MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Kelly, PhD Candidate, Department of Design and Society., University of Technology Sydney

In September, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) excluded catalogue music (recordings more than two years old) from the Australian bestseller single and album charts.

From a marketing perspective this decision is logical, as it creates room to expose new recordings to the market. However, it also obscures the reality of the new music economy in Australia.

My latest research – which looks at new music releases in Australia from 2000 to 2024 – shows a significant decline in the sale of new music since the adoption of music streaming.

These findings point to a crisis for new and emerging artists in the Australian market.

The new music market is shrinking

In 2017, music streaming platforms, led by Spotify, became the dominant form of recorded music distribution in Australia. The shift from a purchase-based (CDs, vinyl and downloads) to an access-based (streaming) economy represented a fundamental change in the music business.

Streaming platforms, with close to unlimited repertoire, enable and encourage passive listening via playlists and algorithmic recommendation. The result is that catalogue music has become the mainstay of the recorded music industry.

From 2000 to 2018, new release music made up 99% of the ARIA annual top 100 singles, and 78% of the top 100 albums. But from 2022 to 2024, these figures dropped to 62% and 28%, respectively.

The data indicate that since 2000, new music revenue in Australia has declined by 55% in actual and 71% in inflation-adjusted value.

The rise of streaming has led to us spending more on music overall, but less of this is going to new music. My estimates suggest new music revenues in Australia have grown by just 4% since 2014, in a market that has doubled in value.

A similar trend is evident overseas. In the United States, new music accounted for an estimated 65% of recorded music revenue in the pre-streaming economy, compared to 25–30% post-streaming.

New talent can’t rely on industry

From an Australian perspective, the challenges for new music have created concern about pathways for emerging artists, and the music industry’s commitment to developing them.

Industry insiders I interviewed for the research highlighted how labels were playing a diminishing role in artist development.

The stress on the new music economy – combined with the reduced presence of Australian artists in the ARIA charts – has led to ongoing calls for the government to support the industry via cultural policy initiatives.

The recorded music industry also has a role to play in addressing the environment which it helped to create – particularly in regards to how artists are remunerated.

The current “pro-rata” model used by streaming platforms places equal value on all streams, regardless of whether it is a catalogue track or new release. Under this model, there is no business incentive to prioritise new music.

Adjusting this model, so that new releases are valued higher than catalogue music, could create this incentive.

Major labels will likely resist change, as they reap the rewards of selling back catalogue at pure profit. But the idea of valuing new music over catalogue is not new.

Before the streaming era, new release CDs were sold at full price and catalogue CDs were often sold at mid-price. This model reflected the costs associated with developing new products and provided business incentive by attaching greater profit margins to new releases.

Prioritising long-term industry health

Australia’s new music economy has experienced significant revenue decline and reduced industry commitment to new and emerging artists.

For independent labels, which are largely dependent on new release revenue, the ability to compete in a catalogue market is limited. For artists, the lack of pathways to earning revenue may lead to disconnection with the sector.

The role of Australian major record labels as generators of local talent is also in question.

In addition to policy, a business incentive for record labels to invest in new music could enable the long-term health of the sector.

– ref. Streaming platforms give us access to new music, so why are fewer people listening to it? – https://theconversation.com/streaming-platforms-give-us-access-to-new-music-so-why-are-fewer-people-listening-to-it-278088

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/streaming-platforms-give-us-access-to-new-music-so-why-are-fewer-people-listening-to-it-278088/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gerhard Schnyder, Professor of International Management & Political Economy, Loughborough University

The mood was jubilant among liberals and pro-Europeans in Hungary and beyond on April 13 as Péter Magyar led the Tisza party to a landslide election victory. His win ended the 16-year administration of Viktor Orbán’s pro-Russian Fidesz party. Given the high turnout and margin of victory, giving Tisza a two-thirds constitutional majority in parliament, the jubilant mood seems justified.

However, defeating Orbán will be a long-term project. While several centrist politicians around the world have successfully unseated governing far-right populists in recent years, fewer have been successful in keeping them at bay long term. Poland’s Donald Tusk and Joe Biden in the US are probably the most obvious examples of this struggle.

A major challenge for Magyar will be to undo the system Orbán has put in place over the past 16 years to exercise control over the country. A key component of that system is Fidesz’s extensive control over the media.

