I love how this is Australia's contribution to the news feed rn.
Australia
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
I wouldn't be surprised if Choice fucked this test up. The wide range of results from the Cancer Council products was very strange.
Possibly, or the standards are vague. The PR person from the brand that had an SPF of 4’s spin was basically everything is SPF 50 if you put enough on.
That product description sounded to me like a mechanical (not chemical) sunscreen. Unlinke chemical sunscreens those tend to have a visible whitening effect when applied properly. Given that the Choice tests were blind and on human skin, I can imagine a scenario where it was "rubbed in" like chemical sunscreen until invisible, and gave the absurdly low score as a genuine result of misapplication
On the other hand, two independent labs getting similar awful results is damning.
It's unfortunate the responses from these companies are mostly along the lines of "nuh-uh". It's good that there have been some emergency retests, but I would have hoped that someone would have worked with Choice to figure out what was up rather than just telling them "you did it wrong".
You can tell it's an AI-generated article because of the em dash in the title /s
Fuck I hate all these "AI-detecting" advice I'm seeing going around. So much of it is literally just good writing—use of em dashes, use of the rule of three, and parallel sentence structures. There are other things, of course, like the general vibe of being generic without saying much, but I feel like people are really grabbing onto the grammar and syntax points. I've been accused of using AI before, and the person even doubled and tripled down when called out—I have never used AI for any social media comments—all, presumably, just because I know a few alt-codes and really, really basic rhetoric.