Australia doesn’t have that plant, but it has Dendrocnide sp. (Stinging Nettle Trees), which could arguably be worse when it comes to being venomous plants (i.e. plants that have an active mechanism for venom delivery, instead of just being poisonous). Also in the don’t touch category unless you want pain that can last up to a year.

Does she know which Australian state? Likely every state has cyberstalking rules, but it would be a state law.

Cloudflare are notorious for shielding cybercrime sites. You can’t even complain about abuse of Cloudflare about them, they’ll just forward on your abuse complaint to the likely dodgy host of the cybercrime site. They don’t even have a channel to complain to them about network abuse of their DNS services.

So they certainly are an enabler of the cybercriminals they purport to protect people from.

And apparently enforcement of foreign judgements in the US is state-by-state, and the US state doesn’t need personal jurisdiction over the person. So any US state court can decide to recognise a foreign jurisdiction, under local state laws, and all other states will recognise it. So if OFCOM can find one state that will recognise the judgement, then they are in trouble.

I tried asking ChatGPT 4o mini what I could substitute the chloride in sodium chloride with.

It suggested potassium chloride (not responsive to my question, but safe at least), vinegar and yeast first. Then I prompted it that potassium chloride still had chloride, and to keep the sodium but only change the anion. Suggestions (with my commentary in brackets) Sodium Bicarbonate (safe), Sodium Citrate (safe), Sodium Acetate (safe), Sodium Sulfate (irritant - if swallowed get medical attention, do not induce vomiting), Sodium Phosphate (former purgative for colonoscopy prep, replaced with safer alternatives - but probably not super harmful for most), Sodium Lactate (relatively safe).

I then prompted it specifically for sodium halide options. It suggested:

• Sodium fluoride - although the response called out the toxicity and suggested avoiding it in food (highly toxic).
• Sodium iodide - summary at the end recommends this one (less toxic than sodium fluoride, but a serious eye irritant, and a skin irritant - although present in iodised salt in small quantities).
• Sodium bromide - says it is not typically used in cooking, and could have health consequences in large amounts (see this article for why it would be a bad idea, and the warning is insufficiently serious).
• Sodium iodate - response says not typically used in cooking, and that it is reactive but doesn’t call out health concerns (it is an oxidising agent, and likely the most toxic of all options in the conversation).

My next prompt tried to force me to log in (which would have selected another model).

I tried a separate time with ChatGPT for GPT-5. It gave slightly safer advice on the sodium halide: “So if you want to keep sodium but replace chloride, halides aren’t really a safe route except for trace iodide in fortified salt”. I then prompted it about sodium phosphate, and then asked it to extend to nitrate, arsenate, and antimonate. It correctly advised that nitrate is only suitable in a preservative blend, and that sodium arsenate and sodium antimonate should not be used in any quantity in food. Regenerating that answer seems to consistently advise not to eat arsenate or antimonate at least!

I am not sure why anyone would use an AI code editor if they aren’t planning on vibe coding.

Vibe coding means only looking at the results of running a program generated by an agentic LLM tool, not the program itself - and it often doesn’t work well even with current state-of-the-art models (because once the program no longer fits in the context size of the LLM, the tools often struggle).

But the more common way to use these tools is to solve smaller tasks than building the whole program, and having a human in the loop to review that the code makes sense (and fix any problems with the AI generated code).

I’d say it is probably far more likely they are using it in that more common way.

That said, I certainly agree with you that some of Proton’s practices are not privacy friendly. For example, I know that for their mail product, if you sign up with them, they scan all emails to see if they look like email verification emails, and block your account unless you link it to another non throw-away email. The CEO and company social media accounts also heaped praise on Trump (although they tried to walk that back and say it was a ‘misunderstanding’ later).

As long as these become state-owned enterprises, and aren’t selling at a loss and subsidising private interests, I think this is a good thing.

If overseas manufacturing is undercutting for one of these reasons, I think it is reasonable to be protectionist about it (i.e. apply tariffs):

• Laxer environmental regulations overseas.
• Less stringent safety regulations.
• Fewer employee rights (more casualisation, lower wages).

I think it is probably a living document that has been updated since.

Yep - I think the best strategy is what Richard Stallman suggested in 2005 - don’t give her money under any circumstances.

I’d suggest not giving the works any form of oxygen; definitely don’t buy the books or watch the movies for money, including on a streaming site that pays royalties, or buy branded merchandise. But also don’t borrow them from a library (libraries use that as a signal to buy more), promote them by talking about them in any kind of positive light, don’t encourage your kids dress up as a character (builds hype and creates demand), use analogies drawn from the books, or otherwise support them.

As far as books about wizards and educational institutions, Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series is way better anyway - they have more realistic character interactions and social dynamics (despite being a comic fantasy), and it makes for a much better read.

I think it was a 18th century British fad that spread to America - for example, look at the date on this London newspaper from 1734:

- in the text it does also use the other format about “last month”, however.

