I just upgraded to Monterey on my Macbook Pro 2018 15-inch and after rebooting, all of the USB-C ports stopped working, including the power adapter. I spent some time on the phone with Apple Support trying to figure out how to fix it. After about an hour and a half there was about 18% battery left before I started to panic and figure out how I was going to back everything up.
After panicking, the 3rd Apple Support Representative and I endeavoured to try and reset the System Management Controller (SMC) [1] once again. At this point I had realised that the first few times that I tried this with a previous support representative would not have worked, as I was holding shift on the left-hand side of the keyboard (the previous support representative did not specify) and not the right-hand side as outlined in the support article for Macs with the T2 chip.
This isn't Arch Linux we're talking about, it's the presumably tested and released operating system for the most premium personal computing hardware in the world. I'm not saying you shouldn't back up your stuff but your expectation on user behavior is unrealistic to put it mildly.
I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release, which is an absolute disagrace given the fact that Apple can actually test their stuff on every single hardware model it is supposed to run.
And no, my experience on general user behaviour is to expect no backup, but this isn't Auntie Ednas crocheting Facebook group, but Hacker News :)
> I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release
I used Arch briefly and this was not my experience, but at least in that community it's kind of expected that you understand this is a possibility and a tradeoff of running the OS.
Use Manjaro then. It's a polished and reasonably tested Arch (roughly saying kind of like what Ubuntu is to Debian). Never had a single problem with it.
There always is a huge room for subjectivity, edge cases and other critique in this. But generally saying I'd say yes. My experience mostly is about desktop/laptop (non-gaming, on-board video only) though.
Same. The Ubuntu long term support releases are quite conservative.
I did find the Unity interface more polished however.
It seemed like Canonical did a lot of UX research, to make things like the "power off" button adjoin the corner of the screen, so you could imprecisely flick the cursor and know it has hit the target. It also worked a lot better under old hardware.
I still use Unity with community support. It's a shame, I think as I remembered seeing the Unity interface at work sometimes and thinking that Ubuntu was making inroads.
>I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable
It is only an impressions, Arch fanboyus will quietly try to fix the mess and blame themselves for the bugs, only some honest users will tell you straight in the face "never update Arch without first reading some news page and never update if you don't hve the time to rollback and fix shit".
Arch is, in my experience, much more stable, and yet you should glance at the news page and run full system upgrades when you could spare some downtime if you had to.
I would only call it a disgrace if the issue did not appear in testing yet appeared for a large number of users or if Apple released and update where problems appeared during testing.
Keep in mind these upgrades are being done to an OS that has a unique history based upon how the computer was used in the past. Issues that did not appear in testing are going to come up after release. Then there is the potential defects in the manufacture of a particular unit or due to how it was handled. In other words, it is legitimate to miss an uncommon fault.
As for Arch, I understand why the warnings exist. That being said, I have found it to be very reliable. I typically attribute it to changes being incremental, meaning that problems are less likely to arise; and due to development being done in the open, resulting in a larger pool of testers before it even hits rolling distributions like Arch (never mind distributions that do their own testing).
I think the notable difference is that macOS has a standard release cycle of about a year, whereas Arch has a rolling release cycle. This why there's more possibility for breakage, as many of the core libraries or other software are likely having their versions bumped. This is based on my knowledge of how most standard release distros function and which I assume is Apple's update policy for software they ship.
Even assuming this is the case, it still doesn't excuse how they weren't able to uncover this in their testing, since they only have to test against their own set of hardware.
Honestly, this is some FUD; I've used Arch for 10 years; upgrading at least once a week, and the only time an upgrade has really messed things up was when they switched to systemd.
Also used Macbooks at work for 10 years, and I'm far more wary of apple upgrades.
My expectation for user behaviour is that users, regardless of self-identified tech competency, shouldn't upgrade their OS on the first day of a new release. I find that there's nothing that one can miss out on with a new release.
what's the point of a release date if it's not ready?
os upgrades do fail, and you better backup before you upgrade, but if it's released, than it means it's ready
Conversely, I’ve been looking at release notes and — with the exception of security patches and needing the latest version of Xcode for my job — I’ve not actually seen any positive benefit to upgrading since the versions were named after cats rather than places.
