Zagorath

uh, slugs are bugs

I'mma be honest, I would not instinctively agree with this.

Sure, but we're having this conversation in 2025, after phylogenetic classification has long since taken over as the way we describe the relations between species.

Birds are unambiguously reptiles.

Mammals are not reptiles, but are the most closely-related animals to them.

as far apart as you are from a reptile

That would mean...not very. Reptiles are an extremely broad and diverse group, containing everything from penguins and crocodiles to tuataras and pythons. Mammals are the most closely-related extant clade that is generally not considered "reptile", to reptiles.

Arachnids, on the other hand, are more distantly related to insects. Crustaceans form their closest relatives, followed by myriapods (centipedes & millipedes). Only then do arachnids appear.

Ok but "bug" has multiple meanings, and almost nobody means "hemiptera" when they say it. More commonly, it's any terrestrial arthropod. Arachnids are bugs. Centipedes are definitely bugs.

Heck, there's a broader definition that basically includes all arthropods. "Moreton bay bugs" are a popular food this time of year. And they're a kind of lobster.

@non_burglar@lemmy.world is correct, but is perhaps not explaining it perfectly for the practical questions you seem to be asking.

If you have, say, two Docker containers for two different web servers (maybe one's for your Wiki, and the other is for your portfolio site), you can have both listening on ports 80 and 443 of their container, but a third Docker container running a reverse proxy which has access to your machine's ports 80 and 443. It then looks at the incoming request and decides which container to route the request to (e.g., http://192.168.1.2/wiki/%s requests go to the Wiki container, and all other requests go to portfolio site).

Now, reverse proxies can be run without Docker, but the isolation Docker adds makes it all a lot easier to manage, in part because you don't need to configure loads of different ports.

Sorry mate, but you've got it wrong. The Prime Minister has specifically come out and said that this law is aimed only at companies, and that children or the parents of children who are able to get onto social media anyway will not be punished. Only the companies that let them slip through.

And you only need to read the legislation to see that that's true. There are no penalties associated with accessing social media under the age of 16. Only with "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform...failing to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts". Or less closely related, "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not collect information...for the purpose of complying with [the above requirement] if the information is of a kind specified in the legislative rules", and another similar "a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not...collect government-issued identification material...for the purpose of complying with section [the above requirement]", but this last clause "does not apply if...the provider provides alternative means...for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user". It is also the case that a person who provides an age-restricted social media platform "must comply with a requirement...to give to the Commissioner, within the period and in the manner and form specified by the notice [about that person's compliance with the law]...to the extent that the person is capable of doing so."

That's it. That's all the new penalties that can be applied.

Here's a page from the eSafety Commissioner that also confirms it.

Are there be penalties for under-16s if they get around the age restrictions?

There are no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers.

Omg that is amazing. What a consummate gentleman.

The fact is, right now we know that Facebook has at times made a deliberate, conscious choice to leave in aspects of their algorithm that were causing harm. Their own studies have shown this. Making that practice illegal—knowingly causing harm with your algorithm—would be a good place to start with regulation.

no age can go on the internet.

I don't think anyone had ever suggested anything like that.

it’s way too obvious that this law ain’t gonna achieve its stated aim

Absolutely. See my much longer comment elsewhere in the thread for all the real problems with this bill. We don't need conspiracy theories. Hanlon's razor very much applies here. It's incompetence, not malice.

However, I think we can look at the worst part of this Bill—the nature of its passage through Parliament—for a clue as to its underlying purpose. It passed in just a week, right before Christmas last year, but didn't actually come into effect until yesterday. The goal was good PR. I suspect not rattling cages with the big social media companies was part of it too. They wanted to look like they were doing something to protect kids, and hopefully win the election off the back of it (not that they needed much help with that, with how incompetent the LNP were), but they didn't want to put up the fight that would be necessary to force the social media companies into actually making their algorithms less harmful...to children and adults. It's lazy, it's cowardly, it won't work. But it's not a secret ploy to spy on you.

with Labor getting over half the lower house seats from about a third of the votes

Yikes. This is some really dangerous misinformation. Labor received 55% of the votes. Because we use an actual democratic system, not the FPTP farce that America and the UK have. You cannot compare first preferences in IRV to votes in FPTP.