Wearing clothing without washing it first is NOT advisable.
When a label reads, "wash before wearing," it is a safety instruction.
If one wishes to wear new underpants that are "factory fresh" complete with formaldehyde, go for it. Just don't act surprised when diagnosed with leukaemia...
What have you got against Great White Sharks?
What have they ever done to you?
AFAIK, every time Pauline Hanson goes swimming at a beach, an environmental impact statement needs to be completed, and clean up operations commence soon afterwards.
Yeah! I hear you, especially regarding 'onboarding' often being a barrier. (Thankfully, Signal is bloody easy.)
My own attitude to family and friends is to say, "If ya wanna communicate with me, these are the acceptable options..."
If they don't wish to use appropriate methods, that's fine, but they can't message me. Bugger 'em!
I encourage the use of Signal as a 'gateway drug"... I mean, "app," and several people have subsequently added other private messaging apps as options.
A Signal user will commonly have the client app installed on their mobile device.
They may also have a second client on a laptop that syncs the same data.
If the user goes on holiday for a week but leaves their laptop behind, it won't be synced to the laptop.
On return from holiday, the laptop client uses its decryption keys to retrieve the last week's worth of messages.
I think Signal can do this (retrieve cached messages from the Signal servers) for up to 14 days.
That said, the entire Signal cache is encrypted on their servers, and one's messages are fully E2EE and retrievable only by the user.
(However, one weakness of Signal is that a desktop or laptop client's cache is stored unencrypted. To secure these, one needs to use full disk encryption at the OS level or higher.)
Corresponding parties? Messages? They don't have them.
They'd have to rewrite their backend code to obtain them, and changes would also need to be made to the Signal client apps.
It would not matter if the FISA Court ordered that logs be produced in secret by Signal. Any such logs could not be obtained without significant changes to the way Signal works. Users would know.
Yes, Signal does have some shortcomings, but these are acceptable in most 'use cases' for most threat models.
Signal is best used as a private, E2EE alternative to SMS. Only a fool would use it for the most sensitive of communications. (Like, you know, discussing an impending military strike...)
We all know of the alternatives, including (but not limited to) SimpleX, Session, Briar, Element etc.
Once you understand the code, you'll understand "what they can do" and what they cannot do.
When you've identified any flaw in the code that runs the Signal servers that would allow IP logging, let me know. I'll be glad to file the bug report on your behalf.
Signal knows when a user wqs last connected, but not the IP address of that connection. The system has been specifically designed to minimise the meta data available for collection.
To do the things you are suggesting that Signal could be forced to do, Signal would have to rewrite its entire codebase as well as the client apps.
Fortunately, Signal is open source, and such changes would be noticed.
As it stands, it doesn't matter what is demanded nor by whom as the only user data, including traffic analysis, that Signal can currently reveal is insignificant.
Signal simply cannot disclose data it itself cannot access.
Yes, decentralised services are preferable, but Signal has probably the easiest onboarding experience for the average user, especially those new to the concept of E2EE.
Oh, increasing the dingo population (by any method) would, as you say, definitely impact the roo population. No question!
But the location of that roo population matters and affects whether any cull makes economic sense.
I was a spotter and offsider for a few pro roo shooters over a few seasons.
Culling roos usually only makes sense when it benefits the farmer AND value can be extracted from the roos.
Most culls I've seen were in cattle country that was still 'close to town', usually within 1-2 hrs' drive. (I'm sure that culls also occur down in sheep country, too.)
Primary producers rarely look upon dingos favourably, and there'd be little support for increasing them.
The 'predator-prey' 'boom/bust' cycles are still common, but generally where the station's size is measured in 1000's of sq. kms. In the 'back of beyond', diesel alone costs much more than can be made from any culled roos.
Kangaroo populations will naturally go through "boom and bust" cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world's driest continent.)
Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That's nature, and it's a bad way to die
Having 'extra' dingos manage the 'roo population' would mean they'd suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.
When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available... including, as you say, livestock.
It's a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.
However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective...
... even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.
One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."
You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."
I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.
You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."
I haven't moved the goal posts at all.
This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".
@voracitude
Sean Bean? Naaah.
The husband survived.
Sean Bean pretty much only takes roles where his character dies...!
đ€Ș
@galoisghost