On the plus side, at least the most recent security update no longer had me listening to auto-playing YouTube videos in the front tab of Chrome before I even saw the login prompt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0
On the down side, the latest security update decided to spontaneously start playing the YouTube video in the front tab of Chrome about 15 minutes ago when my laptop went into screensaver…
> On the plus side, at least the most recent security update no longer had me listening to auto-playing YouTube videos in the front tab of Chrome before I even saw the login prompt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0
I had a similar problem, but with resuming from hibernation after the battery goes to 0. When you have FileVault on, that brings you back to the login screen; but Chrome videos started playing instantly. A horrific bug since you can't pause or mute it for a good 10 seconds until you get back to your desktop. Many people have probably been harmed by this bug, depending on what video they were watching last.
Could you share if FileVault was active when this happened to you? I believe the disk is supposed to remain encrypted before you log in, so I can't see how this would have happened on a reboot (or update install) without FileVault being off.
From my perspective, it means it has been deemed ready for fresh installs — which aren’t uncommon. They have, especially with Apple, fewer configurations to test.
But the probability that they got a good enough sample for system upgrade is very small. Systems that have been in use— especially for a few years — tend to diverge widely.
The users who upgrade should wait unless they are willing to risk the small but not negligible probability that the upgrade will Bork their system.
That used to be the case before everything was connected to the internet: devs would agonize about making sure there were no bugs, because once it was out it was out of their hands.
Games were especially nerve-wracking because a single show-stopping bug could bankrupt the entire company, but I digress.
Now, it’s “Get enough working code out the door so that we can sell copies! We can patch it if we need to!”
I've been using Macs since about 2000 and that was my reaction too; I remember being very glad I waited a bit after one release that deleted some user's entire iTunes libraries.
As someone who has used and managed all types of Apple products all the way back to Mac OS 7, it is not just my direct experience here but also countless discussions with peers: Every major update has teething pains.
It feels like Apple engineers test only on fresh machines from the factory. The first week is the “release client” test. New OS’, new products, new components (eg: butterfly keyboard), etc. Nothing is immune.
Yes, the marketing says that every detail of every Apple product is flawless however the core DNA of Apple drives them to innovate and you cannot innovate without breaking things. Their white glove motto is “bring it in, we’ll replace it”.
Personally, I really didn't regret waiting for 11.1 back then... unfortunately this wasn't the first bugged major release.
While Apple's hardware and product interop is still top notch, I feel way less safe about their grip on low-level and OS technology. For me, the (lack of) handling of their bug bounty program speaks volumes towards their priorities and I'm actively looking for the next platform that I can trust my data to that works out of the box and I don't have to babysit or debug.
At least on linux you can have /home as a separate partition, which should reduce the risk of losing user data. Unless I'm completely wrong and this doesn't really matter that much during updates.
That's beside the point. Arch Linux makes no effort to appear more reliable than new macOS releases, and there's no reasonable expectation that it should be, even if it is.
At what point do we start to hold software and software providers to a higher standard?
A multi-trillion dollar company releases an upgrade to its flagship operating system and "anyone who knows anything" smiles and nods because we understand that actually USING the upgrade runs a high enough chance to brick your device that doing so without a backup is a rube cliche.
And it's not like it's under Linux or Windows where target hardware configuration is more or less unknown. Building both software and hardware by Apple supposed to be advantage of Macs.
I absolute agree with you, it's an absolute disgrace and while I am all in on holding Apple, MS or Google responsible for their shit, any law in that regard would most likely only affect the livelihood of your friendly neighborhood OS developer, but not actually Apple & Co.
We do hold them accountable ... by using Apple :( It's not like Linux or Windows upgrades are drastically smoother. In fact right now I have a Windows VM that tells me "This PC doesn't meet the requirements to upgrade to Windows 11" in the upgrade screen, and their health check app tells me "This PC meets the requirements". Probably something got cached somewhere, as I had to add a virtual TPM just now. But still. This kind of experience is routine, with Windows. Like, why is the health check app not built in? Why is there a separate tool to begin with? Why doesn't it use their latest app packaging and distribution system instead of a sucky old MSI file? It constantly feels like there's nobody at the head of the ship with Windows.
