Linkage

Ocean waves crashing on the world’s shores emit more PFAS into the air than the world’s industrial polluters, new research has found, raising concerns about environmental contamination and human exposure along coastlines.

The study measured levels of PFAS released from the bubbles that burst when waves crash, spraying aerosols into the air. It found sea spray levels were hundreds of thousands times higher than levels in the water.

The contaminated spray likely affects groundwater, surface water, vegetation, and agricultural products near coastlines that are far from industrial sources of PFAS, said Ian Cousins, a Stockholm University researcher and the study’s lead author.

[…] 

He said that the results showed how the chemicals are powerful surfactants that concentrate on the surface of water, which helps explain why they move from the ocean to the air and atmosphere.

“We thought PFAS were going to go into the ocean and would disappear, but they cycle around and come back to land, and this could continue for a long time into the future,” he said.

As you read this, the Victorian Government is rewriting the laws and legislation that govern how the city we live within looks and feels. In 2024, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform Melbourne's design regulations, and to empower our city to become world-leading in terms of both liveability and design. Join Kerstin Thompson (Kerstin Thompson Architects), Andrew Maynard (Austin Maynard Architects), and Colleen Peterson (Ratio Consultants) to hear about the challenges of our current dysfunctional system, and the opportunities we have right now to reform these laws and create the best possible Melbourne. Hosted by YIMBY Melbourne and featuring three leaders from Melbourne's urban planning, architecture, and design industries, this night is one for enthusiasts and experts alike.

 The following searchable document is the complete White Paper as published as an Appendix to the paper by H.C. Coombs (1994) 'From Curtin to Keating: The 1945 and 1994 White Papers on Employment', Discussion Paper, North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University.

It is the only on-line archive of the full paper in its original format that I am aware of. I have corrected some formatting issues that were in the Coombs Appendix version. 

We are at a unique juncture in the AI timeline; one in which it’s still remarkably nebulous as to what generative AI systems actually can and cannot do, or what their actual market propositions really are — and yet it’s one in which they nonetheless enjoy broad cultural and economic interest.

It’s also notably a point where, if you happen to be, say, an executive or a middle manager who’s invested in AI but it’s not making you any money, you don’t want to be caught admitting doubt or asking, now, in 2024, ‘well what is AI actually, and what is it good for, really?’ This combination of widespread uncertainty and dominance of the zeitgeist, for the time being, continues to serve the AI companies, who lean even more heavily on mythologizing — much more so than, say, Microsoft selling Office software suites or Apple hocking the latest iPhone — to push their products. In other words, even now, this far into its reign over the tech sector, “AI” — a highly contested term already — is, largely, what its masters tell us it is, as well as how much we choose to believe them.

And that, it turns out, is an uncanny echo of the original smoke and mirrors phenomenon from which that politics journo cribbed the term. The phrase describes the then-high tech magic lanterns in the 17th and 18th centuries and the illusionists and charlatans who exploited them to convince an excitable and paying public that they could command great powers — including the ability illuminate demons and monsters or raise the spirits of the dead — while tapping into widespread anxieties about too-fast progress in turbulent times. I didn’t set out to write a whole thing about the origin of the smoke and mirrors and its relevance to Our Modern Moment, but, well, sometimes the right rabbit hole finds you at the right time.

Melbourne’s Missing Middle’s signature recommendation—a new Missing Middle Zone—would enable six-storey, mixed-use development on all residential land within 1 kilometre of a train station and 500 metres of a tram stop—building an interconnected network of 1,992 high-amenity, walkable neighbourhoods.
‍
Melbourne’s Missing Middle envisions Parisian streetscapes across all of inner urban Melbourne, along our train and tram lines and near our town centres. Gentle, walk-up apartments, abundant shopfronts, sidewalk cafes and sprawling parks replacing unaffordable and unsustainable cottages. 
‍
The Missing Middle is the most desirable, walkable urban form, typified by inner Paris, and it should be legal to build in our most desirable, economically productive areas.

Children need more independent mobility. Modern suburbia is car-dependent, and kids/teenagers cannot get around without their parents driving them. This has serious consequences on their physical and mental health and well-being.

Awash in vehicle data, most car manufacturers, or OEMs—original equipment manufacturers—found themselves in an unfamiliar role. “What has given rise to the industry is that most OEMs have recognized that they are better at making cars than they are at processing and handling data,” said Andrew Jackson, research director at PTOLEMUS Consulting Group, which studies the connected vehicle industry.

This created an opening for a new kind of third-party data company, vehicle data hubs, which are at the center of the connected vehicle data market.

[…]

Andrea Amico is founder and CEO of Privacy4Cars, an automotive data privacy company. Amico said of vehicle data hubs, “So, there’s many sources out there. Their business proposition is collect all this data, create massive databases, try to standardize this data as much as possible and then literally sell it. So that’s their business model.”

As Michael Gove launched his preposterous and dangerous new extremism definition, some of the groups he targeted have hit back – calling it a “deep dive into authoritarianism” and laying cover for the government “aiding and abetting” Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

There are two clear, connected issues to address. The first is the extent of power concentration, which contradicts the decentralised spirit I originally envisioned. This has segmented the web, with a fight to keep users hooked on one platform to optimise profit through the passive observation of content. This exploitative business model is particularly grave in this year of elections that could unravel political turmoil. Compounding this issue is the second, the personal data market that has exploited people’s time and data with the creation of deep profiles that allow for targeted advertising and ultimately control over the information people are fed.

How has this happened? Leadership, hindered by a lack of diversity, has steered away from a tool for public good and one that is instead subject to capitalist forces resulting in monopolisation. Governance, which should correct for this, has failed to do so, with regulatory measures being outstripped by the rapid development of innovation, leading to a widening gap between technological advancements and effective oversight.

The future hinges on our ability to both reform the current system and create a new one that genuinely serves the best interests of humanity. To achieve this, we must break down data silos to encourage collaboration, create market conditions in which a diversity of options thrive to fuel creativity, and shift away from polarising content to an environment shaped by a diversity of voices and perspectives that nurture empathy and understanding.

The lives of detainees in Australia’s immigration detention centres are controlled by a secret rating system that is opaque and often riddled with errors, a Guardian investigation has found.

Developed by Serco, the company tasked with running Australia’s immigration detention network, the Security Risk Assessment Tool – or SRAT – is meant to determine whether someone is low, medium, high or extreme risk for factors such as escape or violence.

Detainees are also rated for an overall placement and escort risk – which may determine how they are treated while being transported, such as whether they are placed in handcuffs and where they stay inside a detention centre – but aren’t given the opportunity to challenge their rating, and typically are not even told it exists.

Immigration insiders, advocates and former detainees have told Guardian Australia the SRAT and similar algorithmic tools used in Australia’s immigration system are “abusive” and “unscientific”. Multiple government reports have found that assessments can be littered with inaccuracies – with devastating consequences.