If you're having difficulty understanding, you could possibly try the rather unconventional approach of reading the second sentence too.

Maybe even all of the sentences....

In Australia the difference is that your four weeks annual leave is part of your entitlement that you've worked towards.
The company always owes you that money.

So if you work ten years and never take annual (non sick) leave, then when you leave the company owes you 40 weeks pay.

Sick leave isn't paid out like that. It does usually accrue (probably to prevent people suddenly all getting "sick" at the end of the financial year each year), but it doesn't get paid out when you leave.

The initial unit tests can always be written first, because true unit tests test output given input.

You know what the output should be for a given input, if you have to write the function first before you discover the possible outputs then your function is poorly defined from the beginning.

Once you've got your tests for your success case(s) and your anticipated failures, then you can write your function, then _after_ that you might use coverage to see if there's a path in your function as it is written that's not covered.
And then you're able to ask yourself if that path should even exist - if not, then fix it, if so, then write a test for it.

But you'll definitely get better results if you write the tests as specification first, and then write the function, than if you just test what you wrote after the fact.

Drinking a gallon of seawater rarely ends well for anyone, radiation or not.

Bank transfers - easy, fast and free.
And even before they were fast they were still the standard way to do it.
I never paid rent with a personal cheque - before bank transfers became the common way to do it, your landlord would give you a payment booklet and you'd take that to a branch of their bank and deposit the money.

When I bought my last car a year or so ago, I paid $20k via a bank transfer - although I spent a good 15 minutes double checking the numbers before hitting "Send".

It does feel like there should probably be some other solution for the really big numbers - like house purchases (for me, that was done with a Bank Cheque, 7 years ago), but maybe we'll all just be comfortable enough with bank transfers by then for that to be the solution there too. It really only needs a guarantee from someone that you can get your money back if you accidentally send to the wrong account.

They're quoting a Monty Python song...

Stuck in 1999, I see...

....that's not living "paycheck to paycheck". It's the exact opposite.

"living paycheck to paycheck" means that if you didn't get a paycheck, it's game-over.
If you've managed savings of more than a couple of months worth of wages/salary, and you actually _have_ any sort of positive "net worth" to build, then you're not "living paycheck to paycheck".

ok, so you've got testing in place. And an updated version breaks the tests.

Then what?
Sit on an old version indefinitely?
No, you're going to have to go to a bunch of effort to replace the library.

Just because it doesn't result in production problems doesn't mean it's not a giant pain in the arse, and a real cost to anyone (not just businesses) that depend on it.

Isn't that the current situation though?

Many things "have been known about" long before they reach the point where the various risks vs rewards result in them becoming mainstream and ubiquitous.

It won't detect.
It'll have a blocklist. Like every internet filter sold since the 1990s. You're way overthinking it.

Yes, you'd assume so.
I gather Bing can be added to the list at any moment.

Basically, the government needs to decide that it's actually going to change copyright law, and put a bill in front of parliament so that everyone can know where they actually stand.
I'm not even sure where the ACCC's rules actually fit in the scheme of things, legally.

Yup. That's precisely it.
And it's not even a general rule where everyone has to do it, nor does it benefit everyone who has their content linked to (or snippets embedded, which I think is the real issue).
It's Facebook and Google only. No one else will be forced to negotiate.
And as far as I'm aware, there's no mechanism for someone with a random web page or blog to become part of these negotiated payments. Only News Corp and Nine (and maybe a couple other high profile, specifically news organisations). So it does not benefit the Australian people, or small Australian business, or struggling local media. Just Rupert Murdoch and co.

It's massive, arbitrary market distortion from a supposedly neoliberal free-market government.

The argument that Google makes money from ads on the pages with those links is a total non-sequitor. If they're not violating anyone's copyright (and no one is claiming copyright violation), then they can make as much money as they like. A giant multinational company isn't magically entitled to another giant multinational company's money just because they'd like it quite a lot.