I don’t like that the conservative party is using provincial funds to advertise for their political views – especially with advertisements which aren’t rigorously truthful. It feels slimy, but does anyone know if this is legal?

I think both of these positions are important for coercing Sony. If everyone who was upset left permanently and kept their bad reviews, Sony would have no incentive to backtrack their next boneheaded decision. But it’s also true that if everyone jumps back in as if nothing happens, they have no incentive to avoid excessive greed in the future.

Most of the players will come back, and so Sony will be rewarded for compliance. But some players will be permanently alienated, and those permanently lost profits will be a reminder of what happens when you try to screw your players over.

Yeah, the rest of the criers are children. Except the Silver Rush one if I recall correctly – he’s an adult with an adult voice.

Wait, what? I could have sworn it was a child.

Yeah. Part of me is uneasy with the monopoly, but unless they start abusing it I don’t think there’s really a problem. Besides, they’re not the same as a railway: nothing’s stopping a game company from directly providing executable downloads, and some do.

Depends on the income period – I’d do 25% of daily income for a first offence.

I see. Would there also be an arc if you put your hand near the generator while it was running, then?

Does the human body rapidly discharge into air or something?

Okay, so you’re insulated from ground. The generator charges you up. You are at the same charge as the generator. You let go of the generator. Why is there a potential difference?

Thing that confuses me is that when you let go, you should have the same charge as the generator. No charge difference, no arc. Unless I’m wrong about something, which I probably am (hence my confusion).

Why wouldn’t the electrons go to ground through your body while you’re touching it?

It’s actually counterproductive! People who want to screen stuff about abuse from their internet experience can set up filters. Those filters are broken when you censor the relevant words!

Interesting. Unlike most measures, bike lanes are also a positive on their own, climate change or not. I assume this analysis doesn’t include negative-cost solutions like carbon pricing.

That’s not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can’t pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn’t create jobs or lower prices – and raising taxes won’t destroy jobs or raise prices.

They’re condemning microtransaction-based models, so it might not be bad… but I’ll believe it when I see it.

The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn’t say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There’s also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it’s $160,000 per victim. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one’s image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)

New York, New York?

That seems to be Tynan’s MO. I like it. No hype, no teasers, just quietly works until he has something worth selling.

Typically it does flow better, but I have a little mental stumble every time someone uses “woman” or “women” as an adjective. I know why they’re doing it and I can’t really fault them, it just… feels off.

Made an account with mailinator.

Lewis Harvey recalls the moment the internet realised he was a male of a certain age: he started being bombarded with ads for stuff it thinks Australian men are supposed to like.

Harvey noticed how algorithms seeking to capture young men chased him with unsolicited content, including information about drinking, gambling ads on high rotation, and clips by misogynist influencer Andrew Tate.

Harvey, 23, a screen production graduate, has placed a bet only once in his life and feels fortunate to have positive role models of manhood, including his soccer coach, in his life.

But harmful messages about men needing to be dominant, aggressive, have as much sex as possible, be in control in relationships with women – and use violence to get respect – still hold power over many Australian men, research has found.

The biggest Australian study of attitudes about what it means to “be a real man”, just released by The Men’s Project of Jesuit Social Services, has revealed 37 per cent of men aged 18 to 45 – nearly four in 10 – feel pressure to conform to rigid male norms, including that men must be tough, not show emotion, be in control, not do household chores and have the final word in relationships with women.

One-quarter of the representative sample of 3500 Australian men said they believe in these rules, which lead to a greater likelihood of them perpetrating violence and experiencing poorer mental health and wellbeing.

Harvey said he had noticed the internet trying to pigeonhole him, and how even when he actively dismissed clips popping up in his feed, the algorithm still “gives it a shot”.

“Every second advert I get on any social media platform is a gambling ad, to the point where I could recognise the guy from the Sportsbet ad sitting in a bar I was in. It was funny – like, ‘I can’t believe I can pick him out of the crowd’,” he said.

