many with simple checks and balances:

- Require nomination or agreement by the AG. - Prohibit pardoning of political crimes or other self-interest. - Require approval by at least on other minister, or the whole cabinet, or some portion of the legislative body. - Require a published request for pardon, justification of the pardon, and the judiciary's comment about this justification. - Prohibited during lame duck or caretaker periods. - Allow commutations only. - Allow pardons only when someone is actually serving their sentence. - Eliminate mandatory sentences, allows judges to exercise mercy in sentencing.

What bugged me was the complete lack of depth, one of the most interesting (and pertinent) topics surrounding the use of these devices are the legal implications.

There is no state that allows you to bug someone else's conversation. Intentionally causing a surveillance device to be installed in someone's home (which he clearly did) without their consent must present some legal issues?

Likewise, individuals are in some cases liable for the results traps they set. For example, the countdown (on the latest video) is troubling because it's reasonable to expect people to panic, and act erratically in response. What happens if they seriously injure themselves trying to escape the imagined bomb?

Someone else doing something illegal (stealing your "trap" package) doesn't protect you from prosecution or lawsuits.

Anyway, it would hear about the discussion with they had with lawyers before they did this. There's very little depth in many of the more recent videos. They're merely entertainment, not educational/engineering videos.

MHRA give more details of the approval process on their site[1]:

This was done using a regulatory process known as a ‘rolling review’. A ‘rolling review’ can be used to complete the assessment of a promising medicine or vaccine during a public health emergency in the shortest time possible. This is done as the packages of data become available from ongoing studies on a staggered basis.

The MHRA expert scientists and clinicians reviewed data from the laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine and also considered the conditions for its safe supply and distribution.

The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, part of the agency, has been and will continue doing, independent laboratory testing so that every batch of the vaccine meets the expected standards of safety and quality.

The information sheet for doctors gives a long list of "we don't know yet" about safety and efficacy for certain populations[2].

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-medicines-regulator-gi...

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Not really.

It's explained in excruciating detail here in the Sovereign Grant Framework Agreement[0], it is a grant of £85.9 million from Treasury. However, this amount is proportional to the value of Government revenue received from Crown Estates.

This is in keeping with the agreement between King George III and Parliament to give up revenue from the then unprofitable Crown Lands (now more precisely termed The Crown Estate[1]) in return for a Government stipend. The Crown Estate (which is still "owned by" The Crown[2]) now makes £345 million a year[3].

In contrast, The Duchy of Lancaster and The Duchy of Cornwall and the Royal Collection are not funded by Government, and are instead funded by the Royal Family, or admissions/donations, for the later.

[0] https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_gra... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate [2] https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/ [3] https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_gra...

Or, make a small improvement to the existing toy themselves or (I imagine quite convincingly) claim they're copying from an earlier, expired patent.

It seems expensive and unlikely to prevail in any case.

Deelie Bobbers by Parker Brothers [0]. They're smaller, 1" but there's no question that it's essentially the same thing. There's a patents US2984935A [1] and US3177611A [2] from 1959 and 62.

So I suppose the question is, how can you make money as a distributor of an over 50 year old product?

The article seems to suggest that they created this toy and that patent protection is an option, which seems at very least disingenuous.

[0] https://www.etsy.com/ie/listing/704956160/deelie-bobbers-gam... [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US2984935A/en?oq=2984935 [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US3177611A/en?oq=3177611

This was codified in my state's public transport fines. Pay on-the-spot (assuming you have a CC and funds) and it's $75, wait or contest it an it's $223.

It was a system blatantly established to prevent people exercising their right to contest a fine. New government abolished this arrangement as it was blatantly unfair and illogical, and also reduced compliance.

They also removed on-the-spot warnings and fines, having all interactions reported and justified-to and reviewed by a separate governing body before an infringement or warning is issued. Taking a great deal of power away from the transport officers.

These all seem like pretty straightforward measures to avoid corrupt or even just unfair practices.

Miniature horses can actually be trained as service animals, "guide horses" for sight impaired are even protected by the same legislation as dogs in some places.

In this context though, maybe it needs it's own seat.