TV networks in various countries buy exclusive rights to distribute the program in thier country (or sometimes a group of countries, for example EU regs mean you can't really limit a license to an individual country in the EU).

The primary rightsholder can't sell rights to distribute the program worldwide to netflix because they have already sold exclusive rights to distribute it in particular countries to various TV networks.

So getting rights to show programs in australia requires a totally new set of negotiations with totally different parties to getting rights to show those same shows in the US.

Because generally the rightsholders sign exclusive contracts with a company in each "market" (usually either a single country or a small group of countries). The result is netflix can't just go to the original creator of the content and buy a worldwide license, they have to buy licenses for each "market" from whoever controls the rights in that market.

So if netflix want's to enter a new market (e.g. australia) they have to start their negotiations for content largely from scratch (there may be some indie content that they got a worldwide license for but they are highly unlikely to get that for the big name stuff). That takes time and may not result in as good a deal as they got in their primary US market (see complaints from canadian and european netflix users about how the library sucks compared to the US one).

Now netflix have to make some attempt to keep people from other countries out to satisfy their contracts with those they bought the rights from. The question is how far do they have to go, is using a standard geolocation service suficiant or do they have to go beyond that and put in place further measures to make evading the block more difficult.

Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.

The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.

The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).

Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".

It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).

Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".

Yes distance learning institutions exist and some of them even have a good reputation but they have remained an exception, not revolutionised education.

if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in? again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.

On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".

The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.

Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?

Well "incorrectly" is a loaded term. Si prefixes are base-10 but the byte is not an SI unit. The IEC issued a standard saying that binary versions of the prefixes should be indicated with an extra i but only long after the use of those binary prefixes without the i was well established in the computer software industry.

Well kickstarter campaigns are limited length, so it's natural that after a successful campaign a group would switch to their own methods of taking preorders.

The problem with that theory is what is known of as "impulse interference". When some large and sudden electrical event (distant lightening strikes, switching of large loads, that sort of thing) happens it can create electromagnetic radiation that is very limited in the time domain but very widespread in the frequency domain.

With an analog transmission you get a very brief flicker but stuff almost immediately returns to normal. With compressed and error-corrected digital transmissions either nothing happens at all or the error correction is overwhelmed and the system loses sync. Once it loses sync it takes substantial time for it to get back into sync during which you typically get a frozen picture and no sound.

That's the frustrating thing about digital broadcasts. With analog you have a gradual variation in quality and can tweak your antenna to get it as good as you can. With digital if your reception is on the edge you get a perfect picture/sound most of the time but occasionally (how occasional depends on how marginal the reception is and what interference sources you have arround) multi-second breakups when impulse interference causes the error correction to fail and the whole system has to re-sync.

A perfect picture most of the time with periodic multi-second breakups is much worse than a fuzzy picture with periodic interference flashes.

The anti-salt propaganda has as much basis as the "wisdom" of drinking eight glasses of water a day. It became a thing everyone "knows" is true without questioning if there is any factual support.

Much the same is true of the various versions of "five a day".

Nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for how salt intake causes heart disease. All you ever get is a lot of hand waving and vague statistics collected from people who already have advanced CV disease.

Not just with salt, when it comes to CVD. Dosn't help either that many of the people involved have no excuse for not knowing the difference between a lipoprotein and a steroid either.

Or alternatively that there is a gentic link but no one gene has a significant impact with instead lots of genes having a small impact each and the impact of each individual gene is too small to distinguish from chance.

Climate models don't even project 10 years into the future well, they work more on 30 year time scales.

So do those from 1984 do a better job than those form 2004 when it comes to matching what we observe to be the case now? No matter how each group of models compare with the other how well do they do in absolute terms?