I have a friend group that insist on all events being planned through facebook.
I've missed out on events in the past due to not taking part.
It's no longer a hill I wish to die on.

I agree and use Signal myself.
But people like the extra features of WhatsApp like desktop/web clients with seamless history sync and all the other little things that WhatsApp provides.
The average Joe doesn't even think about security or privacy, they just know that the results of using WhatsApp are superior than using SMS.
iMessage is a non starter everywhere out of the US, it just doesn't have the market penetration.
As an Australian, no one I know (many of whom own iPhones) talk about the blue-green bubble stuff.
They recognise where the fault lies and simply don't use the app.

In certain places like India, WhatsApp is the default means of communication for everyone.
You can use it without phone data if you are on wifi, it supports better quality than sms for sending images, you can video chat with it, it's cross platform, etc etc.

What's more amazing to me is that it's not more popular in western countries.

Nah, that was worth watching.

Sounds like this is something developers bake into their apps, not something the phone enforces.

ie, if I develop an app, I can have the app check a special google "Integrity" API and if I get no response (or a negative response), just have the app close.

Just one example of the lies and misinformation out there:

Smart people I know believe that we have to go Nuclear because it's the only green way to achieve baseload.

When press on what baseload is, they seem to think it's the minimum amount of power needed to keep the grid up.

Which for anyone listening in, is backwards, baseload is actually the minimum amount of load required because it's un-economical to spin old coal burners down. That's why people used to heat their water at night on the cheap, because the power HAD to go somewhere.

And these are smart people, just disinterested in the how and why of electricity generation.
They flick a switch, the lights come on.
Every 3 months they pay a bill and tut-tut about how expensive it is now "because of the green obsession".

Have you told the library to rescan after making the change?

Funnily enough, I've got a few friends who are long time iPhone users, who actually point this stuff out themselves:

"OMG! Have you seen the eye watering price of the new one?"
"Yay, I finally get stuff you've had for years."

Neither party would ever consider anything else, and they both buy the new model every year. 🤷

At this point I admit that my reasons for choosing Android all those years ago no longer exist or matter, but I can't imagine changing ecosystem either.

I think all the existing answers are on the basis of creating a new Linux VM.

And if I understand you correctly, you already have a bare metal Linux install that you want to run whilst Windows is up.

This is the best search result I could find: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=93437

It sounds like Virtualbox will indeed create a pseudo vhdx that points to a real partition, but windows is going to give you permissions drama.

The above link is out of date though, so its best viewed as info rather than guide.

Good luck.

Us oldies being able to parse it, just means that it is now out of date. ;-)

Crinj fr fr.

I don't think that's a use case the developers really envisaged.
I know under movies (and possible shows as well), you can specify versions:
https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/server/media/movies

But I think you're expected to select the version at playback time.

When I've had this issue, I've just transcoded to a format that all my targets can read without drama and kept the resulting file.

If your keen to experiment, I'd be curious to hear the outcome.

Liars do that.
Especially if they have a financial incentive.

Was that a rifle issued to soldiers?

Yes, it's a literal weapon of war.
This particular one was probably never fired in anger, although it has got service markings.

My grandfather served in both world wars. I wonder whether he had such a rifle? He died before I was born so I never met him.

Your grandfather likely carried one yes.
By the time of WW2 they were hopelessly out of date, but the ADF didn't want to invest in retooling.
They even saw limited use in Korea in the 50's.

Reading service record has been cool though.

The Factory at Lithgow has a small, volunteer run museum and their website has some history if you're interested: https://www.lithgowsafmuseum.org.au/milproduction.html

You've clearly got a lot of energy Nath, that's quite a post - including hints of antigun talking points, such as the reference to US suicide statistics.

So you've got a position, and you're clearly more educated on the topic than your "just asking" question implies.

Fundamentally, I think people are good, that by and large they don't hurt themselves or others without cause.

You seem to think of people as awaiting an opportunity or the day they snap or whatever.

That colours our perception of risk a bit.

Most of the new law in WA is just tidying up around the edges of existing legislation that has been doing the job for decades just fine.
Nothing that has been proposed would have stopped the impetus for this change, the double murder we keep circling back to.
Arbitrarily limiting firearms ownership to a certain quantity has got people annoyed for that very reason - it does nothing to stop this from happening again.

As I'm sure you're aware, you already have to justify each individual purchase, you already have to store them in a certain way, you can only really use one at a time, and used for evil, a .22LR kills a human just as dead as a .50BMG.

My personal gripe with the law is the categorisation, which doesn't group based on danger or anything like that, they were written with the secondary aim of pulling as many guns out of the community as possible back in 1996.
The two most commonly owned firearms at the time were the .22LR semi auto and the 12 Gauge pump action.
Now you have to be a farmer to get them, and most farmers don't bother, because they are expensive beyond rationality, they have absurd storage requirements and they are limited to a single one each.

As I said before, to most farmers, a gun is a tool, and having a spare gun in case your primary one breaks is just sensible, and you can buy 3 bolt actions for the price of one semi auto.

In my collection I have a literal museum piece, a matching serial number 1943 SMLE Model 1 MKIII* made in Lithgow NSW:

It's not pretty, but it is mine.

