Australian News Ilandar • 1 week ago • 100%

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like a positive change, definitely a much better grounding in Australian history than I received at that age. It is pretty wild that you can live in a colonial country without ever being taught what colonisation means for indigenous peoples but that is the world we've been living in until recently.

Australian Politics Ilandar • 2 weeks ago • 100%

www.abc.net.au

You need to only look at the modern crossbench, and the teals in particular, to see the prospect of a 2010 repeat is unlikely. These modern independents aren't former Nationals blokes who have turned their back on their party. They're modern women who couldn't see themselves in the party that once took their seats for granted. "While the 2022 election might be heralded as a ‘breakthrough’ for the independents, the conditions for their election have been building over several decade," the Australian Election Study noted in 2022. "Many of these changes are associated with voters being ‘less rusted on’ to the major political parties and becoming more independently minded in their political choices." That's the problem with scare campaigns like the Coalition's. When you threaten voters with a minority government, that would require crossbench negotiations, some in the seats you're trying to win might be left thinking: "Oh, that sounds more preferable than you."

Australia Ilandar • 2 weeks ago • 84%

theconversation.com

Interesting article in relation to the media pile-on of Elle Macpherson earlier this week. According to the authors, her decision to avoid chemotherapy may have been completely normal and sensible given her circumstances. We don't actually know because no one from the ABC or any other outlet bothered to check before running their stories citing her former relationship with an anti-vaxxer, or claiming that she ignored centuries of medical advice. The authors conclude that Australians have missed a great opportunity here to discuss the current state of non-invasive breast cancer research and treatment.

Android Ilandar • 4 weeks ago • 80%

Interesting video, particularly the statistics around where the majority of the market is in Western countries. If you buy a base S24 in Germany, you are actually spending less money on your phone than over 70% of the country, for example. The ultra high end market absolutely dominates despite seemingly everyone complaining about how expensive phones are these days. The video doesn't really answer the question, though. It sort of implies that it's because we are keeping smartphones for longer and because they are becoming increasingly important parts of our lives as our screen time also increases. Manufacturers are also able to bait consumers into buying these crazy expensive phones with trade-in and bundle deals (throwing in "discounted" watches and TWS earbuds, for example).

Australian News Ilandar • 1 month ago • 100%

www.abc.net.au

This is the written article of the latest Four Corners episode.

Australian News Ilandar • 2 months ago • 76%

www.abc.net.au

Thoughts on the redesign? I'm not sure how I feel about it yet but I didn't particularly like the old design so I don't mind something new. It looks a lot more conventional now, similar to major news outlets like The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, etc.