Haiku [operating system], while not ready for most people to use ar a daily driver, also has this ability to boot into prior state. Updated an app, or the whole system, and now something's gone pear-shaped? Reboot with the magic key held down and choose a previous config by date-time.
Actually I never upgraded to Catalina and waited until Big Sur seemed stable enough to upgrade to and it upgraded from Mojave without a hitch. I had been following the beta releases of Monterey and it seemed pretty solid, so I figured what the heck, let’s live dangerously baby!
As for not having a recent backup it’s just something that always gets put the back burner. That’s my failing. But to be honest, I wouldn’t have really lost anything of worth, everything important is in version control. Maybe I would have lost a few dot files, some configs, some PoCs, the grooves in my couch. Those grooves that I’ve cultivated wouldn’t cost me much time and honestly sometimes it’s good to get a fresh couch and re-evaluate the grooves of the past.
With all of that said, despite the inconvenience of the upgrade, I would love to give a shout out to Apple support. It’s these moments that you get to appreciate the fact that you can pick up the phone and talk to someone who has some outstanding fault finding and problem solving abilities, leagues ahead of any other provider I have ever had experience with.
I never had to worry about making a backup before upgrading Linux distros. I mean, what's the worst that could happen when your /home lives on a different partition?
The T2 chips were a bold move and probably necessary for Apple as a transition plan. Imagine all the features it provides (Touch ID, secure boot, disk encryption) arriving only with the M1 Macs? Firmware and software needed to see the light of day and be put to test by the millions.
Thanks everyone that ever owned Intel Macs with T2 chips. I am so glad I never owned anything from that generation, and I appreciate your sacrifice. <3
I think in most regards, they were actually a lot better than the Intel-only Macs - including on stability etc.
As the T2 chip was the primary thing controlling the computer, effectively they were M1 machines, up until the point where the full x86 OS was being loaded.
So for a problem like this - with the SMC, ports, etc. - there's no distinction between the T2 Macs and the M1 Macs, they're the same thing and run the same fundamental software (which does get updated)
But this kind of thing described by the parent (SMC data corruption) is usually caused by a local condition on the device rather than specifically buggy code. Waiting for a later version would not help in that case.
Not saying that there aren’t sometimes bugs in initial version released and it’s perfectly rational to wait to hear about any fire alarms going off, but the example given is not really a case in point.
> I don't think you can be required to backdoor code in secret or held to account by the security agencies not to inform your employer.
This law gave the government the power to do just that. Details of implementing a backdoor in secret is close to impossible, as any developer would know. There was a post[1] made by "Alfie John" (alfiedotwtf) that outlines a scenario in which a developer is presented with a Technical Capability Notice (TCN).
> I do not expect you can have an extra-territorial obligation placed on your work conducted outside Australia. If you are working inside australia remotely I think its complex.
Australian citizens, regardless of their location are obliged to comply with these requests.
If you are presented with a TAR, TAN or TCN, you have the option to seek legal council in private or risk fines of up to AUD$7.3 million.
You risk imprisonment if you reveal details about the notice to anyone other than those who are included in the notice or to seek legal council (this is an exception within the law).
Australian citizens, regardless of their location are obliged to comply with these requests.
Extra-territorial law application is very complex. KP is one of the few places where you can routinely expect to be prosecuted in Australia for breaches overseas. or FGM. Or, more recently the war in Syria but bear with me: do you not also recognize that there is a huge reluctance to try and enforce the law in that last regard? because it turns out simply being somewhere is not neccessarily a good basis to declare you broke the law, noting that few if any of the people seeking to come home took up arms, and specifically took up arms against Australia or her allies.
They also have to serve the request on you. Simply issuing it doesn't make it binding surely? You have to be formally notified.
Lastly, since you can reveal it to your lawyer, I would argue that it implies they believe it could be mis-applied, or you can have a case in law to contest its applicability.
And, included in the notice begs the question: do we have any indication aside from hypothetically speaking, that a TAR/TAN/TCN has or can be drafted which doesn't include the employer and IPR holder in the notice?
> Extra-territorial law application is very complex. KP is one of the few places where you can routinely expect to be prosecuted in Australia for breaches overseas. or FGM. Or, more recently the war in Syria but bear with me: do you not also recognize that there is a huge reluctance to try and enforce the law in that last regard? because it turns out simply being somewhere is not neccessarily a good basis to declare you broke the law, noting that few if any of the people seeking to come home took up arms, and specifically took up arms against Australia or her allies.
