This is a theoretical, but if one were to leak the NDIS modifications of the I-CAN6, there's a potential they could actually be protected from criminal prosecution under Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) due to a specific exemption.

Note: This may not protect them from civil liabilities, but just throwing out a hypothetical.

The key section in question is an exemption for 'fair dealing' for the purpose of access by a person with a disability. This typically allows modifying copyrighted content for accessibility purposes, though the act isn't restrictive on what's covered. I believe an argument could be made 113E would apply.

113E  Fair dealing for purpose of access by persons with a disability

(1) A fair dealing with copyright material does not infringe copyright in the material if the dealing is for the purpose of one or more persons with a disability having access to copyright material (whether the dealing is by any of those persons or by another person).

(2) The matters to which regard must be had, in determining whether the dealing is a fair dealing for the purposes of this section, include the following matters:

• (a) the purpose and character of the dealing;
• (b) the nature of the copyright material;
• (c) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the material;
• (d) if only part of the material is dealt with—the amount and substantiality of the part dealt with, taken in relation to the whole material.

(a) The character of this dealing would be entirely non-commercial and protective of human rights. Because the summary is delivered strictly to the participant to facilitate clear communication and self-advocacy within the NDIS framework, this factor heavily favors a finding of fairness.

(b) It functions as an administrative tool within a government-mandated scheme (the NDIS) to allocate public funding. Public interest in allowing us to understand a government-backed assessment that directly dictates our daily quality of life significantly outweighs the protection of the material's proprietary clinical structure.

(c) The publisher/owner does not sell any version of the modified I-CAN6; we can't buy it. It's not going to reduce profit for them if it's released.

(d) It may strengthen this if it was leaked only in part, for example only the parts that ensure participants understand the exact NDIS modified assessment process (the raw I-CAN6 is now public).

Just a hypothetical... I also don't know how this applies with the Freedom of Information act. In theory, it may eliminate the potential for the NDIA to rely on copyright to deny an FOI of the modified version, as it's for disability accessibility.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. Please do not leak it based on a hypothetical you see on Reddit posted by someone with no formal legal studies...

Tested how many of YTS movies were cached.

The script logic was simple - it pulls the entire YTS database. It checks if the hashes are cached on Torbox via API.

• If a 1080p available on YTS, checks cache for any available magnets (ANY available = success++)
• If 4K available on YTS, checks cache status for any available magnets (ANY available = success++)
• If no 1080p, no 4K, checks 720p and 480p. (ANY available = success++)

Any available as in x264, x265 - we don't care; as long as one is cached. Only ONE 1080p being available counts - 2 available doesn't mean +2 to cached total.

Results:

Of around 48,000 YTS torrents, Torbox has 75,000+ YTS files cached. Impressive. They basically cache the entire YTS database.

For those that don't know there's a site with an extensive list of the cheapest providers for domains, with filtering to find the type of domain you want. - https://tld-list.com/

Note some don't come with WHOIS protection - meaning anyone with the domain name can look up your personal IRL details. If this is of concern, use one with WHOIS Protection.

Once you have your domain, I recommend using Cloudflare (free) for DNS - simply configure the name servers as prompted by Cloudflare.

Edit: I recommend Cloudflare as they have an extensive global DNS CDN for fast lookups and also have various neat free features, such as:

• Free CDN (protects your backend IPs as it routes via Cloudflare, also is often more optimal speed)
• Free email forwarding (no inbox - simply forwards to a set address, supports catch-all. No outgoing)
• Zerotrust - Restricted access to domains (via email login code, country restrictions, many options)
• Zerotrust 'zones' (split DNS) - Can configure split DNS to route locally if on network or via CDN if external You need to setup your local network as a 'zone' and receive the local IP on network or the Cloudflare proxied external IP off network, meaning traffic is routed locally if on network. I may post a guide on this along with Cloudflare tunnel as it's very neat and free. You can securely access all your locally hosted stuff externally and securely, while routing direct when on network. For dynamic IPs it requires a script to update your IP if it changes as it uses your external IP to determine you're on network - I'll include that if I post a guide.

Here's some techy / it ones as an example

TLD	Ongoing Price	Provider	WHOIS Protection
.stream	$2.99	domain.com	YES
.click	$3.00	Amazon Route 53	NO
.link	$3.99	NameSilo	YES
.it	$5.49	CrazyDomains	NO

Sign up bonuses are often cheaper, then Cloudflare (if they support it) have 0% markup domains so you can transfer for ongoing. Alternatively, you can simply keep flipping domains and export/import DNS records or purchase the same domain again hoping no one snipes it.

Note intro offers vary so check the site for the latest.