Australian Politics Ilandar • 2 months ago • 98%

Author: Paul Strangio, *Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University* For nearly 200 years, the notion of American political exceptionalism has had currency in the United States: it is an idea rooted in the nation’s status as the first modern republic. As we watch from afar, disturbed yet mesmerised by the latest chapter of violent political division in America, the country seems less a paragon than a symbol of democratic pathology. America’s certainty in its political uniqueness is symptomatic of a brash national chauvinism. By way of contrast, Australia is prone, if anything, to undue bashfulness about its democratic credentials. How else can we explain that this month marks the centenary of the most extraordinary feature of the country’s democratic architecture, and yet the anniversary is slipping by with neither comment nor reflection. I refer to compulsory voting, which was legislated in the federal parliament in July 1924. Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Calculating how many countries abide by the practice is notoriously difficult, since in around half the nations where compulsory voting exists in name it is not enforced. Most estimates, however, put the figure in the vicinity of 20 to 30. If not unique, Australia’s experience of compulsory voting is highly distinctive for a number of reasons. First, its emergence in the early 20th century was consistent with the nation’s larger tradition of innovation and experimentation when it came to electoral institutions and practices. This record is typically traced back to the pioneering in the 1850s of the secret ballot (sometimes called the “Australian ballot”) in a number of the Australian colonies and the embrace of other advanced democratic measures in the second half of the 19th century. These included manhood suffrage, payment of MPs and the extension of the franchise to women, beginning in South Australia in 1894. The innovations continued in the 20th century with such things as preferential voting and non-partisan bureaucratic electoral administration. Second, Australia is alone in embracing compulsory voting among the Anglophone democracies to which it typically compares itself. The electoral systems of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are all based on voluntary voting. Third, unlike many other compulsory voting countries, Australia does not pay lip service to its operation. Electoral authorities enforce compulsory voting, albeit leniently. It has been strongly upheld by the courts and is backed by a regime of sanctions for non-compliance. Fourth, compulsory voting has been consistently and unambiguously successful in achieving high voter turnout. Though there has been a slight downward trend in turnout at the past five national elections (it hit a low of 90.5% in 2022), it has not fallen below 90% since the adoption of compulsory voting a century ago. This is around 30% higher than the recent average turnout in countries with voluntary voting. It is also well above the recent average in countries with compulsory voting systems. Fifth, the public has strongly and consistently backed the practice. Evidence from more than half a century of opinion polls and election study surveys shows support hovering around the 70% mark. **An impregnable practice** Perhaps the most singular aspect of the nation’s experience of compulsory voting, however, is how seemingly impregnable is the practice if measured by its durability, the dearth of controversy over it, the consistency of its enforcement by authorities and the way citizens have dutifully complied with and supported it. Together these things make Australia an exemplar of compulsory voting internationally. This is not to say compulsory voting has been a sacred cow in Australia. In the final decades of the 20th century and first decade of this century, there was a concerted push to end the practice emanating principally from within the Liberal Party. The torchbearer of the agitation for voluntary voting was the avowed libertarian South Australian senator, Nick Minchin. For Minchin, compulsory voting was anathema: > […] in relation to the most important single manifestation of democratic will, the act of voting, I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy. Minchin had a number of like-minded supporters of voluntary voting in the Liberal Party. Among them, importantly, was John Howard, whose prime ministership coincided with the mobilisation to abolish compulsory voting. Howard had been on record as an opponent of the practice since his entry to the federal parliament in 1974. The Liberal Party campaign against compulsory voting manifested in, among other things: * the party’s federal council resolving in favour of voluntary voting * shadow cabinet endorsing a recommendation for a change of policy to voluntary voting being placed before the joint Liberal-National party parliamentary room * the introduction in the South Australian parliament of two bills to repeal compulsory voting by successive Liberal state governments * Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters repeatedly recommending the abolition of the practice. In the end, these agitations achieved nought. The most fundamental reason was that the opponents of compulsory voting failed to generate community resentment towards the system. Howard, while restating his preference for voluntary voting, admitted as much in 2005 when shutting down debate on the issue in his government: > As I move around the country, I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, “You’ve got to get rid of compulsory voting.” Indeed, election survey data suggests the Liberal campaign coincided with a firming of public support for compulsory voting. In the two decades since, opposition has been dormant. For the foreseeable future, Australia’s compulsory voting regime is secure. **An Australian democratic exceptionalism?** As noted above, compulsory voting has kept voter turnout at elections above 90% for the past century. Kindred democracies marvel at, and envy, this level of participation. It affords legitimacy to election outcomes in this country. Significantly, it also produces a socially even turnout. Compare this to the situation in this month’s United Kingdom election. Turnout is estimated to have slumped to a record low 52%. There was a clear pattern of the “haves” exercising much greater say at the ballot box than the “have nots”. Those who stayed away from the polls were predominantly less well-off, non-homeowners, the young, the lower-educated and of minority ethnic background. Australia cannot be complacent in this regard. Low and declining turnout in remote electorates with high Indigenous populations is the most worrying *removed* in the performance of compulsory voting. In 2022, turnout in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari fell to 66.8%. Even so, the practice largely succeeds in achieving inclusive voter participation across the country. Crucially, compulsory voting is also recognised as one reason the political centre holds better in Australia than in many comparable nations. It exercises a moderating influence because it ensures it is not only impassioned partisans at either end of the political spectrum who participate in elections. This in turn means they are not the chief focus of governments and political parties. Under a compulsory voting system, middle-of-the-road citizens and their concerns and sensibilities count. This inhibits the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics evident in other parts of the globe. It helps explain why Australia has been less receptive to the aggressive conservative populism that has taken root in the United States and Europe. Compulsory voting also goes hand in hand with other institutional bulwarks of the nation’s democracy. While there is plenty of evidence in Australia of increasing disaffection with politics, one thing that helps bolster faith in the democratic system is the politically independent national electoral authority, the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC’s trusted impartial administration of the electoral system lends integrity to the democratic process. So do the many procedures it manages to facilitate voting. To name a few: Saturday election days, assistance for the ill, aged and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, mobile polling stations, postal, absentee and early voting, and active and regular updating of registration. Indeed, Australia has been described as “the most voter-friendly country in the world”. Compulsory voting encourages this accessibility: if citizens are obliged to vote, then it becomes incumbent to smooth the path to them participating. The ease of voting in Australia contrasts with what goes on elsewhere, for example, the rampant state-based voter-suppression practices in the United States. Dare we suggest, then, that compulsory voting is a mainstay of an Australian democratic exceptionalism? That we little note, let alone extol, the practice is perhaps not only a product of an inherent national modesty but because it is second nature after 100 years. Habituated to being compelled to participate in elections, we are inured to its specialness. Let’s hope this casual familiarity does not induce apathy rather than vigilance when next the system is challenged.

