links.mimuki.net

This has been bookmarked in my brain for a while now already.

Near certain this is slop. Saving to investigate more analytically later.

Songs created mostly or entirely by artificial intelligence will be excluded from Australia's official music charts from this Friday.

In short, in the context of sex:

M:

• Not recommended for under 15s, no legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be "discreetly implied, if justified by context"

MA:

• Considered unsuitable for under 15s, with legal restrictions
  • I definitely bought MA video games as a teen without issue (though sometimes I did need my dad there)
• Sexual activity may be implied
• Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context

R:

• Considered unsuitable for under 18s, with legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be simulated (i.e. the actors are not actually having sex)
• Sexual violence may be implied

X:

• Exclusively used for consensual sexual material (but nonsexual, high impact films can be R or RC)
• Illegal to possess in some parts of the NT (maybe? I think that law automatically sunset a few years ago and wasn't replaced?)
• Illegal to sell, rent, or exhibit in all states (but not the territories)
  • Thanks to the constitution, an ACT/NT store can knowingly sell to someone in other states and that's OK
• Sexual activity may be depicted, unless...
  • depictions of violence, sexual violence, sexualized violence, coercion, or sexually assaultive language is present
  • that includes consensual depictions which "purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers"
  • body piercing, "application of substances such as candle wax", "golden showers", bondage, spanking, or fisting are depicted
    • Why is this list so specific?
  • the actors are 18+ but look like minors, or are being depicted as minors

RC: (Refused Classification)

• Anything that fails the above restrictions, but also:
  • "activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent"
  • "incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent"
    • Why pretend-incest is singled out here but not in the exclusions of X ratings is beyond me.
• Broadcasting or selling this, or anything that would be RC if they tried to get it classified, is illegal (for the person selling/broadcasting)
  • I am fairly sure consuming or possessing it is not inherently illegal, unless you're in a juristiction where X-rated content is illegal to possess

See also:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2005L01284/latest/text

I already knew our porn laws were not great, but this, if true, is a whole other level of bullshit.

Official response:

Article contains scantily clad women in provocative poses, and some closeups of vulvas.

The time I've spent musing on the whole "people you're having sex with generally expect that you find them sexy" thing, and pondering if I find people sexy in the first place... makes this infinitely funnier to me.

Your body’s a temple; temples also crumble: There’s so much talk about how your body is sacred, your body is a temple, must respect your body… Well, temples also crumble. The walls crack, the lights die, the murals peel off, people leave all sorts of trash behind their visits, and so on. Sometimes, temples suffer: your body gets sick, and you cannot do much to attend to it. [...] And that’s okay. Sometimes, all you can do is keep the temple standing so you can rebuild it later. Today, it stands. Tomorrow, we repair.

Pumpkin, onion and tomato are the only fresh ingredients you need to make this deeply satisfying meal.

The classic "women plus [implied to be AFAB] notwomen I guess" framing, but useful and educational regardless

So the minister "must have regard for the safety of participants" when kneecapping their funding arbitrarily and applying a percentage modifier to an entire group of people...

...but if that change means someone is being funded less than the cost of the supports they need (which are both reasonable and necessary), it's all above board and explicitly OK. So that first part only exists to save face. Categories effected by that are "assistance with social, economic, and community participation" and "improved daily living skills". Which are the majority of my funding, so when old mate decides he's cutting those by 50% on a whim, my entire plan shrinks as much.

Potential loophole: if the minister makes a carveout for "supports in employment" (which is a 'may' carveout), request a plan review because I'm working towards independent employment and forgot to mention it. Which is not untrue.

Note: 200 pages into the explanatory notes is a tidbit that they will reduce these from the getgo:

Under this option SCCP budgets in old framework plans would be reduced by 50 per cent and CBDA budgets would be reduced by 10 per cent

Seems in general "reasonable and necessary" has become "reasonable and necessary, so far is consistent with the current government's whims the financial sustainability of the scheme".

Also the whole "only support needs caused by a disability that in itself qualifies the participant for the NDIS" thing? (i.e. I can't get funding for anything that isn't related to autism)

Yeah, that's been quietly changed from "arising from an impairment [that qualifies for the NDIS]" to "arising directly from an impairment". This is going to suck for me in particular, because many of my needs are inherently intersectional with my other issues, and not intrinsic to autism alone (even when they often coexist in that neurotype).

And there's a section about how supports are evaluated as "effective and beneficial to the participant": peer reviewed generalizable studies hold more weight than my own lived experience with a support being effective and beneficial. So if there's no or inconsistent studies about it... sucks to suck, my own life can still be determined to be insufficient evidence.

Also, if it is geographically or financially impossible for me to prove I've tried all 'appropriate treatments' to no success (i.e. my disability is permanent)? Sucks to suck. And if "a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory provides for compensation or other benefits for or in respect of the impairment"? Excluded from the NDIS entirely even if it otherwise qualifies. So if Thriving Kids expands to young adults, or a similar scheme appears... bad news. I think this even includes interstate supports only for residents of that state, thanks to the geographical access to appropriate treatments bit.

My current plan "ends" [not "is reassessed"] on the plan reassessment date (TODO: when?), or the minister can decide to do so sooner. I think this means I'll get a new one entirely unrelated to my current supports (or get booted) then?

Whee.