Intro Offers (as of today):

TLD	First Year	Ongoing	Provider	WHOIS Protection
.xyz	$0.75 (code: XYZ52)	$10.18 (transfer to Cloudflare)	SpaceShip	YES
.online	$0.99	$20.99+	DreamHost	YES
.site	$1.18	$20.18	Spaceship	YES
.website	$1.18	$15.18 (transfer to Clouflare)	Spaceship	YES
.host	$1.19 (code: 99SPECIAL)	$47.68	NameCheap	YES
.cloud	$1.19 (code: 99SPECIAL)	$15.18 (transfer to Clouflare)	Spaceship	YES
.link	$2.27	$3.99 (transfer to NameSilo)	Spaceship	YES

Title - curious if there is users out there that browse songs through things like browsing genres or other methods, or even if anyone looks at the playlists / recommended songs?

I follow some friends who make content on there but have never really browsed.

I've had the idea of designing a webapp which relies heavily on the legislated tables of impairments used for DSP assessments and allows the user to both tick the provide examples (and add notes), as well as tick criteria they feel they meet and add notes outside the examples.

This would produce a downloadable PDF they can then discuss with their specialist, along with a summary report of the self-reported information.

The overall idea is a potential applicant could utilise the app to brainstorm ideas of how they meet eligibility, then have their specialist write a formal report around it for submission with their application. This ensures the report directly relates back to the tables, as most specialists don't have extensive knowledge of how DSP is assessed - this bridges that gap.

Would there be much interest in such an app?

Edit: Note it would be completely free and open source without advertisements. I'm gauging if there's interest in such an app before I put too much effort into it, rather than gauging if it would be profitable (no intention of selling it or making a profit from it).

https://au.seek.com/job/92455092

Rumors are it’s for testing of the I-CAN6. A round of testing has already been done, but evidently they’ve determined further testing is required… The backlash about the lack of testing on a range of disabilities appears to have worked.

Each recruitment agency has different descriptions on the roles, so you can kind of gather extra info if you dig around.

p.s there was another thread on this but at that time the amount and the fact they are APS employees wasn’t known. Someone in that thread commented that they received an email which formally stated it is NDIA roles and is for testing the tool, though I can’t find any public information stating this yet.

The first invoice related to a support worker picking up medication for me that was out of stock on the day we went. It would have taken around 15-30 minutes including travel time. We had small talk for around 5 minutes when he dropped off the medication and he left.

The provider has invoiced 1.5 hours community participation support and 1.5 hours daily living, despite only 15-30 minutes support being provided and none of it was daily living.

To worsen things, he’s stated previously the particular employee doesn’t provide daily living supports as he’s not trained for it and unable to complete certain tasks. He only provides community participation.

For context we have no signed agreement as there was errors in the agreement my support coordinator was requesting be corrected. The unsigned agreement stated 2 hour minimum shifts, but it wasn’t even disclosed to me it would be a shift (he simply said he would come by with it the next day), and NDIS guidelines are clear that minimum shifts are against the code of conduct - providers may only bill the support provided.

When I raised the concern via email the provider began arguing back and fourth (I was requesting 0.5-1 hours be billed, and cited + linked the related NDIS guidelines around minimum shifts). Eventually he threatened to engage a debt collection agency if the invoice isn’t paid, he even specifically named an agency he would engage.

To worsen things, the worker turned up for a third shift I never agreed to at all. He had suggested the idea of going to a spa (I have severe agoraphobia for context, and also dislike swimming), according to my parents I was very clear that I wasn’t onboard with the suggestion. Despite this, with no written agreement - or even verbal - he turned up for a shift and essentially just sat there because I had nothing to do that day (i only really go to appointments, grocery shopping, etc). I was billed another 3 hours for this, despite him leaving after around 45 minutes. On this one I raised concerns around consumer law - the service wasn’t fit for purpose or agreed to; I was misled.

Further worsening the matter, the provider threatened if the NDIA denies the claims because I raised my concerns, they will engage the debt collector to collect the payment directly form me.

This all has to be a severe breach of the NDIS Code of Conduct. His behaviour isn’t in line with the code, I wasn’t provided choice and control around shift scheduling, we have no schedule of supports or even any shift schedule in writing, the worker didn’t actually provide any support in the third shift, etc. It likely also breaches debt collection guidelines as it’s borderline harrassm and threatening - he literally threatened to recover the money directly from me if I don’t approve the pending invoices while we discuss my concerns. I’m quite confident that’s against the Code of Conduct too around complaints handling processes…

Note this was a registered provider too - so they would have to have internal complaints handling procedures compliant with the code, which evidently weren’t followed…

My support coordinator specifically explained to both him and me the invoices can’t be claimed as they stand, yet he continued over another 3 emails, formally requesting payment within 7 days (note as we have no contract, there is no formal payment timeframe) or he would snagged the debt collector.

i forwarded the email chain to Quality Safeguards, but I’m still quite concerned by it - I’ve now had to lodge invoice which I don’t believe comply with the act and are essentially fraudulent as the services weren’t even provided in the second shift. I’m wondering how I can best protect myself now from the NDIA potentially raising a debt against me for approving invoices my support coordinator had specifically stated aren’t compliant with the act… Any advice is welcome.

Note I’ve obviously completely ceased services with the company now.