Australia Ilandar • 2 months ago • 89%

www.crikey.com.au

The joke was dumb, the online reaction to the joke was dumb, a random UAP senator's dumb comments being quoted globally was dumb and Rudd telling famous musicians and actors to "grow up and get a job" was very dumb. What a time we live in.

Technology Ilandar • 3 months ago • 100%

www.404media.co

In spring, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg invited more than a dozen professors and academics to a series of dinners at his home to discuss how Facebook could better keep its platforms safe from election disinformation, violent content, child sexual abuse material, and hate speech. Alongside these secret meetings, Facebook was regularly making pronouncements that it was spending hundreds of millions of dollars and hiring thousands of human content moderators to make its platforms safer. After Facebook was widely blamed for the rise of “fake news” that supposedly helped Trump win the 2016 election, Facebook repeatedly brought in reporters to examine its election “war room” and explained what it was doing to police its platform, which famously included a new “Oversight Board,” a sort of Supreme Court for hard Facebook decisions. At the time, Joseph and I published a deep dive into how Facebook does content moderation, an astoundingly difficult task considering the scale of Facebook’s userbase, the differing countries and legal regimes it operates under, and the dizzying array of borderline cases it would need to make policies for and litigate against. As part of that article, I went to Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters and had a series of on-the-record interviews with policymakers and executives about how important content moderation is and how seriously the company takes it. In 2018, Zuckerberg published a manifesto stating that “the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to build a global community,” and that one of the most important aspects of this would be to “build a safe community that prevents harm [and] helps during crisis” and to build an “informed community” and an “inclusive community.” Several years later, Facebook has been overrun by AI-generated spam and outright scams. Many of the “people” engaging with this content are bots who themselves spam the platform. Porn and nonconsensual imagery is easy to find on Facebook and Instagram. We have reported endlessly on the proliferation of paid advertisements for drugs, stolen credit cards, hacked accounts, and ads for electricians and roofers who appear to be soliciting potential customers with sex work. Its own verified influencers have their bodies regularly stolen by “AI influencers” in the service of promoting OnlyFans pages also full of stolen content. Meta still regularly publishes updates that explain what it is doing to keep its platforms safe. In April, it launched “new tools to help protect against extortion and intimate image abuse” and in February it explained how it was “helping teens avoid sextortion scams” and that it would begin “labeling AI-generated images on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads,” though the overwhelming majority of AI-generated images on the platform are still not labeled. Meta also still publishes a “Community Standards Enforcement Report,” where it explains things like “in August 2023 alone, we disabled more than 500,000 accounts for violating our child sexual exploitation policies.” There are still people working on content moderation at Meta. But experts I spoke to who once had great insight into how Facebook makes its decisions say that they no longer know what is happening at the platform, and I’ve repeatedly found entire communities dedicated to posting porn, grotesque AI, spam, and scams operating openly on the platform. Meta now at best inconsistently responds to our questions about these problems, and has declined repeated requests for on-the-record interviews for this and other investigations. Several of the professors who used to consult directly or indirectly with the company say they have not engaged with Meta in years. Some of the people I spoke to said that they are unsure whether their previous contacts still work at the company or, if they do, what they are doing there. Others have switched their academic focus after years of feeling ignored or harassed by right-wing activists who have accused them of being people who just want to censor the internet. Meanwhile, several groups that have done very important research on content moderation are falling apart or being actively targeted by critics. Last week, Platformer reported that the Stanford Internet Observatory, which runs the Journal of Online Trust & Safety is “being dismantled” and that several key researchers, including Renee DiResta, who did critical work on Facebook’s AI spam problem, have left. In a statement, the Stanford Internet Observatory said “Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted.” (Stanford has an endowment of $36 billion.) Following her departure, DiResta wrote for The Atlantic that conspiracy theorists regularly claim she is a CIA shill and one of the leaders of a “Censorship Industrial Complex.” Media Matters is being sued