Research I have carried out alongside colleagues shows that, despite a semblance of pluralism, most Hungarian media outlets are now controlled by people close to Fidesz. The pro-Fidesz Central European Press and Media Foundation (Kesma) plays a particularly central role, controlling more than 500 national and local media outlets.

Here, the experience of Poland is informative. When Tusk’s centre-right Civic Coalition replaced the populist, right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party as Poland’s governing coalition in December 2023, one of the first actions of the new government was to try and depoliticise public media.

In eight years of PiS government, Polish state media was accused of promoting the party’s policies and launched personal attacks on opposition figures, including Tusk. During a campaign rally months ahead of the election, Tusk said: “We will need exactly 24 hours to turn the PiS TV back into public TV. Take my word for it.”

And when in power, his government acted swiftly. It fired the supervisory boards of all three of Poland’s public media institutions – Polish Television, Polish Radio and the Polish Press Agency.

The PiS and its supporters quickly pushed back. PiS organised street protests and a sit-in at the public broadcaster, prompting the government to send in the police. This created an opportunity for PiS to denounce the new government’s action as an anti-democratic attack on the free press.

Mishandling the depoliticisation of the media was part of the Tusk government’s bad start to the post-populist era. At least partly as a result of this, PiS was able to regroup. In June 2025 it secured a big electoral win when PiS-backed Karol Nawrocki beat the governing party’s candidate, Rafał Trzaskowski, to the presidency.

Post-Orbánomics

Beyond the depoliticisation of captured public institutions – which include not only the media but also courts and parliament – the economic performance of Hungary’s post-populist government will be important. It is one thing to promise a brighter future; it is another to deliver it.

Here, the Biden administration provides a cautionary tale. According to American political scientist Paul Pierson, Biden’s economic programme was arguably the most ambitious democratic economic programme of investment and stimulus since the 1960s.

As a result, unemployment fell more quickly in the US than elsewhere after the COVID pandemic and, for the first time since the 1970s, wage inequality in the US decreased. Yet, during the 2024 presidential election campaign, the democrats were not able to take advantage of this success.

Instead, inflation largely caused by external factors such as post-pandemic supply chain disruptions and increasing energy prices became the key economic talking point. The usual authoritarian populist “culture wars” campaign did the rest to see US voters elect Donald Trump for a second term.

Magyar will face an equally daunting task when it comes to reforming the Hungarian economy. Since the end of socialism in the late 1980s, Hungary’s economic model has been strongly dependent on foreign direct investment (FDI).

It initially depended on inward investment from western Europe, in particular from Germany. Now it depends increasingly on investment from east Asia. The strong reliance on FDI has created what researchers have called a dependent market economy model of capitalism.

Orbán has sought to attract investment from China and South Korea into EV battery manufacturing. Due to, among other things, the massive water usage of EV battery plants, this part of “Orbánomics” is ecologically disastrous and highly unpopular among the Hungarian population. This led some observers to consider foreign EV battery investments as an electoral liability for Orbán.

In this context, Hungary’s post-socialist strategy of relying on FDI may have run its course. But developing an alternative economic strategy will be no easy task. Over the past decade or so, the EU has relaxed its traditionally hostile approach to industrial policy, giving member states more leeway to pursue industrial change.

So far, governments in eastern and central Europe have used this leeway to try and take back control over their domestic economies by reducing FDI dependence and driving out foreign companies from some industries. But this strategy has not helped to provide the economic growth and uplift in living standards that these countries need.

Magyar will need to surround himself with the right economic advisers to figure out what an alternative model that delivers on the promise of a more prosperous future for Hungarians could look like. If that fails, Orbán – with the help of his backers in Russia and the US – will try and regroup in opposition and possibly return in 2030 portraying Fidesz as the saviour of the Hungarian people.

– ref. Could Viktor Orbán be back in 2030? Why Péter Magyar has a fight on his hands after landslide win – https://theconversation.com/could-viktor-orban-be-back-in-2030-why-peter-magyar-has-a-fight-on-his-hands-after-landslide-win-280604

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/could-viktor-orban-be-back-in-2030-why-peter-magyar-has-a-fight-on-his-hands-after-landslide-win-280604/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lillian Krikheli, Lecturer in Speech Pathology, La Trobe University

When you have a baby, mealtimes can be messy and stressful.

