Is there a wish for more exclusives? When I was younger we complained about too many exclusives. Playing Game A needed Console A, Game B needed Console B, leading to needing a PS2 to play Silent Hill while needing an Xbox to play Halo. The dream was to only need one console and have them all compatible so you and your mates could all share experiences. Then your hardware choice would down to slight hardware advantages, innovation, aesthetics, and personal preference instead. Do I get a PC because I like sitting at the desk with a mouse? Do I get an Xbox because of the media theatre aspect? Do I get a PS2 because of the cool looks and software? It’s odd seeing commentary about there not being enough exclusives 15 years later.

The comment I replied to said there’s more controllers than games, and the parent comment was that there’s no games. That’s what confused me, not that there’s no exclusives.

It does have games though? I must be missing the joke - PS5 has 1128 PS5 native games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_5_games

David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky (UK)

I’m with you - why abbreviate the university like that? I immediately thought the UK (United Kingdom) too. Something like “University of Kentucky (aka UK)” would’ve been helpful.

A driver in New York City covered his license plate with tape.

They’d be morons to run Vance in 2028

Only if the US still has legitimate elections. Guess we’ll see during the midterms.

It’s really difficult to cool things in space, and it’s really difficult to power stationary things in space. It’s also really expensive to put things in space so size/weight is a problem.

So if it’s not cheaper/better for cooling, and it’s not cheaper/better for power, and it’s not cheaper/better for rack space… why is there a focus on shipping compute to space?

The point I keep coming back to is that it’s really hard for the public to protest/damage/destroy data centres in space.

OpenAI absolutely did something. This wasn’t a member of the public using ChatGPT, this was OpenAI employees training an OpenAI model(s).

If you or I did this without permission in the name of research (with or without using an LLM), we’d be facing jail time.

OpenAI accessed non-public aggregate health statistics and internal files from an old Australian government website that carried Medicare statistics.

The prime minister said OpenAI was conducting research into public medical spending when it found a way to break through privacy protections.

In a statement, an OpenAI spokesperson said the company was “conducting an extensive review of misaligned model activity” during training, and notifying third parties when there was a potential impact on their systems.

“During this review, we identified activity involving several Australian government websites and services as our models attempted to look up answers, and available statistics for questions about Australia during an internal evaluation,” they said.

"In the course of that, our models took actions we did not intend.

Im trying to get onboard with CoMaps but its Android Auto implementation needs work. It’s too zoomed in to be useful at speed or in traffic, and the directions are wonky with street mergers, highway changes, etc.

I think I can contribute to the directions but not easily while driving. I’m not a coder so I can’t write up a zoom setting function for submission.

Any tips for CoMaps in the car?

Totally agree. We’re watching from Australia to see if you guys are still a democracy or not. Signs aren’t looking good…

But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?

Because Bamboot isn’t getting Gort’s votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it’s their #1 vote.

• 4 people that voted Gort #1 voted Bamboot #2.
• 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Floundra #2.
• 1 person that voted Gort #1 voted Aggy-Waggy #2.

This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority. People that voted Floundra #1 don’t end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn’t eliminated in the end. This is why it’s not possible to throw your vote away have your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.

Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

Yeah, maybe.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/13/a-huge-anomaly-antarctica-records-winter-temperatures-20c-warmer-than-normal

Here’s a brief explanation of how preferential voting works in Australia: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmaUIyvy8E8

deleted by creator

That’s an unfortunate thumbnail

Deleted my previous comment - you’re right, it’s not able to identify the screen resolution etc without JavaScript.

Unfortunately I’m still fingerprinted though - no JavaScript is itself an identifiable marker.

deleted by creator

Try this while on a VPN and in incognito mode: https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

I bet you’ll be surprised at the methods companies use to fingerprint you - browser agent, Do Not Track enabled/disabled, timezone, screen size… not accepting cookies is also a data point to filter you by.

I initially thought you meant discrimination between rich and poor, but “grab money from everyone” still discriminates against people that can’t afford the visa/passport.

Citizens have rights and eligibilities that non-citizens don’t. That’s not discrimination that needs to be addressed; it’s national sovereignty. Non-citizens aren’t eligible for HECS, aren’t eligible to vote, aren’t eligible for a passport, and aren’t eligible for federal jobs. Non-citizens aren’t eligible for these because they are not Australian.

Live here and choose to become an Australian, or live here and choose to not become an Australian. Choose the latter and you’ll need a visa.

For the record; I think the Returning Resident visa fee is exorbitant. I also think the suggestion that Australians should pay more so it’s fair for non-Australians is ridiculous.

• Australia allows dual citizenship
• Republic of Korea requires you to relinquish your Korean citizenship if you become a citizen of another country
• Girl with ‘no options’ chooses to keep her Republic of Korea citizenship
• Australia imposes visa fees that apply to non-citizens of Australia
• You suggest Australian’s that are born here, or choose to become citizens here, pay more to make it fair

Walk me through this logic? Why should people that choose to join (or are born in) Australian citizenry pay more to make it fair for a limitation of RoK citizenship?

Let’s discuss whether the visa fee is too high, for sure. But suggesting a penalty for Australian citizens to “not discriminate” against someone that has chosen not to become a citizen is absolutely ludicrous to me.