“I always noticed, and found it interesting, especially in about the last 10 years when the internet got big enough to kind of pigeonhole you; to see a lot of things that are being assumed – because I’m a bloke – I want to hear about.”

The Man Box 2024: Re-examining what it means to be a man in Australia report is the most recent such study by The Men’s Project. The data, collected by CloudResearch and analysed by Wallis Social Research, found Australian men who most strongly endorse rigid male norms are more likely to have sexually abused their partner, sexually harassed women, experienced poor mental health, and displayed problematic gambling behaviours.

Jesuit Social Services’ Matt Tyler said the research showed the negative impacts of believing in outdated ideas about masculinity: “[It] finds that when men believe these rules, the results can be devastating for people in their lives, particularly women, as well as for men themselves.”

Men who most strongly agreed with the rules were 31 times more likely to believe “domestic violence should be handled privately”, and 17 times more likely to have hit their partner. They were eight times more likely to have thoughts of suicide nearly every day, and six times more likely to have forced a partner to do something sexually degrading or humiliating.

“More than half of the men who most strongly agreed with Man Box rules met the criteria for problem gambling,” the research found.

Compared with the 2018 study, which looked at men aged 18-30, the data showed “some good news”, said Tyler, in that social pressure to conform to these standards had dropped by 12 percentage points – especially [regarding] thinking it was required of them to act tough.

“Where we’ve seen less of a change, and it is reason for concern, is related to ideas around the use of violence, and the expectations related to relationships with women,” he said.“For example, regarding the Man Box rules that men should use violence to get respect if necessary, and in heterosexual relationships, a man should always have the final say.”

The report found 44 per cent of men aged 18 to 45 thought a guy who doesn’t fight back when pushed around is weak.

Long-time gender and violence researcher Professor Michael Flood, a member of the study’s advisory group, said it was encouraging that in the latest survey, fewer respondents agreed that men should know where their female partner is all the time than in 2018 (though in 2024, 35 per cent of 18-35 year-olds, and 33 per cent of 31 to 35 year-olds agreed that they should).

Flood said it was positive that traditional models of how to be a man – “in which men are expected always to be tough, aggressive, risk-taking, stoic, heterosexual, homophobic and transphobic, emotionally inexpressive, hostile to femininity, and dominant” – did not receive majority support among young men, and most did not think society was imposing this on them.

“The messages young men receive about manhood have improved in some ways,” he said. “There has been some decline in the past five years in unhealthy and gender-inequitable forms of manhood.”

But Flood noted it was concerning that one-quarter to one-third of young men still endorse “dangerous and sexist models of manhood”.

“This endorsement is not declining fast,” he said. “Men’s levels of endorsement of traditional masculine ideology generally are steady.”

There was little change in attitudes towards male aggression, or in men always having the final say in relationships or marriages, but a shift away from men always knowing their intimate partner’s whereabouts was encouraging.

Flood agreed with Matt Tyler that “traditional masculine norms also constrain young men’s own health and wellbeing”, and said work to promote healthy or positive masculinities needed to be scaled up in Australia, including at workplaces, sports clubs, and in online platforms and communities.

Amanda Alford, acting chief executive of violence prevention agency Our Watch, said it was extremely concerning that men who accepted outdated views about manhood were more likely to have hit their partner.

“This research provides clear direction on what needs to be done to prevent this violence,” she said.

“We need to support boys and young men through the process of learning about who they are, particularly given the pressures they face from many areas of their lives, including friends, family, social media and pornography.

“We need to be having open and honest conversations about porn, sex and relationships and work together to make sure young men have role models that help them understand the healthier and more positive ways of being a man.”

Director of Monash University’s gender and family violence prevention centre, Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon, said understanding harmful forms of masculinity was essential to helping prevent violence against women.

“This research is critical to understanding how we prevent men’s violence, and how men can be supported to challenge dangerous ideas about what it means to be a man,” said Fitz-Gibbon, who is chair of Respect Victoria, which supported the research.

“A strong focus on primary prevention efforts will continue to shift the dial on men’s attitudes towards themselves and others.”