It didn’t make it into legal documents / laws, which still used the more traditional format like: “That from and after the Tenth Day of April, One thousand seven hundred and ten …”. However, the American Revolution effectively froze many British fashions from that point-in-time in place (as another example, see speaking English without the trap/bath split, which was a subsequent trend in the commonwealth).

The fad eventually died out and most of the world went back to the more traditional format, but it persisted in the USA.

When pressed, the boss admitted they’d hired a lemon.

I think detecting that something bad is happening, finding out how, and stopping it prevents other people from being affected. Otherwise contamination incidents could go on for years, and the cumulative exposure to affected individuals would be higher, and the number of individuals affected would also be higher.

GENEVA CONVENTION relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 Article 52 Unless he be a volunteer, no prisoner of war may be employed on labour which is of an unhealthy or dangerous nature. No prisoner of war shall be assigned to labour which would be looked upon as humiliating for a member of the Detaining Power’s own forces. The removal of mines or similar devices shall be considered as dangerous labour.

Sometimes I wonder if they are trying to get a high score by committing every possible war crime.

Possibly “Making History” by Stephen Fry - although at 380 pages it doesn’t quite match as a short story, and the protagonist doesn’t stop himself so much as do something else to reverse the effects of his actions to save Hitler.

Apparently the xitter tweet was a eulogy for Yahya Sinwar.

Now Yahya Sinwar was a war criminal, so they kind of have a point.

However, if that is the standard they set, saying anything positive about Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, Ron Dermer, Aryeh Deri, Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisonkot, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are all also leaders who have supported war crimes should also be grounds for having awards rescinded. But what are the chances that there is a double standard?

Perhaps a good approach is to check other recipients who are pro-Zionist‡ and see if they have anything praising war criminals, and complain - if there is no similar response, it is clear there is a double standard.

‡: And before anyone tries to twist my words as a smear, I define a modern Zionist in the usual way as someone who wants to expand the state of Israel beyond the 1967 boundaries, other than as a one-state solution with the consent of the people of the lands.

I think the whole case seems super suss.

The photos of someone in the area look nothing like him.

But supposedly they found him days later, based on someone recognising him (from what? he doesn’t even look like the publicly shared suspect photos), and despite him supposedly having travelled a great distance - enough to scatter any evidence over large distances where it would never be recovered, he happened to have a complete set of evidence on him, including a paper “manifesto” and the weapon. That seems like a rather unlikely story. And then they try to seek the death penalty, and double up federal and state.

I think what happened is the authorities decided they probably would never find the real killer, but it was also unacceptable not to have someone to blame - they’d rather kill an innocent to send a message than let crime against the rich go without a response. So they picked some random they didn’t like and set him up.

In Australia, there is a strong presumption towards keeping left as a pedestrian (and overtaking on the right - e.g. etiquette on escalators is to keep left, but if you are walking up the escalator, overtake to the right).

In some particularly busy places (especially on shared footpath / bike lane zones) there are even arrows on the pavement to ensure tourists know what side to keep to.

There are always a few people (probably tourists) who don’t follow the local etiquette.

Or at least the other way around. Reddit is banned from me.

to lose 100% of the court cases where they try this defense

I don’t think the litigants actually know this. The shady characters they are paying for the information probably know that, but represent that it will just work if they do it right.

Imagine you have some kind of legal problem, and you go to your lawyer, and your lawyer tells you they know what to do that will let you win. You’ll probably do it. Now for the litigants, it is the same thing, except instead of a lawyer, it is some person with an Internet and/or in real life following, who dazzles you with lots of fake formality that aligns to your preconceptions of the legal system based on TV. Of course, it is all just pseudolegal and a scam, but you don’t know that.

Now you might except that some critical thinking and/or research of authoritative sources like case law, or consulting a real lawyer might let the litigant see that it is a scam, but critical thinking skills are not as common as you might hope, and secondary education in many places doesn’t cover much about the law or how to do legal research.

Consider that 49.8% of voters in the 2024 US Presidential election voted for Trump, even after seeing the first term. Many people are easily hoodwinked into acting against their own best interests, especially if they are convinced there is a community of other people like them acting the same way (SovCit like groups do have some numbers), that people who endorse those theories get a lot of recognition / are influential (the leaders of the groups can create that impression), and that their theories have a long traditional backing (usually they make up a historical backstory).

That catholics should practice confession is a religious belief. But the confidentiality part is from canon law - i.e. in terminology of most other organisations, it is a policy. It is a long-standing policy to punish priests for breaking it, dating back to at least the 12th century, but nonetheless the confidentiality is only a policy within a religious organisation, and not a religious belief.

Many organisations punish individuals who break their policy. But if an organisation has a policy, and insist that it be followed even when following it is contrary to the law, and would do immense harm to vulnerable individuals, then I think it is fair to call that organisation evil - and to hold them culpable for harm resulting from that policy.

Even if the confidentiality itself was a core part of the religious belief itself, religious freedom does not generally extend to violating the rights of others, even if the religion demands it. Engaging in violent jihad, for example, is not a protected right even in places where religious freedom cannot be limited, even if the person adheres to a sect that requires it.