If you’re a new parent you may be unsure what, when, and how to feed your little one. And you may also worry about choking, particularly when it’s time to start feeding your baby solid foods.

For babies starting solids at the recommended age of six months, it’s important to offer foods in a variety of different ways. Purees can be a helpful starting point, but they shouldn’t be the only texture a baby experiences.

Research suggests not waiting too long to introduce lumpy or textured foods. Infants who start eating lumps at 10 months or later were more likely to develop feeding difficulties and become selective eaters.

So if you’re a parent, where do you start? And what other foods are good to try?

Why texture matters

Mealtimes are crucial for a child’s development because they’re an opportunity to explore different textures and develop oral motor skills.

Imagine you’re eating a piece of toast. This involves performing a range of movements including holding, biting, chewing and swallowing. All of these actions require different muscles to work together, and only improve through practice. But that practice is only effective if it involves real food, as opposed to non-edible teething toys and isolated oral exercises like jaw opening and closing or cheek puffing.

When starting solid foods, many parents rely on purees and pouches as convenient ways to feed their babies. There’s nothing wrong with puree in itself. Many of our favourite foods resemble purees. Think of buttery mashed potato, yogurt, ricotta and applesauce.

The problem arises when purees and pouches become the only texture parents offer their babies, particularly early on. Babies who only eat pureed foods have less opportunity to develop the skills needed for eating and drinking. And research suggests children who frequently eat pouched foods are more likely to become fussy eaters.

So there’s nothing inherently bad about pureed foods. But feeding your baby varied foods gives them more opportunity to develop crucial oral motor skills.

Does it matter how I feed my baby?

There are various ways to start giving your baby solid foods.

One common approach is “baby-led weaning”. That’s where parents encourage their baby to feed themselves, rather than fully spoon-feeding them. This can encourage your baby to be more independent and explore food on their own. But it may also make mealtimes messier and more time-consuming for parents. And it can also feel daunting for parents who are concerned about choking.

However, one 2016 study found babies who feed themselves are no more likely to choke than babies who are spoon-fed. Foods which are suitable for baby-led weaning include strips of omelette, ripe avocado wedges or well-cooked corn on the cob. However, the researchers emphasised the importance of preparing foods appropriately and using risk minimisation strategies. These include avoiding high-risk foods such as popcorn, cutting round foods such as grapes and cherry tomatoes, and supervising babies whenever they eat.

An ‘in-between’ option for feeding is to offer your baby purees, while giving them a degree of independence. For example, you may pre-load a spoon for your baby to bring to their own mouth. You can also pair purees with larger foods, say a broccoli floret dipped in hummus. These combinations will help your baby develop eating skills while you become more confident with feeding your baby.

No matter what feeding approach you take, infant first aid training is a must for parents and carers. And if your child was born premature, has a developmental delay or has specific nutrition requirements, it’s best to speak to a paediatrician before giving them solid foods.

When you have a picky eater

Even if your baby transitions well to solid foods, toddlerhood can bring a new set of challenges.

Toddlers tend to be selective about what foods they do or don’t eat. They may also become more cautious around unfamiliar foods. These are both normal parts of a child’s development.

But problems can arise when parents pressure toddlers to eat food they don’t want to eat or when they aren’t hungry. Even small gestures, such as using a “spoon as aeroplane” or asking them to take “one more bite” in front of the TV or tablet, can put pressure on children. As a result your child may eat that next mouthful but, over time, they may develop a negative relationship with food and mealtimes.

As parents and carers, our role is to offer food at predictable times and in positive mealtime environments. Some ways to do that include:

• trusting they’ll eat as much as they need
• eating shared meals when possible
• modelling enjoyment of different foods during shared meals
• offering new foods alongside familiar favourites
• giving children multiple opportunities to see and try new foods, even if they don’t eat them the first time.

Unfortunately, babies and toddlers won’t love every meal you make them. But in time they’ll come to learn about, and even enjoy, a world of different textures and tastes.

– ref. Worried about feeding your baby solid foods? Here’s what you should know – https://theconversation.com/worried-about-feeding-your-baby-solid-foods-heres-what-you-should-know-278891

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/worried-about-feeding-your-baby-solid-foods-heres-what-you-should-know-278891/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Francis Thrush, Professor of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Walk across a mudflat at low tide and you might notice small, neat mounds of sediment scattered across the surface.

