Hmm wasn’t there some kerfuffle recently about how the kernel was going to start self-issuing CVEs en masse? Is this the result of that plan?

I probably wouldn’t bother. I can think of two scenarios you might get spied on.

1. Through your browser you’ve granted a website access to your webcam (Zoom etc.) and left a tab open. Maybe it could activate it when you weren’t expecting?
2. Someone has used a vulnerability to take control of your computer to the degree it can access your webcam directly. Desktop linux software doesn’t usually have meaningful isolation between software running as the same user, so at this point they can grab all your data, passwords, take screenshots, etc. and the webcam is just the cherry on top.

I expect most people don’t do (1) very often, let alone for sketchy websites, so IMO it doesn’t make much difference either way.

You’re putting yourself in a tough position by asking for both E2EE and the ability to use from a browser. You have to trust the web app each time you open the page, and hope that they haven’t altered the deal to simply grab your data after it’s been decrypted by your password. I have no idea how likely it is that Standard Notes would do that but I’d reconsider the browser requirement specifically if E2EE is non-negotiable for you - an offline open source client program would be a much stronger position.

For my money, I use local text files and SyncThing but it’s probably not spiffy enough for many people/purposes.

IME something like Signal is an easy sell since it’s simple and works well. For all the fair criticism about relying on phone numbers it makes the onboarding easy. For other things compartmentalising helps, e.g., “okay we’ll collaborate using this cloud file storage but I personally will be accessing it through the browser while keeping most of my files in a SyncThing over here”. While I self-host certain things I don’t volunteer to do that for family/friends because it will be too frustrating for everyone if/when I let them down.

In this kind of situation there’s a fine line between someone who maximises their privacy through tech decisions and someone who makes their “correct” tech choices their self identity. If you drift into the latter, being asked to compromise can feel like an attack, leading to overreacting and coming across as insecure and annoying. Not to psychoanalyse anyone in particular but sometimes I think people need a reminder.

Rockliffe is going hard spending the political capital accumulated by Gutwein. Back to Labor in 3, 2, …

The walkway would be great IMO. I’m just griping that it hasn’t gotten off the ground. :)

Normally from the wharf area I’ll cut through Salamanca and join Sandy Bay Rd just past St David’s Park and roll the dice going through the business district of Sandy Bay, which can be pretty gnarly. If you have more time you can follow the Salamanca waterfront around to the back streets of Battery Point and cross over the bridge at the bottom of Quayle St - the reverse direction hurts if you don’t have an ebike though.

If only they could figure out a way to get it down to Sandy Bay Rd, alas.

Good link, thanks. Forward-thinking of them to add flexibility for the power limit on ebikes. We’re a bit on the low end at the moment.

What’s actually changed here? Petrol engines on bicycles have long been allowed so long as they don’t exceed the equivalent of 200W power, with anything more powerful requiring registration.

Source: this info sheet from 2016 https://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/141117/Power-assisted_pedal_cycles_-_Information_Sheet_-_Dec_2016.pdf

A lawnmower engine on a bicycle is already outlawed. If they’re now cracking down on tiny engines, that doesn’t seem to be supported by the “high speed” description.

I have no particular love for these noisy bicycles but the legal ones are harmless enough.