I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either. Tbh, I don't think that's the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, ...) they only know one direction globally and that's up. I think the actual issues are Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated sanctions on one of the main energy providers of Europe Trump's "trade wars" which make global supply lines unreliable and costs incalculable (global supply chains love nothing more than uncertainty) Uncertainty in regards to China/Taiwan Boomers retiring in western countries, which for the first time since pretty much ever means that the work force is shrinking instead of growing. Economical growth was mostly driven by population growth for the last half century with per-capita productivity staying very close to inflation. Disrupting changes in key industries like cars and energy. The west has been sleeping on may of these developments (e.g. electric cars, batteries, solar) and now China is curbstomping the rest of the world in regards to market share. High key interest rates (which are applied to reduce high inflation due to some of the reason above) reduce demand on financial investments into companies. The low interest rates of the 2010s and also before lead to more investments into companies. With interest going back up, investments dry up. All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available. There’s also the value of money has never been lower either. That's been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn't really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn't matter, only the relative value. To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required. What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that's not a "value of the money" issue.

It's a bit of a sticking point in Australia which is becoming more and more of a 'two-speed' society. Foxtel is for the rich classes, it caters to the right wing. Sky News is on Foxtel. These eSafety directives killing access to youtube won't affect those rich kids so much, but for everyone else it's going to be a nightmare. My only possible hope out of this is that maybe, Parliament and ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority, TV standards) decide that since we need a greater media landscape for kids and they can't be allowed to have it online, that maybe more than 3 major broadcasters could be allowed. It's not a lack of will that stops anyone else making a new free-to-air network, it's legislation, there are only allowed to be 3 commercial FTA broadcasters in any area. I don't love Youtube or the kids watching it, it's that the alternatives are almost objectively worse. 10 and 7 and garbage 24/7 and 9 is basically a right-wing hugbox too.

Set up arrs, you basically set it and forget it.

Lmfao I love this comment

I hate that both trademarks exist, but I'd say using a name form a Tolkien work to develop weapons is especially wrong. Like, abject.

It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.