These so-called “chimneys” are the calling card of the humble bamboo worm (Macroclymenella stewartensis) which inhabits sandy sediments within New Zealand’s sheltered bays and estuaries.

Despite their hidden lives and small size – most measure just a few centimetres long – these worms have an outsized influence on the health of our marine environment.

But now there are troubling signs that microplastics – tiny but pervasive fragments of broken-down plastic – are disrupting the vital role the worms play, with potentially wider effects we are only just beginning to understand.

Hidden heroes of the seafloor

Over time, scientists have come to recognise the role bamboo worms and other tiny creatures have in bioturbation: a process essential to the functioning of coastal ecosystems.

When healthy, the worms burrow in the seafloor, enabling oxygenated water to enter deeper into the sediment. This, in turn, breathes life into the seabed.

The worms also feed on organic matter, helping regulate carbon and nitrogen in the sediment and surrounding waters. As they deposit small piles of waste, they provide nutrients for microscopic plants, supporting coastal food webs.

When these processes are disrupted, the impacts can ripple outward.

Nutrients can build up, increasing the risk of algal blooms that strip oxygen from the water. This can worsen conditions to the point where fish and other marine life can no longer survive.

Healthy marine sediments also act as a buffer against climate change by locking away carbon. When that balance is lost, sediments can instead release greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane.

How microplastics mess with marine life

Marine microplastics – fragments smaller than 5 millimetres from sources such as vehicle tyres, synthetic clothing fibres and degraded plastic waste – are now found from the tropics to Antarctica. Some estimates suggest there may be more than 170 trillion pieces in the world’s oceans today.

In New Zealand, scientists have been surprised to find them building up even in seemingly pristine marine environments, far from towns and major sources of pollution.

Their impacts are wide-ranging and still being uncovered.

Their small size makes them easy for marine organisms to ingest, often by mistake, where they can cause physical damage and leave animals malnourished. Microplastics can also carry toxic chemicals that interfere with reproduction and development, with these effects building up through the food chain.

When we look at how microplastics affect life on the seafloor, the picture becomes yet more complex.

In a recent study carried out at the University of Auckland’s Leigh Marine Laboratory, we found bamboo worms became less active when exposed to them.

It’s still not clear why. The worms may be ingesting plastic, absorbing chemicals from contaminated sediments, or simply finding less food if microplastics reduce algal growth.

What matters is that their behaviour shifts as microplastic levels increase – with potentially important implications for bioturbation and ecosystem health.

It might also be causing knock-on impacts for wider food chains, as seabirds and eagle rays feed on worms and other tiny creatures in the seabed.

A micro pollutant, a macro problem

While plastic continues to accumulate in the marine environment, some microplastics may break down in sediments over time. Even so, this is unlikely to offset the growing volume, meaning the overall burden continues to rise.

People can help tackle the microplastic problem by reducing the amount of plastic they buy, picking up plastic rubbish on the beach, supporting harbour clean up groups and buying clothing made of natural fibres.

Presently, there are no limits set for safe levels of microplastic pollution in New Zealand – and policies will be needed to manage the problem.

Clean coasts are highly valued by New Zealand communities, but the health of these environments depends as much on what lies beneath the surface as what is visible above it.

While attention often focuses on those “charismatic” species such as dolphins and penguins, the small organisms living in the seabed play an equally important role in keeping ecosystems functioning.

– ref. How microplastics hurt the hidden helpers that keep our coasts healthy – https://theconversation.com/how-microplastics-hurt-the-hidden-helpers-that-keep-our-coasts-healthy-280266

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/how-microplastics-hurt-the-hidden-helpers-that-keep-our-coasts-healthy-280266/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Tanner, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Gender Studies, Monash University

The explosion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools has provoked both hopes and anxieties about the potential benefits and harms of this technology. In advanced economies, people are almost equally worried and optimistic about it.

This is perhaps unsurprising. AI consumes vast amounts of natural resources yet promises to save the planet. It may improve human efficiency and productivity, while putting millions out of work.

For many white-collar workers, AI use now seems non-optional. The messaging is clear – get on board or be left behind.

