RNA vaccines may be relatively new, but they aren’t genetic therapy. It does not get integrated into your DNA.

Plus, weren’t there 3 covid vaccines? One of them used a more traditional method.

I do agree with that, I suppose we probably disagree with the speed reforms can take then.

What would you say are limiting factors on our ability to build then, if you think reducing immigration won’t significantly reduce housing construction?

Why do you say immigration a lever to pull but not the factors limiting construction?

You seem to be under the impression that we will just magically build and build if people are gone, but that’s not realistic. My point was that reducing immigration would significantly cut the number of houses built under the current housing market. We may be building too few homes now, but I doubt much at all will be built after cutting immigration either.

The problem is not that we have a housing market that’s too big, it’s that we have a broken market. Housing entering the market in this country may be insufficient when demand is high, but it’s straight up not entering the market where demand is low, and housing prices are higher than ever everywhere. We need to figure out why the market is broken and fix that if we even want so see housing prices stabilise for an extended period, let alone fall. Reducing immigration is a distraction at best.

Some people I know who supported the march do so because they’re upset at the upcoming spare/unused bedroom tax, which aims to bring more homes on the market to lower prices. They don’t care about housing people, they care about profit.

I’m also not convinced cutting immigration would help at all when it would only discourage construction, which is already below what’s needed to support birthrate + people moving in from rural areas. Immigration isn’t the cause of the crisis, so cutting it isn’t the solution.

Fortunately cash is still a common option in Australia (and I’m here), and likely will remain so for a long time. However, I’m increasingly hearing that other countries are increasingly refusing to accept cash.

It’s probably best to get something working on Linux phones before it’s too late, but as you said Google is worse than a thief, so whatever is made should not use it. Best to maximise the freedom for people in a horrible future, lest Android or iOS ever become the only viable options. Problem being I don’t know how that would work, especially since banks would probably hate freedom respecting systems.

I agree basic functionality is higher priority, but I fear tap to pay will reach basic functionality status in some other countries when their banks phase out any alternative. (I don’t think cryptocurrencies will ever become common). It may not directly impact me that other countries phase them out, but it will gradually kill the Linux phone ecosystem.

That’s fair, I’m quite happy on Graphene OS.

I feel like you’re conflating some things here. Tap to pay is more private and secure than a bank card, and is more private than most cryptocurrencies. Cash is obviously better, but it is increasingly looking like it might be phased out of some places eventually (I really hope not, but is a legitimate concern). However, you are right that it’s not open source and relies on trusting big companies that don’t like user freedom.

So I would say that some of the people using tap to pay don’t necessarily not care about privacy more than convenience. Some of them just want to be able to use money in places where cash is dying out.

I don’t use tap to pay personally.

Depending on what bank they have, tap to pay won’t work with Graphene OS either.

I don’t think that’s the issue with tap to pay. Linux already works with NFC, the issue is banks and payment apps.

On the one hand, changing the way the question is asked might make it more accurate as one snapshot in time. On the other, it makes comparisons between years harder, and the change could mask other religious changes currently happening in the community.

I’m also not sure if asking if they’re religious first and only asking for which if they say yes, won’t have no bias in a different way. I used to know people who would say: “The Bible is truth and not religion”, and those people would be counted as not being religious if the changes were to occur. Then again, those people are rare, and might feel compelled to answer that they are religious anyway, even if they don’t think of themselves as such.

I imagine some parasites would benefit from being delicious.

500 greater than steps a day.

Okay, knowing that you view it as neutral helps. For some reason I didn’t get that.

(I doubt it would have been used as an example of hypocrisy otherwise),

The drinking example was that blarghly was clearly criticizing other for their choices of what they put in their bodies because it is unhealthy while ignoring blarghly is also putting something in their body (alcohol) which could easily be criticized for being unhealthy. blarghly was demonstrating “Rules for thee, but not for me”. That rubbed me the wrong way.

I get that it’s meant to pick out hypocrisy, however I keep reading a deeper implication. Maybe I’m just reading things that aren’t there, but if drinking was virtuous, the right thing to do, would it be hypocritical for blarghly to drink? I don’t read it that way. I interpret that it’s treated as hypocrisy to mean that drinking is bad, that blarghly probably shouldn’t drink.

Maybe I misread this interaction, and maybe it’s not my business, but this reads to me as a judgement on blarghly for both implying judgment on other people and for drinking (I doubt it would have been used as an example of hypocrisy otherwise), then I read it as about how you make the superior decision to not judge people for drinking.

I built it with meson and found the audio visualiser was listening to microphone audio rather than the music. Perhaps it’s visualising microphone audio for you as well?

As much as it’s dumb, many other places (such as Australia, where I live) are similar at this point.

If you want something not Google, I used to have Ubuntu Touch on a Fairphone before Australia’s 3G network was switched off. It would have to be an older Fairphone however.

It’s good, I would have thought the same if I were to stumble on it now. Somebody must have provided an extremely quick downvote, because I hadn’t downvoted you