It's far more accurate than I am, and could realistically kill at well over a kilometer.
A 12 gauge shotgun firing solids (to give the best range and stopping power), is probably good out to 250m. It holds 10 rounds and can be fed quickly with stripper clips, which means it both has more rounds in it and can be reloaded faster than the 12 gauge.

This is a category B firearm, which anyone who qualifies for a standard hunting, collecting or target shooting licence can get with justification.

Meanwhile, the far less dangerous 12 gauge is category C, IF you limit it to only 5 rounds. Category D if it holds more.

But the law is the law, and we work within it.
Until some politician needs to be seen as "tough on crime" and the most law abiding group in Australia gets told "it can't be blue any more".

I'm in SA, so the laws are slightly different, but it's close enough to comment on.

Farmer, collector, hunter or target shooter, your guns are in a safe and you can't parade down the street with them under any circumstance.

In my anecdotal experience, farmers are the worst at securing their firearms because they don't care about them, they are just a necessary tool for their job and they are often too lazy to secure them properly ("I was just popping in for lunch before heading back out officer!").

Hand guns, due to their inherently concealable nature have extra rules about who can take them home and when, your friends will be able to after about a year of licensing, if they choose to (many don't bother if they are only target shooters, as they can only legally use them at the range anyway).

Gun crime is exceptionally rare here in Australia, so rare in fact that when a gun is even tangentially involved (ie the police THOUGHT that the perp might have one), you hear about it.
This is reported on extremely out of proportion to the actual risk of being on the wrong end of a firearm here.

There's about a million registered firearms owners in Australia right now.
There's about 26 million people total.
Look around a crowd, better than one in thirty of those people potentially owns firearms (although statistically the rate of firearms ownership is higher in rural areas, nearly 70% of Australians live in the capital cities).

You ask me to tell you what the actual problem is with any further tightening of gun laws.
I'd ask you to tell me what is wrong with the CURRENT gun laws, because it sounds like you don't actually understand them, but "guns are bad".

If your answer is that two women killed is too many, I'd point out that a woman is killed as a result of domestic violence in Australia every 11 days and that your perspective of the danger firearms pose in the community is ludicrously overblown.

On average, firearms owners are amongst the most law abiding, and continually ratcheting up legislation that singles them out is nothing short of scape-goating, and will not do anything at all, other than be a minor inconvenience to a minority of a minority.

Considering the average firearms owner has 2 hands, and therefore could only plausibly use 3 firearms at a time if they're a particularly clever dick, whether they could own and legally store 5 or 50 firearms is immaterial to their deadliness.

I particularly like this by the way:

He was a law abiding citizen until the afternoon he wasn’t

Nice way to think of your common man.

Guns too.

I wasn't going to respond, but I have a few spare minutes.

My response isn't even really to you, it's just more of an observation on my part based on the sorts of messages I see in places like this about how "you can't compare guns to other inanimate object" or "gun buybacks" or "meat is murder" or "shooters are psychotic" or whatever.

Let me start by saying, I'm going to obey any and all laws.
99.9% of gun owners will when it comes down to it, and the .1 were going to break any laws we make that gets in their way anyway.

Most of the community don't think of guns at all, they're a fictional thing of movies and tv and games, unless they see a cop on the street.
But there seems to be a small subset of people who think that gun owners just need to "get it" and stop.
That if "it" is explained to us properly, we'll just hand our guns back and pick a "better" hobby.
That fundamentally misunderstands humans.
I drink alcohol.
I ride a motorcycle.
I eat sugary and fatty foods, especially meat (what kind of hunter would I be if I didn't?).
I do lots of stuff that is objectively risky to myself and/or others, yet are legal and I enjoy them.

Trying to convince a gun owner that they should just give up their hobby isn't a matter of offsetting the loss with a buyback or convincing us that killing animals is bad, or that the community would be safer without our dangerous weapons or whatever.
We already have something that we like, and will do it for as long as we are allowed.
Stopping me involves changing the laws out from under me, and I'm going to advocate for the status quo as hard as any anti argues for the change.

It's not pretending to be a victim when someone threatens to change those laws under me.
Anti's just think it's ok for me to take the hit, in what they see as my and the communities best interest.

So I guess I'll vote my way, and they'll vote theirs.

To be clear, not an attack on you /u/Gorgritch_umie_killa, I'm just wasting a few moments offering some mental context for why I say "no".

Some idiot ran some people over deliberately and now I have to get rid of my ute and buy a sedan.
At my own expense.
And this is going to stop another idiot how?

Yeah, I'm going to whinge.

Setting themselves up as victims, like they have here, makes me question the participants mental capacity to evaluate their own behaviours, therefore their own risk to those around them.

They didn't do anything wrong, someone else did.
And now they are going to be impacted in some uncertain and arbitrary ways.
They get to whine.

Questioning their mental health says far more about your own ability to empathise than theirs.

That's what makes this possible.

Part of this funding is to underwrite a new interconnect with the NSW grid, to increase the SA grids ability to transfer power in and out.

Having those interconnects means when we have a surplus or shortage of sun + wind in one location, we can transfer it from somewhere else.

The plan even relies on the ongoing backup of gas turbines, which will be turned off 99.9% of the time, but still require maintenance etc adding cost to the grid.

But the plan is to have enough solar + wind + storage to go 100% net green over any given year.