To be honest, what you have written doesn't seem to be related and/or your point is lost. However, I will try to underline my comment with the following:
If you are issued with a TAR, TAN or TCN and you reside overseas you must comply or face extradition under an extradition treaty - unless you are fortunate enough to reside in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with Australia and that country is unlikely to make deals in secret with the Australian Government. Or, you are fortunate enough to have a secondary citizenship and subsequently renounce your Australian citizenship.
> They also have to serve the request on you. Simply issuing it doesn't make it binding surely? You have to be formally notified.
If you are issued this notice, you are able to refuse under 317ZB and incur 238 penalty units or $49,980 as an individual, or 47,619 penalty units or $9,999,990 as a corporate body. There is no limit to the number of subsequent notices that are able to be issued of the same nature. In reality this means, if it is important enough, the government will continue to issue notices until you comply.
> do we have any indication aside from hypothetically speaking, that a TAR/TAN/TCN has or can be drafted which doesn't include the employer and IPR holder in the notice?
The law stipulates that a person is considered to be a "designated communications provider" under 317C.
See also, all relevant sections detailing: "an employee of a designated communications provider" and "an employee of a contracted service provider of a designated communications provider".
317ZF dictates that disclosure outside of seeking legal council incurs a penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
I'm not sure where you received your information from, but most of what you have said is contradictory to the law that was passed. Have you read the Assistance and Access Bill?
I'm not sure how much you have noticed about the Huawei executive/heir extradition process in Canada? It isn't a simple process. The govt has to establish that the alleged crime is also a crime in Canada. It is a similar process in most civilized countries. No guarantees in Thailand or the the Gulf states etc.
Don't get me wrong, it is terribly done legislation, but there is no chance it would work against someone overseas, even after they return. You'd only be in trouble if you were in Australia when served with a notice, went to the US and told the internet, and then came home.
Thanks for the cluestick. This is unworkably bad, and I look forward to Ed Husic making good on his promise to amend the law. I had not read the bill, I have only read commentaries.
I can't believe the law officer of the land permitted a bill to be drafted which requires this kind of behaviour because it feels like even resigning from your employer would be a breach of the act, since you cannot disclose you have been served with a notice in resigning. But, if you deliberately insert or attempt to insert subverting code, you are implicitly undermining the integrity of your employers code.
I repeat what I said before: This feels like a legal minefield which a competent defense could drive a tank through. Just because it passed the chambers doesn't make it right, we have the kind of system which permits the high court to overturn manifestly unjust law.
Not to implicitly believe everything said in defence of this bill could you comment on:
This law can compel employees to work in secret without the knowledge of their organisation
Media reporting that has proposed this scenario is incorrect and misleading. The industry assistance framework is concerned with getting help from companies not people acting in their capacity as an employee of a company. Requests for assistance will be served on the corporate entity itself in line with the deeming service provisions in section 317ZL. A notice may be served on an individual if that individual is a sole-trader and their own corporate entity.
A company issued a notice can disclose information about it under paragraph 317ZF(3)(a) in connection with the administration or execution of that notice. This allows an employer to disclose information to their employee and vice versa in the normal course of their duty.
Additionally, a company may disclose statistical information about the fact that they have received a notice consistent with subsection 317ZF(13). Further, companies and their specified personnel may disclose notice information for the purposes of legal proceedings, in accordance with any requirements of law or for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. The notices themselves are therefore not ‘secret’ but information about their substance is controlled to protect sensitive operational and commercial information.
The same page says this:
Penalties for individuals in the legislation are for the purpose of potential enforcement proceedings against sole-traders and individuals acting as businesses.
Which means by intent (but possibly not in words in the act) the idea was not to exclude telling your employer: the point is that sole traders and individuals can be compelled the same way companies can.
Which I read, probably hopelessly optimistically, as that a requirement would almost never be placed on you, and not simultaneously on your employer: They know you are being asked to modify the code. The chance of being unable to "disclose" to your employer here feels quite limited.
