It's all well and good using a Mythos Preview to do work. If it is useful then great. However, it will not be a free tool forever. How many thousands of AI bucks would have been burnt to achieve this?

Putting 2 and 2 together requires more mathematical capability than is presently on display in Australian politics.

It is presently illegal under Federal, State, and Territory laws to do most of the things needed to build and operate a nuclear power plant, fuel a plant, or dispose of its waste: a building permit for such a thing is a non-starter here. For shits and giggles, let's posit the appearance of magical SMR unicorns and native nuclear capability in the requisite timeline, no opposition to compulsory acquisition of the sites, and grant survival as a government long enough to achieve this given the legislative hurdles and State opposition. Even then, none of the proposed locations is slated to have more than one reactor and none are close enough to requisite massive data transmission infrastructure to qualify as suitable locations.

Last time I moved it was paperwork submitted through the gaining superannuation fund that, behind the scenes, triggered a transfer of the balance from the losing fund (i.e. the money does not pass through the customer). So, the process was not dependent on the user web interface of the losing fund although the customer may not have had a good idea of the precise balance. I am sure though, like for banks, the super funds have law and conditions they can invoke to prevent or moderate a run on transfers. I do agree that losing a pretty UI is not reason enough to cut your investment nose off to spite your face. If Unisuper is performing then stay.

I live for my weekly story of yet another new "feature" as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I have been dealing with A-SMGCS data streams from "big boy" systems for the past few months. Identifying everything moving in an airport precinct is a difficult problem. You have radars with all their weaknesses, active transponders with their weaknesses, numerous other potential sensors, a range of motions from stopped to ~200 knots on the ground and in the air, large numbers of obstructions (buildings, other aircraft, terrain, other transmissions...) that reduce raw data quality, human inputs (e.g. notification that an aircraft has been cleared to push back), disagreements about "facts" like what constitutes "airborne" or "landed", unavoidable measurement errors, ... and you have to synthesise a single, cohesive picture that is fit for its purposes (the one's you designed for and the others that have crept in). Above all, the system must improve safety. It cannot fail (usually at all) and certainly not in a way the causes safety issues.

Gravity is promiscuous at the best of times ;)

Seriously though, gravity is quite predictable all the way to the centre of a uniform solid sphere (not that Earth is entirely uniform). In any case, these guys are only going about 19 km down on a 6378 km journey. The vast majority of Earth's mass is still inside their location (all the heaviest stuff having sunk to the core). 19 km is about twice as deep as the deepest ocean trench, and we know gravity is not funky to at least that depth. (19 km is about the height Concorde flew, and gravity was not funky there either.) Pressure, temperature, and chemistry will be a problem long before gravity.

The "moral rights" are the rights held by the author/creator of a work to be identified as the author/creator, that the work will not be falsely attributed to another, and that the work not be used in a way to bring disrepute on the author/creator. These generally cannot be sold. The right to reproduce a work can be sold.

So, for example, the Aboriginal Flag was designed by Harold Thomas. He licensed it to WAM Clothing for use on clothing, and another group for flag production. Moral rights are what prevent WAM from claiming they, or Krusty the Clown, created the emblem. WAM, on several occasions, enforced the exclusivity of this license against the uses of the emblem on clothing. This license, in the minds of some, meant the flag was not "free". The government has essentially bought the rights to the use of the emblem on clothing from WAM, and some other rights from Harold Thomas. Unlike the US, this does not make anything "public domain" and, as is de rigueur for the present government, they have oversold the "freedom" involved. No permission is required for non-commercial use on clothing, but royalties may still be payable to the government for commercial use. These funds will go into channels that benefit Aboriginal peoples (remains to be seen).

The whole thing is a mess.

Like the ssh client that is included in Windows 10, and enabled by default since circa 2018, with an equivalent command line interface experience to telnet.

Here's the upside. You are on a voice call to 112/911 for a trauma. The operator currently has to ask you to verbally describe the wounds in order to assess which, if any, is life threatening. People are notoriously bad at this, often because they are directly involved and shocked. A photo or short video of each major injury could be useful in prioritising the response and also guiding a first-aid response. A continuous stream of someone involved in the trauma could be used to determine if a response needs to be escalated or changed at time passes. The first responder(s) can send in imagery that can be passed, or made available, to the receiving medical centre(s). Lots of useful reasons.

As for the butt-text and pranks. The system could be designed to only accept SMS/MMS from a number that is currently on a voice call to 112/911, or from a number associated with an active incident, or from numbers pre-registered as, for example, belonging to someone with a disability that impacts on the ability to use voice. That is, the voice communication remains the primary first contact and everything else follows. In any case, the emergency services often have access to the phone or phone system's idea of its location (GPS if available), which makes pranking a more traceable proposition.

The qualifying attribute of "The L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science International Awards" is that the recipients are, "rewarded for their important contributions to the progress of science, either in Life sciences or in the fields of Physical sciences, Mathematics and Computer science." Are you saying that the UK should not try to attract such simply because they are women? Would you apply the same criteria to Nobel Prize winners, about 97% male, because the UK already has a great collection of cocks?

Judged by the colour of its waste products? I thought that was a more pleasing Cherenkov blue in the spent fuel holding tanks

470MW to "power approximately one million homes". UK homes must be truly miserly electricity consumers at approximately 470 watts per home.

In Rolls Royce's 2017 SMR brochure, the figure was 220-440MW. Marketing inflation is alive and well, but the 470MW figure seems roughly consistent. I guess there's an unstated, "ten reactors per power station," assumption. At 2 billion per SMR they come in around the 20 billion mark, just like derided figure attached to "large scale nuclear."

Non-fungible Token. Prepare to enter a world of make believe if you research further.

Maybe Unimatrix Zero? Brought to you by another ruthless mob

For me it does help the web page that the AC linked carries the classic red flags: a block in which they account for the number of Tweets, blogs mentions, Facebook pages, number of news outlets, Reddit mentions, videos, and reads in a proprietary reader. There is some citation info if you dig a little. I had to dig a lot more to find mention of peer review.