by Elon Musk for pointing out that ads for major brands were appearing next to antisemitic and pro-Nazi content on Twitter and recently had to do mass layoffs. “You go from having dinner at Zuckerberg’s house to them being like, yeah, we don’t need you anymore,” Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law who previously consulted with Facebook on trust and safety issues, told me. “So yeah, it’s disheartening.” It is not a good time to be in the content moderation industry. Republicans and the right wing of American politics more broadly see this as a deserved reckoning for liberal leaning, California-based social media companies that have taken away their free speech. Elon Musk bought an entire social media platform in part to dismantle its content moderation team and its rules. And yet, what we are seeing on Facebook is not a free speech heaven. It is a zombified platform full of bots, scammers, malware, bloated features, horrific AI-generated images, abandoned accounts, and dead people that has become a laughing stock on other platforms. Meta has fucked around with Facebook, and now it is finding out. “I believe we're in a time of experimentation where platforms are willing to gamble and roll the dice and say, ‘How little content moderation can we get away with?,'” Sarah T. Roberts, a UCLA professor and author of Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media, told me. In November, Elon Musk sat on stage with a New York Times reporter, and was asked about the Media Matters report that caused several major companies to pull advertising from X: “I hope they stop. Don’t advertise,” Musk said. “If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.” There was a brief moment last year where many large companies pulled advertising from X, ostensibly because they did not want their brands associated with antisemitic or white nationalist content and did not want to be associated with Musk, who has not only allowed this type of content but has often espoused it himself. But X has told employees that 65 percent of advertisers have returned to the platform, and the death of X has thus far been greatly exaggerated. Musk spent much of last week doing damage control, and X’s revenue is down significantly, according to Bloomberg. But the comments did not fully tank the platform, and Musk continues to float it with his enormous wealth. This was an important moment not just for X, but for other social media companies, too. In order for Meta’s platforms to be seen as a safer alternative for advertisers, Zuckerberg had to meet the extremely low bar of “not overtly platforming Nazis” and “didn’t tell advertisers to ‘go fuck yourself.’” UCLA’s Roberts has always argued that content moderation is about keeping platforms that make almost all of their money on advertising “brand safe” for those advertisers, not about keeping their users “safe” or censoring content. Musk’s apology tour has highlighted Roberts’s point that content moderation is for advertisers, not users. “After he said ‘Go fuck yourself,’ Meta can just kind of sit back and let the ball roll downhill toward Musk,” Roberts said. “And any backlash there has been to those brands or to X has been very fleeting. Companies keep coming back and are advertising on all of these sites, so there have been no consequences.” Meta’s content moderation workforce, which it once talked endlessly about, is now rarely discussed publicly by the company (Accenture was at one point making $500 million a year from its Meta content moderation contract). Meta did not answer a series of detailed questions for this piece, including ones about its relationship with academia, its philosophical approach to content moderation, and what it thinks of AI spam and scams, or if there has been a shift in its overall content moderation strategy. It also declined a request to make anyone on its trust and safety teams available for an on-the-record interview. It did say, however, that it has many more human content moderators today than it did in 2018. “The truth is we have only invested more in the content moderation and trust and safety spaces,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We have around 40,000 people globally working on safety and security today, compared to 20,000 in 2018.” Roberts said content moderation is expensive, and that, after years of speaking about the topic openly, perhaps Meta now believes it is better to operate primarily under the radar. “Content moderation, from the perspective of the C-suite, is considered to be a cost center, and they see no financial upside in providing that service. They’re not compelled by the obvious and true argument that, over the long term, having a hospitable platform is going to engender users who come on and stay for a longer period of time in aggregate,” Roberts said. “And so I think [Meta] has reverted to secrecy around these matters because it suits them to be able to do whatever they want, including ramping back up if there’s a need, or, you know, abdicating their responsibilities by diminishing the teams they may have once had. The whole point of having offshore, third-party contractors is they can spin these teams up and spin them down pretty