Amid this uncertainty and rapid technological uptake, concerned citizens have made efforts to resist AI. One form of AI resistance, aimed at sabotaging the functionality of AI large language models, is data poisoning. But how accessible is it to the everyday person? And what is at stake in its use?

What is AI resistance?

Acts of AI resistance range from social sanctions and boycotts, to strikes, protests, public outcry and lawsuits. Driving these acts are perceived threats to jobs, ethics, safety, democracy and sovereignty, and the environment.

AI is also described as an existential risk to creative industries, including music, fiction and film. In the United Kingdom, generative AI has been characterised as an “industrial scale theft” that threatens a £124.6 billion (A$237bn) creative sector and more than 2.4 million jobs.

People have long used civil disobedience to address social injustices. Famously, Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit at the back of a bus in Alabama led to a 13-month bus boycott by tens of thousands of Black residents. It only ended when racial segregation on public transport was deemed unconstitutional in the United States.

Acts of sabotage have also long been central to collective action against injustice. In fights for labour rights, workers have employed diverse tactics to reduce efficiency and productivity. This has ranged from hotel workers putting salt in sugar bowls to farm workers breaking machinery.

Data poisoning can be viewed as a modern version of these historic actions.

How does data poisoning work?

Data poisoning means deliberately inserting misleading, biased, or nonsensical content into the data AI models learn from, to make their outputs worse. Only 250 poisoned documents in a dataset could compromise outputs across AI models of any size.

There are various ways to poison data. Some require highly technical skills, others are accessible to anyone with an internet connection – if their text or images are used as training data.

Researchers have developed several data poisoning tools that exploit the vulnerabilities of AI models. Glaze and Nightshade enable artists to make poisoned visual images that can’t be used as training data. The tool CoProtector defends against the exploitation of open source code repositories like Github. Monash University and the Australian Federal Police have created Silverer, enabling social media users to doctor personal images to prevent them from being used in deepfakes.

But you don’t need a tool or advanced skills to affect AI. Simply creating websites with factitious information, making jokes in Reddit, feeding models their own outputs, or editing Wikipedia can poison data.

Data poisoning is commonly presented as a dangerous act perpetrated by “cyber criminals” or “malicious actors”. But what if it’s used to protect human rights?

Is data poisoning legal? Is it ethical?

Legal obligations related to data poisoning are often directed to AI developers and organisations. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act requires that appropriate measures are adopted to prevent and detect data poisoning.

The legal status of AI data poisoning by individual users is less clear. Criminal penalties may apply under US or UK computer fraud and misuse laws. Interference with an AI model would also likely breach the terms of service of AI companies.

If AI data poisoning is unlawful, questions could still be asked about its ethical status. Philosophers have long recognised that civil disobedience can be justifiable in circumstances where legally sanctioned practices produce serious injustice.

If AI companies are operating with state approval in ways that impact citizens’ rights to privacy, copyright, safe and secure work, quality education, social and sexual safety, data poisoning may constitute ethical civil disobedience.

For philosopher John Rawls, “[civil disobedience] is one of the stabilising devices of a constitutional system, although by definition an illegal one”.

If the intention is to prevent mass unemployment, preserve the integrity of elections, and protect against social harms (suicide, child abuse, increased human isolation, loss of human creativity and environmental degradation), data poisoning could align with the principles of justice that underpin democratic social institutions.

A significant problem with data poisoning is that even if models become compromised – and outputs grow inconsistent, misleading, or nonsensical – users overly trust AI systems. Data poisoning then could contribute to harms it seeks to resist, amplifying the inaccuracy of systems humans are increasingly relying on, irrespective of their quality and effects.

Data poisoning is not simply an immoral cyber crime. It can be an ethically complex strategy to address social injustices. AI development needs to be of collective benefit and aligned with public values and interests. If AI company employees are asking “Are we the baddies?”, history may prove that in some cases data poisoners are on the side of good.

– ref. In the face of rampant AI, is ‘data poisoning’ a new form of civil disobedience? – https://theconversation.com/in-the-face-of-rampant-ai-is-data-poisoning-a-new-form-of-civil-disobedience-280146

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/15/in-the-face-of-rampant-ai-is-data-poisoning-a-new-form-of-civil-disobedience-280146/