Those are some good points, and I think what you've highlighted is probably a part of the reason why so many people seem to have the "YouTube should be free" reaction. They literally cannot remember a time before VC money was paying for a lot of services on their behalf.
I'm never going to shed any tears for Google losing revenue, and I've got no issues with people using adblockers etc. That said, I think saying that not being able to understand why people pay for it risks being a bit narrow minded.
Paying for things that you use shouldn't be seen as some abherrent action. If you watch an hour of YouTube a day on average that's still less than a buck an hour even with the price hike. I imagine some folks also like the convenience of being able to just use the official aps without fucking around, particularly if they have iPhones.
Pay for premium, or watch ads, or get into the ad-avoidance arms race, or stop using YouTube. It doesn't bother me which one people choose. But this opinion that some folks seem to have that they are for some reason entitled to gratis, ad-free video streaming is so bizarre.
I think my point above still stands, there is zero assurances or guarantees that 'listening to indigenous voices' and 'giving recognition' will lead to better outcomes for indigenous Australians, which is kind of the whole point of all of it.
The page I linked isn't authored by the "yes" proponents, it's just an objective description of the change that we're voting on. So it doesn't (and shouldn't) attempt to describe what each side asserts that the outcome of the amendment would be.
For that you can check out the section that each side has in the booklet. There looks to be PDF of it on the AEC site. Outcomes that the "yes" proponents expect for indigeous folks which are listed there include increased life expectancy, improved education, reduced infant mortality.
Those aren't ironclad assurances or guarantees but I don't think we really get those with any legislative changes. Providing some kind of assurance on an outcome would require a much more radical amendment which would likely be fraught with problems
They're probably burnt for the next election cycle if the LNP get their act together honestly, assuming it doesn't pass anyway.
Yeah, I think you're probably right. If the LNP had someone a bit more charismatic than Dutton then I'd be almost certain that you're right. Maybe Labor will get lucky and there'll still be enough lingering resentment against the libs, but they need to be a lot less feckless than the have been so far if they don't want to rely on that.
At the same time it doesn't look like the LNP have learned much from last time either. Really just a shitshow all round at a time when we need some good leadership.
I agree that it may have been bungled, but I think that some of what you said isn't quite right.
The precise text of the constitutional amendment is already set forth. You can read it online. They put it in a physical booklet which was sent to every household in the country. You're right that the messaging was far from perfect, especially near the start, but saying that the "yes" side can't state what they want to change is a bit disingenuous.
Why I think it may have been bungled is that it's the sort of change that needed to be made from a position of political strength, and I'm not sure that Labor were quite there. The "no" side was always going to have an advantage in that it's usually easier to maintain the status quo than it is to change something.
This means that the "yes" proponents have to do a lot more work to argue their case, and when combined with the big problems that Australia is facing (cost of living, housing affordability, etc) I think a lot of folks who would be "in the middle" on the issue are understandably a bit irritated that the government can appear to be putting more work into this than those other issues.
I prefer the current behaviour.
It's easy to open a link in a new tab without right clicking. You can middle click (Windows and Linux) or command+click (MacOS). However there's no easy way to force a browser to open a link in the current tab if the site wants to use a new tab.
Definitely check this one out, OP. It's fantastic.
"A Fire Upon the Deep" and "A Deepness in the Sky", both by Vernor Vinge, are great too.
Kagi's "quick answer" gives me a better result:
Quick Answer
The countries in Africa that start with the letter K are: Kenya Kazakhstan [1]
[1] List of countries in Africa in alphabetical order
Though I don't know if that's because Kagi has fixed it in the last half hour, or some other factor. Still not a great answer. At least Kagi doesn't show it by default, at least with my settings.
I'm not really sure that a K/V service is a more scalable option than Postgres for storing text posts and the like. If you're not performing complex queries or requiring microsecond latencies then Postgres doesn't require that much compute or memory.
People can get unnecessary scared of relational databases if they've had bad experiences with databases that are used poorly, but attempting to force relational data into a K/V can lead to the application layer essentially just doing a less efficient job of the same types of queries that the database would normally handle. Maybe there'll be some future need to offload post and comment bodies into object storage or something but that seems incredibly premature.
Object storage for pictrs is definitely a fantastic addition, though.
Expecting communities related to a certain topic to coalesce on a single server doesn't seem like a good idea to me, but having some kind of community metadata would definitely be nice. As you said it'd be useful as a way to filtering out certain topics, and it might also be handy for community discovery.