much with a phone call.” Roberts added “I personally haven’t heard from Facebook in probably four years.” Citron, who worked directly with Facebook on nonconsensual imagery being shared on the platform and system that automatically flags nonconsensual intimate imagery and CSAM based on a hash database of abusive images, which was adopted by Facebook and then YouTube, said that what happened to Facebook is “definitely devastating.” “There was a period where they understood the issue, and it was very rewarding to see the hash database adopted, like, ‘We have this possible technological way to address a very serious social problem,’” she said. “And now I have not worked with Facebook in any meaningful way since 2018. We’ve seen the dismantling of content moderation teams [not just at Meta] but at Twitch, too. I worked with Twitch and then I didn’t work with Twitch. My people got fired in April.” “There was a period of time where companies were quite concerned that their content moderation decisions would have consequences. But those consequences have not materialized. X shows that the PR loss leading to advertisers fleeing is temporary,” Citron added. “It’s an experiment. It’s like ‘What happens when you don’t have content moderation?’ If the answer is, ‘You have a little bit of a backlash, but it’s temporary and it all comes back,’ well, you know what the answer is? You don’t have to do anything. 100 percent.” I told everyone I spoke to that, anecdotally, it felt to me like Facebook has become a disastrous, zombified cesspool. All of the researchers I spoke to said that this is not just a vibe. “It’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact,” Citron said. In November, she published a paper in the Yale Law Journal about women who have faced gendered abuse and sexual harassment in Meta’s Horizon Worlds virtual reality platform, which found the the company is ignoring user reports and expects the targets of this abuse to simply use a “personal boundary” feature to ignore it. The paper notes that “Meta is following the nonrecognition playbook in refusing to address sexual harassment on its VR platforms in a meaningful manner.” “The response from leadership was like ‘Well, we can’t do anything,’” Citron said. “But having worked with them since 2010, it’s like ‘You know you can do something!’ The idea that they think that this is a hard problem given that people are actually reporting this to them, it’s gobsmacking to me.” Another researcher I spoke to, who I am not naming because they have been subjected to harassment for their work, said “I also have very little visibility into what’s happening at Facebook around content moderation these days. I’m honestly not sure who does have that visibility at the moment. And perhaps both of these are at least partially explained by the political backlash against moderation and researchers in this space.” Another researcher said “it’s a shitshow seeing what’s happening to Facebook. I don’t know if my contacts on the moderation teams are even still there at this point.” A third said Facebook did not respond to their emails anymore. Not all of this can be explained by Elon Musk or by direct political backlash from the right. The existence of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means that social media platforms have wide latitude to do nothing. And, perhaps more importantly, two state-level lawsuits that have made their way to the Supreme Court that allege social media censorship means that Meta and other social media platforms may be calculating that they could be putting themselves at more risk if they do content moderation. The Supreme Court’s decision on these cases is expected later this week. The reason I have been so interested in what is happening on Facebook right now is not because I am particularly offended by the content I see there. It’s because Facebook’s present—a dying, decaying, colossus taken over by AI content and more or less left to rot by its owner—feels like the future, or the inevitable outcome, of other social platforms and of an AI-dominated internet. I have been likening zombie Facebook to a dead mall. There are people there, but they don’t know why, and most of what’s being shown to them is scammy or weird. “It’s important to note that Facebook is Meta now, but the metaverse play has really fizzled. They don’t know what the future is, but they do know that ‘Facebook’ is absolutely not the future,” Roberts said. “So there’s a level of disinvestment in Facebook because they don’t know what the next thing exactly is going to be, but they know it’s not going to be this. So you might liken it to the deindustrialization of a manufacturing city that loses its base. There’s not a lot of financial gain to be had in propping up Facebook with new stuff, but it’s not like it disappears or its footprint shrinks. It just gets filled with crypto scams, phishing, hacking, romance scams.” “And then poor content moderation begets scammers begets this useless crap content, AI-generated stuff, uncanny valley stuff that people don’t enjoy and it just gets worse and worse,” Roberts said. “So more of that will proliferate in lieu of anything that you actually want to spend time on.”

