You joke now, but I would assume there are many politicians there who would love to do that. My guess is they are waiting for your democracy to be weakened enough that they no longer have to worry about voters actually having a say in who is elected, then they will fix that pesty Internet thing.

There are benefits to being tracked? Do I get to chose them? I guess I have been using the wrong social media so far.

Follow up question: Why do you stop getting your benefits if it is an opt-out choice? As I read it you can chose to continue to use social media exactly they way you do now, nothing changes unless you opt out.

Sure, the first few times. After that the Aussie government may amend the law to try to have sites blocked. That in my mind is a step too far, but it has not stop governments before.

Your being obtuse, but it is a fair point if the way the law is written is not careful in its wording.

The common argument that a linear feed from people you explicitly chose to follow is not algorithm based. This was how Facebook worked in the early days. This is the intent of the law.

If you think of "algorithm-based feeds" as common description of a way to chose content for social media users, vs a linear subscription feed, then the intent of the law is clear. If you work with software then you are right. A case where words matter. Again it will all come down to the wording of the law and how they are interpreted legally by lawyers, not by programmers.

I think you missed the part where users can chose if to have algorithm feeds. I would argue that Facebook and YouTube are very different types of social media.

In the case of Facebook I would turn off algorithm feeds, but since this is not an options I simply don't use Facebook. I wanted Facebook to see what friends and family where up to, which the introduction algorithm feeds made impossible.

In the case of YouTube I would leave the algorithm feeds on as I do use it to discover new stuff. I do wonder how people can use YouTube without a good ad blocker, but that is a different issue.

If I could use Facebook with only post from friends I might consider using it again. Endless scrolling is the main reason I don't use most social media and the lack of it is one of the main reasons I still use Slashdot.

Well actually...

L1 charging is using a regular domestic power socket. In the USA that will be 110V but in most other countries that will be 220 to 240V. In my case my level 1 charger can do 10A at 230V.

L2 charging is using fixed wired EVSE. In the USA that is typically two phase 220V at up to 80A and in the rest of the world that is single phase 220 to 240V at up to 32A or 3 phase 415V at up to 16A. In my case both my level 2 chargers are 32A at 230V.

For completeness L3 is DC fast charging.

This is all covered in the J1772 spec. Section 3.1 covers Level 1 and makes no mention of voltages but rather starts with "A method that allows an EV/PHEV to be connected to the most common grounded electrical receptacles..." and is shown in Figure 7. Section 3.2 covers Level 2 and starts with "A method that uses dedicated AC EV/PHEV supply equipment..." and is shown in Figure 8.

The J1772 spec is a bit US centric, the IEC-61851 spec covers the international situation better, but basically builds on top of the J1772 spec. They do use the terminology 'Mode' instead of 'Level' and Modes 1 and 2 cover Level 1, Mode 3 is Level 2 and Mode 4 is Level 3. All of this is confusing enough that many people use the term granny charger to refer to a L1 charger which they can carry in their car, wall charger to refer to a L2 charger which they have installed in their garage and supercharger to refer to a L3 charger which is fast public chargers.

Well actually...

Probably the most common L1 charging globally is 230V 10A. 120V is pretty rare, only the USA and parts of Japan that I know of but I am sure there is others. Likewise that 100 mile figure is well above the average daily commute globally. L1 charging is fine for the vast majority of commuters.

I would agree that 100 miles daily from a 15A 120V outlet would be an issue. It might get closer if you factor in charging to 100% in the weekend on a BEV with a large battery.

Your argument is basically logical and correct. However people will still pay Altman. It is like using online files storage when you could self hosting file storage. Individuals do that because it is beyond there skill set, or they are lazy and are happy to pay for online storage. However when it comes to companies I am surprised at how many pay for online storage when it would be cheaper for them to self host. I wonder how many companies will continue to buy tokens when they could do stuff in house?

I missed that point, until you drew my attention to it. So if I understand Altman correctly then every product and service I have ever used before AI was never capable or helpful. So that human I spoke to on the phone today about a service they provide and who was able to do exactly what I wanted was not helpful? I wonder if Altman really believes that, or if it just a false assertion he knowingly made for convenience.

How does a chunk of land create software? I think you mean people, or AIs, create software. Crazy, right?

I guess I was kind of pissed at Altman's statement "AI adoption is "non-negotiable" for countries" as if he was implying the people in the country didn't have a say in the matter.

Yes but "Sam Altman said AI adoption is "non-negotiable" for countries", not "Sam Altman said AI adoption is "non-negotiable" for use in countries". I am be pedantic, but the point is real. The choice to make use of AI is down to individuals, not countries. Yes, there will be individuals in governments in countries that will make decisions on how, when and where, if at all, to use AI.

To expand on my point it is very much negotiable what AI is used where. At the government level if that government is not located in the USA it would be foolhardy in the extreme to use an USA based or controlled AI for any mission critical application as trump could throw a temper tantrum, as he often does, and shutdown access to that AI.

How does a country even use AI? People use AI and where that AI is largely doesn't matter.

I'm personal not interested in AI which is a subscription. For me it needs to be local and running on my own hardware, which is not what Altman and co wants.

That is good for speed. I prefer a PoE hat and PXE booting. I have about 14 of them doing different jobs all booting and running from a NAS. Makes remote updates easy too.

When dealing with trump it is was always going to be a lose-lose situation. If you had accepted the USA conditions you would lose more in the long term so I think Canada has done the right thing. Canada has earned the worlds respect for taking proactive steps to protect itself by diversifying its trade etc. I am keen for our country to join in a free trade agreement with Canada given our common values and attitudes.