Where do you get those graphs? Does it also compare federation between Lemmy and Piefed/Pylova instances? I've noticed at least some of my comments on Quokkau are having federation issues with AZ.

what they process and companies behind what goes in the dc’s does

Yes but there's literally zero incentive for those people to be in Dalby. They'll be in Brisbane, or Sydney...or Singapore.

If we’re going to be using trillions of tokens we should be powering them with our own equipment and ideally powering them with renewables

Sure, if we really need datacentres for the purposes of AI slop, then it's better if they're on renewables. Which is yet another reason this is a bad idea.

The proposed Western Downs digital park...will connect to the Braemar power station

It's an absolute hard no from me on those grounds. We need to be drastically slashing our fossil fuel dependence. There's no excuse for increasing any use of fossil fuels in 2026.

I saw the Lord Mayor's comments earlier in the week and my immediate thought was what a complete fuckwit he is. "Can't keep privately owned items on public land" my arse. He's fucking obsessed with it. It's far more important to him that people be allowed to store their private property on public land than it is that people should be able to get around their city safely and conveniently.

Damn looks like you had a good arvo.

More jobs? These things employ like 3 people.

To some extent the water usage concerns are overblown, because a lot of the water usage is a one-time use followed by recycling the same water. But they do still need a heap upfront and continual usage of some not-insignificant amount. And western Queensland is not exactly known for its abundance of water...

Farrrk. I wrote this 2 days ago on my Quokkau account but it looks like it never federated. Here it is again:

Are you sure that letter is relevant here? They didn't implement this at the start of the year when the minimum age of 16 for social media came in. And the age limit that just came in seems to be an 18+ one, not 16+. This is related to a different legislative instrument that happens to also fall under the Online Safety Act 2021. From the eSafety website:

For search engine services, internet carriage services, and hosting services, the relevant Age-Restricted Material Codes took effect starting on 27 December 2025.

For designated internet services, relevant electronic services, social media services, app distribution platforms, and equipment providers, the relevant Age-Restricted Material Codes took effect starting on 9 March 2026.

Some requirements under the Age-Restricted Material Codes have a staged commencement. This includes some requirements around appropriate age checks, including for logged-in users of search engine services (must be in place before 27 June 2026), and for users seeking to download apps rated R18+ from app distribution services (must be in place before 9 September 2026).

Note that none of that page is about the social media minimum age law which came into effect on 10 December 2025.

That letter seems pretty narrowly talking about the classification of Steam as an "age‐restricted social media platform". Whether they were classified as such or not in the end I'm not sure, but this latest round of age verification doesn't give us a hint either way. I'd guess they were not, since the government was pretty clear about saying gaming wouldn't be included under the SMMA law and I don't recall hearing anything about Steam being included in any restrictions until last week.

The requirements around multiple methods do not exist in the Age-Restricted Material Codes, only the Social Media Minimum Age obligation, though eSafety says companies "should take into account the...fairness of the solution" (note: pdf link. Check section 5.1(c)). Steam's approach may be challengable legally, but it is not nearly as much of a slam dunk as it would be if the SMMA obligation were the relevant one.

Yeah, he was an Air Force test pilot. But I mean…in 90% of contexts the distinction doesn't matter. People say "army" when they mean "military".

Oh damn, it did? Gotta be honest I don't remember that at all, and I absolutely loved that show.

The journalist whose byline is on that article works for Guardian US, according to their profile. So I'm gonna remove this article.

We're still in the process of refining our rules around this, but cards on the table: my opinion is that even if this was reported by the ABC, SBS, or Guardian Australia, it still should be removed. I want to see the article itself focused at least in part on the Australian connection. Something much more likely to happen, but not guaranteed, when it's in an Australian outlet.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that about Lemmy. It has basically the same algorithm as Reddit. It might work for Mastodon and Friendica, relative to Xitter and Facebook, though.

If the AUKUS flip-flop didn't do it, there's zero chance that requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a fair price in a situation where the entire world knows they're currently being allowed to rip us all off will have any impact on other industries.

Most gas is already under contract. Breaking those contracts would massively hurt our economy

Nah fuck that. There aren't alternatives they can reasonably turn to. The only thing hurting our economy is allowing companies to steal from the Australian people without paying for our resources.

Courts can't overturn it if Parliament enacts a law specifically saying they can do it. There's certainly nothing in the constitution that would prevent this.