You may have noticed most, if not all, basic monthly prepaid SIM plans have had a price hike within the last year. For example, mine went from $10 a month to $15 a month. I've been shopping around for an alternative and, with the EOFY sales on currently, the annual prepaid plans are a significantly cheaper alternative than the monthly plans (often with more data too). The cheapest I have found so far is Catch Connect's [60 GB](https://catchconnect.com.au/home/left-image/product/20) plan which is currently discounted to $89. That works out to ~$7.42 per month, with 5 GB of data per month on the Optus 4G network. If that's not enough data, their two higher tier plans work out to ~$9.08 and $12.50 per month over a full year with way more data. Other options you may want to look at are Kogan (Optus 4G network) and Lebara (Vodafone 4G network), though neither have an option as cheap as Catch Connect. There may be differences in how your data allowance is provided (up-front or monthly) and whether rollover is included so check that out as well.

Australian Politics Ilandar • 3 months ago • 100%

www.theguardian.com

Also contains a brief chat about "what's next?" 8 months after The Voice referendum defeat. Unsurprisingly, nothing, as everyone with a brain was warning the progressive No voters at the time.

Privacy Ilandar • 4 months ago • 95%

yewtu.be

In sharing this video here I'm preaching to the choir, but I do think it indirectly raised a valuable point which probably doesn't get spoken about enough in privacy communities. That is, in choosing to use even a single product or service that is more privacy-respecting than the equivalent big tech alternative, you are showing that there is a demand for privacy and helping to keep these alternative projects alive so they can continue to improve. Digital privacy is slowly becoming more mainstream and viable because people like you are choosing to fight back instead of giving up. The example I often think about in my life is email. I used to be a big Google fan back in the early 2010s and the concept of digital privacy wasn't even on my radar. I loved my Gmail account and thought it was incredible that Google offered me this amazing service completely free of charge. However, as I became increasingly concerned about my digital privacy throughout the 2010s, I started looking for alternatives. In 2020 I opened an account with Proton Mail, which had launched all the way back in 2014. A big part of the reason it was available to me 6 years later as a mature service is because people who were clued into digital privacy way before me chose to support it instead of giving up and going back to Gmail. This is my attitude now towards a lot of privacy-respecting and FOSS projects: I choose to support them so that they have the best chance of surviving and improving to the point that the next wave of new privacy-minded people can consider them a viable alternative and make the switch.

Android Ilandar • 4 months ago • 97%

I stumbled across this today and thought it was worth sharing. I have used every one of these ROMs except /e/ and they are all good projects in their own right.

Australia Ilandar • 8 months ago • 90%

Normally I tune out to this annual debate since it feels so polarised and stale, but the messaging from Woolworths, Cricket Australia, the Australian Open and others this year suggests big companies are concerned about an attitude shift within Australian society. It seems they've decided the inevitable backlash is now worth it because the silent majority has begun leaning in favour of change. Is this just a natural result of this being the first post-referendum Australia Day or is there a longer-term change unfolding here?

Everyone has an opinion on Costco but I'm curious how this community feels about it, considering we are probably more budget and value conscious than most.

Australian News Ilandar • 10 months ago • 100%

www.abc.net.au

One of Australia's largest video game developers has made half of its workforce redundant, citing issues such as rising cost-of-living and recession fears scaring off investors. The development team of the cancelled early access game Jumplight Odyssey will be put into the game in its final update and half of any future sales of the game will go directly to those who worked on it.