I am not a lawyer. But, I think we can all agree the track record for the Attorney General in Australia fucking it up to coin a phrase, is remarkably high.
so This law gave the government the power to do just that. Is in my non-lawyer opinion, HIGHLY contestable. I would expect somebody like Atlassian to do just that: take it up to them, pony up, and contest the legality of this.
An employee has liabilities for things done to their employers code which causes material harm. I think the canary in the mine would be huge here: resign, do not cause your employers product to be backdoored, you cannot be obligated to introduce bugs.
Could you reasonably argue that you can’t implement this feature without your boss finding out?
Let’s say I work at a place that requires mandatory peer code review. I won’t be able to slip something by my (non Australian) reviewer. Surely I could reasonably argue that the government’s request to insert a backdoor without telling anyone is impossible to comply with. How would the government be able to verify my claim that that’s the case?
Performance has improved considerably. However, there is still a major outstanding bug, due to the rendering of window transparency[1].
Window transparency can be turned off by setting "gfx.compositor.glcontext.opaque" to true in about:config. This will cause a minor degradation in appearance of the window frame and tabs, but it will improve performance and extend battery life.
I have had it set for over 6 months and am anticipating the resolution of this outstanding bug.
My previous workplace used to be locked into the Microsoft ecosystem and the core legacy product was backed onto a Microsoft SQL Server DB.
Over the years we pushed the business to move away from the MS/Windows ecosystem. When this happened, like many others, I looked for a UNIX compatible DB client that supported SQL Server.
First, I tried SQuirreL[1] and it was horrible. I just had to uninstall it and keep looking. I settled on DBeaver for a while as it has some nice features and it did most of the things I needed it to, but it was not particularly polished.
Eventually the business decided to pay for Jetbrain's All Products package which includes DataGrip and from my experience you could say: Eclipse is to IntelliJ IDEA what DBeaver is to DataGrip.
The other product I was looking closely at was Navicat for SQL Server[2], which looks pretty damn good and those who use it seem to swear by it. However, I am not a DBA and for that reason I can't justify the USD$699 personal licence price tag of Navicat.
DataGrip is not perfect, but it's pretty damn close and I think its price tag is well justified.
I've never personally used it, but I'm fairly sure you can use Azure Data Studio[0] for plain MSSQL databases, despite Azure being in the name. I'd be in interested in what people think of it, since I've never seen anyone talk about this in the wild.
I haven't! But I was reading about it on this day as well and it looks well received, so I definitely want to give it a shot when I need to regularly use a DB tool again.
You can improve the performance by setting "gfx.compositor.glcontext.opaque" to true in the about:config settings. This will disable the transparency of the window, but it will reduce the overall resource consumption. The reduction is significant, approximately several extra hours of Firefox use, and your lap will thank you.
SlimSocial: Facebook (I have had a lot of issues with FaceSlim. I would like to part with Facebook all together but it's still too heavily used by the people I keep in contact with.)
Swiftnotes: Notes
Tasks: Todo list/tasks
WiFiAnalyzer: Analyse nearby WiFi networks
I've had NewPipe in the past but had found it quite unusable. Based on the recommendations of this thread I'll be installing it once again.
I was using Podcast Addict prior to AntennaPod and it had the same issues as your first point. I now experience the same behaviour with AntennaPod and had wrote it off as a "podcasting" glitch or at least an issue with the streams I was listening to.
Hopefully they address these issues in the future but they're definitely not deal breaker issuss for me to want to switch to some closed source alternative.
Modern etar (as in the version that is most current in FDroid) has the ability to setup recurring events (every day, every two weeks, etc.) Is that what you mean by "repeated reminders"?
Font setting, no it does not directly have font setting inside the app. Instead it follows the phone global size set under the accessibility area of the global settings app.
no, repeated reminder will pop up in set time and if there is no input it pop up again in five minutes and then again and again
in Business calendar i use 5 times 5 minutes but you can set whatever frequency and amount of repeated reminders, seem almost no calendar apps have this killer feature
You may want to consider German-based Tutanota (https://tutanota.com) who uses open-source cryptography, rather than some alternatives such as Swiss-based ProtonMail who use a combination of open-source and proprietary closed-source cryptography.
I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago.
While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population.
