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The above link is out of date though, so its best viewed as info rather than guide.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Us oldies being able to parse it, just means that it is now out of date.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.

Net renewable by 2027!

A lockdown browser?

If you need to use windows because of a software issue, not a hardware issue, you're probably best off running windows in a VM.
That way your linux install is making the WPA3 connection, and as far as the Windows install is concerned, it's on a wired lan.
This has the added benefit of not having to reboot, you just always start linux and turn the windows VM on and off as required.

As /u/rezz@lemmy.world said, you can try to force a scan of the library. Log into the admin and hit the big "Scan All Libraries" button, then give it some time.

A refresh of that page should show a progress meter.

In order to encourage more accurate detection (assuming it can find/access the new file at all), there are advised naming schemes for your files. See here for a basic overview: https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/server/media/movies

I prefer to include the full name, year and imdb info of a movie, ie Citizen Kane isn't just "Citizen.Kane.mp4", it's:
"Citizen Kane (1941) [imdbid-tt0033467].mp4"
based on the information that's publically available here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/

Even if you don't enable imdb itself for the metadata lookup, that will give you an almost guaranteed detection during a library scan.

If this sounds like too much work, there's several automated tools for naming your personal dvd rips, such as Radarr.

If it's still not being detected, it's time to dig into the logs and find out WHY it's erroring.
Is it permissions?
Is it naming?
Is it the phase of the moon?

Most people in the meat industry agree it's a good move.
It's only the unscrupulous and greedy ones that are kicking up a fuss.
Just because we raise animals for slaughter doesn't mean we can't minimise the discomfort the animals experience.

Whilst I didn't always agree with their pronouncements, having a fact checker at this time seems to me a very important thing.

They include reference to "a new in-house verification reporting team, ABC News Verify", but that sounds like they'll only be verifying their own news, which is nice, but not the point.

You could read David Leigh's book, in which he published the full decryption key: https://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Inside-Julian-Assanges-Secrecy/dp/161039061X

That's literally how he leaked it.

The wikipedia article on it has the whole "he said - she said":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assange's_War_on_Secrecy

Including the lie that is frequently parroted about Assange not caring about people dying.

That was an editor at The Guardian, David Leigh.

This didn't happen, Wikileaks vetted information before releasing it for exactly this reason.

Name one person.

Its technically US soil, so he could enter his plea there in a US court, but its the closest place to Australia, because he obviously refused to step foot on the American continent.

Yes, the threats worked and the corrupt won.

Now he gets to see his kids.
I'd choose that too.
You can call it cowardice, I'd call it pragmatism.

The US get to show just how tough they are on whistleblowers and their associates.
Assange gets to go home.

If I was him, I'd keep my head down and try to get to know my kids.

For those not aware of the history, the Housing Trust was originally a Liberal policy in SA.
It was designed to keep rents under control and spur the construction industry, providing cheap basic accommodation.
It implemented the revolutionary idea of spreading out the 'poor houses' amongst the 'normies' in the community, so you didn't end up with slums.

Whilst I have never lived in one and hopefully would never have to, I'm glad that it's going to return to it's original mission because we need those things back.

I didn't say they were great.
I'm saying that the current rise in minors is a symptom of voter dissatisfaction.

These changes to WA law related to firearms are sold to the general public as being "tough on crime" or in some nebulous way "making communities safer", when realistically they won't impact criminals in any but the most tangential way.

What is going to happen is that someone who is a law abiding citizen, already subject to all sorts of regulatory compliance, is going to have decide which of their guns they can most easily forgo to get under an arbitrary cap.

If you don't like guns, lets use a metaphor and imagine you're a golfer who is now forced to choose whether they are going to forgo the putter, the sand wedge, the iron or the wood - because people who don't even play golf have decided you can only have 3.

There are very few people, even in a dyed in community like shooting, that are so one eyed as to wholly pivot their vote on a single issue.
But it has lead directly to minor parties and independents gaining traction in regional areas (places where gun owners per capita are higher).
This is why groups like Shooters Fishers and Farmers sprung up.

the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design

Can you share this knowledge, please?

This specific image from the article has me cringing:

So 450 x 1.8 = $810B

(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).

You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B

These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.

Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728

CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.

In short: Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.

8.5 * 7 = $59.5B

So it's within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.

Which don't cost as much to run, have no "scary" nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).

If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we're going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.

Nuclear isn't happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.

Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.

A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/

It's only 2GWh, but it's going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.

Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn't going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it's no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it's repaying loans on new constructions.

That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.

Yeah, link rot.
I did some googling for you: https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Low Emission Fossil Scenarios.pdf

But as far as I know we can’t build anywhere near enough hydro in Australia.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustralianElectricityOptionsPumpedHydro

A study at the Australian National University (ANU) identified about 3,000 low-cost potential sites around Australia with head typically better than 300 metres and storage larger than one gigalitre (see Figure 3). The sites identified have a combined energy storage potential of around 163,000 GWh. To put this into perspective, a transition to a 100% renewable electricity system would need 450 GWh of PHES storage. The potential pumped hydro energy storage resource is almost 300 times more than required. Developers can afford to be very selective since only about 20 sites (the best 0.1% of sites) would be required to support 100% renewable electricity generation.

Emphasis mine.

Let me paraphrase the LNP here:
"Private companies have researched Nuclear and decided it's not cost effective."
"Financial institutions have investigated Nuclear and decided they WILL NOT INVEST."
"But our financial backers at the Mineral Council and the private companies dragging the last of the profit out of their end of life coal power stations are insisting that we continue with our current market AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, so we've decided to announce an extremely long term plan, to scare private investment out of renewables short term."
"Don't worry, between NIMBYs in the target areas, laws surrounding nuclear energy, lack of local expertise and the general unsuitability of Nuclear for our widely dispersed yet small population, we won't actually build more than one of these things."
"Jokes on them, we were only pretending to be removed."

For instance, personal favourite The Prancing Pony has a special menu on: https://prancingponybrewery.com.au/event/winter-solstice-celebration/

However, NOLA in the city is repeating last years "Festival of Darkness" https://www.nolaadelaide.com/events/festival-of-darkness-2/ which seems like a good idea (especially as it's in the city, so if it turns out to be not so good, I'm surrounded by options).

Late to post, but it is happening in SA.