The region is currently in a economic recession and many of the mines and refineries have either slowed or ceased operation. Anecdotally, the sentiment of the population affected by (un)employment by these industries are either unaware or ignorant towards the damage that the industries are having on this sensitive ecosystem. Instead they are consumed by how they are going to make ends meet.
In this environment, it is unthinkable to allow Adani expand their Carmichael mine to further exacerbate the situation. Add to this, that a former Adani board member is appointed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the expansion. Adani is the biggest direct threat to Australia, both environmentally and economically and they are in talks with the government to be provided with a $1 billion tax-payer funded railway line. Adani and the Carmichael mine expansion are rifled with corruption.
The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention.
If you are interested, I do urge you to read some material on Adani and the Carmichael coal mine expansion and perhaps donate to a "StopAdani" cause.
> The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention.
I'm surprised by you saying this.
I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken seriously or that politicians will do something about it. But I felt this seems to be at least a topic that is talked about.
Just to give you some contrast: Hillary Clinton completely stopped talking about Climate Change at all once Bernie Sanders was out of her way [1]. In Germany, there was a statistics about the topics of TV talk shows recently, which was picked up by a number of media outlets, because it had an overwhelming bias towards having the refugee crisis as the major topic. Talk shows about climate change? Zero.
You are right that it is an issue that is talked about and it was discussed in the lead up to the the 2016 election. However, since the election there has been very little attention paid to climate change and there is some evidence that Australia is on-track to be in violation of the Paris Agreement[1].
Australia chose to elect a party with policies that target greenhouse gas emissions the least, 26-28% 2005 levels by 2030, where the next most popular party has target of 45% 2005 levels by 2030.
The former Labor government introduced a tax on carbon emissions[2] and a mining resource rent tax[3] in 2012. These taxes were later repealed in 2014 by our current Liberal/National government. Since the repeal, our emissions have been steadily increasing[4].
Talk is cheap and when push comes to shove on climate change, the majority of Australian's give into the scaremongering of conservative politics.
I grew up in Cairns & think that's a big part of why I'm so fascinated with marine life. I can happily spend a day watching almost any fish tank. My girlfriend has to drag me out of aquariums every time. It completely crushes me to think my (future) kids might not ever know what it was like.
I thoroughly urge anyone in the world with the means to do so, to visit and experience it.
Travelled up to Cairns from Melbourne last year and visited the reefs on a day trip.
Whilst amazing, the bleaching had clearly started although not fully set in. It was as such a bitter sweet experience. I regret not going earlier, having been in Australia for over a decade - yet grateful to have seen it in some semblance of its glory before it's gone. And very sad - and angry - that it is going.
I am angry because we have direct control over the mining that contributes directly to this calamity. However the going rule is that politicians must bend over backwards to accommodate them; or I guess that's just what they pay for? It certainly feels as corrupt as.
I'm not sure to what extent WA has been affected but I grew up on the Houtman Abroholas Islands off Western Australia (500 km north then 50 km west of Perth) which are extremely beautiful and secluded (need to hire a plane to take you over and you are limited to one very beautiful large island.)
That sounds like a great place to grow up! I'll put this on my list of places to visit for whenever I have (a fair amount of) spare cash again. :-) I've yet to be in WA so should definitely do it at one stage.
The QLD government is doing some good work on water quality - particularly engaging with farmers, reducing pesticide and fertiliser runoffs, and reducing erosion. But it's all underfunded and therefore not coordinated or widespread enough.
The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest polluters.
I lived in Australia for 10 years and got a chance to visit great barrier reef multiple times. It's what started my love for water.
Its not the same now. If by the time I have kids and they don't get to have the experience of lush underwater life, I will definitely believe we humans are cancer for the planet.
Australia is a rich and educated country. If they can't fix the mess they created I don't have much hopes for the other parts of the world.
We are a rich and educated country, however our politics is one that promotes extreme toxicity in the major parties towards any 'difficult' issues. Look at how non-committal MPs are about so many issues when interviewed. Never mind how much of a joke parliament is, especially during question time, where it's more important to score petty points against the other side than debate policy. You just have to look at the UK Commons question time footage for a very eye-opening contrast.
Granted it's mostly from the outside looking in, but your politics does like a bit better than ours. There seems to be a lot less pressure to hold the party line for one thing, which is very rigid here and there seems to be more local engagement. I'd appreciate someone who has experienced both more closely to correct me though.
Much of the current trouble in Australian politics though is because we have the senate which is proportionally elected. I'd argue this is a good thing overall, but our two major parties (particularly the current one) don't seem to have realised that they have to negotiate policy to make it pass.
I am from Brazil, that theoretically has a fully modern democracy...
Parties learned to "negotiate" so well they became meaningless, frequently absurd laws pass that all parties allowed, you see multiparty tickets that include extreme left and right at same time, and when a big corruption scandal shows uo we find out almost all parties were involved...
I personally believe Brazil need to copy UK and put at least our monarch back in power, we had less political problems during monarchy (and much more infrastructure investment) and the royal family all live good noncorrupt lives (many run successful law abiding business, some are seen as example of ethics, for example having business that repair environmental damage instead of causing it)
Well of course the former royal family is not corrupt, they are not in power!
At least in the current system, the politicians hold responsibility and can get exposed, prosecuted, and convicted for corruption (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash ), after which you can try to get somebody else elected; how would it be better if you put an arbitrary family in power?
Honestly, there should be no 'engaging with farmers'. There shouldn't be 'reductions' in pesticide and fertiliser runoffs. Erosion shouldn't be 'managed'.
This shouldn't be a conversation. It's been conversation and compromise for far, far too long. Governments should be being firm with farmers, they're incredibly damaging to the environment and it's not even a lucrative industry.
The often wafer-thin margins in the agriculture sector do not invalidate farmer's demands because food security is a most fundamental national security issue, even more so than energy or border control.
Conversely, and unfortunately, the Great Barrier Reef is managed by Australian governments basically as a tourist attraction, rather than a unique and fragile national treasure.
There is a (locally) famous quote from the Australian writer Donald Horne: "Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." (1964). A great many idiot politicians, jingoistic fools, and tourist offices are fond of repeating the first clause of this statement whilst omitting the latter, oblivious to the sharp irony of the full statement.
> There is a (locally) famous quote from the Australian writer Donald Horne: "Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck." (1964). A great many idiot politicians, jingoistic fools, and tourist offices are fond of repeating the first clause of this statement whilst omitting the latter, oblivious to the sharp irony of the full statement.
Yup. It's our very own version of "Born in the USA".
>> “Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said. “We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery."
>> “It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,’’ Mr Stephen said. “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs."
>> A full survey of the reef released yesterday by the authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.
>> Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of onshore development and high water quality.
Any non-paywalled sources? The original article does note that "The Queensland tourism industry raised questions about the reliability of the survey, saying scientists had previously made exaggerated claims about mortality rates and bleaching."
Sorry, you said the reef looks "indistinguishable to what it looked like 20-odd years ago." which implies it looks basically the same, but that seems at odds with the rest of what you're saying. Did you mean something besides "indistinguishable" ("unrecognizable", maybe?)
It's also subjective to the point of being a useless descriptor. One person's "beautiful" is another person's "terrible waste of precious screen real estate". It's fine if "beautiful" is a shorthand design goal among a group of people on a project team, where everyone shares the same design philosophy and assumptions, but it's not a great way to describe a project to the public.
It's up there with "nice" and "interesting" in terms of non-value words, IMO.
Much more useful would be to describe some of the goals that you, if you're the developer, consider beautiful. What, specifically, are you going for? If I'm looking at a project that's what I want to know. Most people don't set out to make ugly projects (well, mostly [1]) so that's the key differentiator: what subjective definition of "beautiful" is operative in the project's design, and what tradeoffs are being made to pursue it?
TempleOS has something like a set of environment variables for each task - if the user asks for a variable and it isn't found, then the parental task's variables are checked, followed by the next parental task's variables etc., all the way up to Adam, which would be like global environment variables.
After panicking, the 3rd Apple Support Representative and I endeavoured to try and reset the System Management Controller (SMC) [1] once again. At this point I had realised that the first few times that I tried this with a previous support representative would not have worked, as I was holding shift on the left-hand side of the keyboard (the previous support representative did not specify) and not the right-hand side as outlined in the support article for Macs with the T2 chip.
Good luck!
1. https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201295