Darren Schiller has added a photo to the pool:

The former Adelaide Brewery buildings at 50-62 Wyatt Street, Adelaide city, state heritage listed in 1986, were linked to brewing in the South Australian colony from the 1840s.

The Pirie Street Brewery, on the Wyatt Street corner, was operated from 1847 by James Walsh on land originally granted in 1837 to William Wyatt by the colony’s resident commissioner James Hurtle Fisher. The brewery, a “brick building, brewery and malting house with large sunk beer cellars and store with wood cottage”, wasn’t popular with nearby residents and, in 1852, Walsh sold the brewery business to William Knox Simms and John Hayter.

Samuel Humble joined the business in 1853 and it traded as Simms & Humble until 1854, when the partnership (then including pastoralist James Cambers) was dissolved. Simms, having began his brewing career here, went on to consolidate West End Brewery in Hindley Street that he sold in 1888 to the new South Australian Brewing Co. Ltd.. Simms also was connected with the Waverley breweries of West Terrace and Mitcham, and the Halifax Street Brewery (now site of the former city destructor).

W.H. Clark, who built the West End Brewery, also occupied the Wyatt Street brewery briefly in 1858. That year, South Australian Register, advertised the Pirie Street Brewery “to be let with right of purchase” by James Walsh, who now owned the property and became a large shareholder in the Kadina and Wallaroo Railway Company. The buildings were occupied in 1860-61 by E.J.F. Crawford of the Hindmarsh and Halifax Street breweries.

In 1862, Walsh leased the Pirie Street Brewery to James Syme and Frederick Sison, who were "brewers at the adjacent brewery". In 1871, Syme, a Scotsman who’d worked for John Primrose’s Union Brewery, and Sison bought a small section of the buildings, continuing to lease the rest of the premises until buying it all in 1873.

This is when the business became known as the Adelaide Brewery. Syme and Sison revived and expanded it to a well-equipped brewing operation in the 1870s and the business successfully supplied city hotels including the Queen's Arms in Wright Street, the Somerset at the corner of Pulteney and Flinders streets, and the White Conduit House Hotel in North Street.

The brewery was virtually rebuilt in this era, with stables and offices constructed by Thomas Martin at a cost of £300 to Daniel Garlick's design. In 1872, Charles Farr erected a malthouse and cellar to Garlick's design and, in 1876, again to Garlick's design, a cellarage, stores, malting floor, malt kiln and bottling rooms were constructed by Brown and Thompson.

Syme and Sison carried on the business until they retired in 1882 when they sold to Andrew McIntyre, William Wicksteed and Henry Anthony, none of them having any brewing experience and continuing to trade as Syme & Sison. Wicksteed and Anthony were found insolvent in 1886. The Adelaide Brewery was bought “on very advantageous terms” by the South Australian Brewing Company in 1902 and it was closed around this time.

The buildings became commercial warehouses, with an extension and new frontage on Pirie Street around 1910. The printers Hunkin, Ellis & King occupied the Pirie Street premises from 1924 to 1974. In 1982, Kenneth Milne Architects refurbished the building, with Samuel Hill Smith buying it for an art gallery from 1983 to 2019.

The new engineering consultancy partnership of Wallbridge and Gilbert moved into the historic Wyatt Street brewery buildings in 1982 and bought them in 1991.

Darren Schiller has added a photo to the pool:

The former Adelaide Brewery buildings at 50-62 Wyatt Street, Adelaide city, state heritage listed in 1986, were linked to brewing in the South Australian colony from the 1840s.

The Pirie Street Brewery, on the Wyatt Street corner, was operated from 1847 by James Walsh on land originally granted in 1837 to William Wyatt by the colony’s resident commissioner James Hurtle Fisher. The brewery, a “brick building, brewery and malting house with large sunk beer cellars and store with wood cottage”, wasn’t popular with nearby residents and, in 1852, Walsh sold the brewery business to William Knox Simms and John Hayter.

Samuel Humble joined the business in 1853 and it traded as Simms & Humble until 1854, when the partnership (then including pastoralist James Cambers) was dissolved. Simms, having began his brewing career here, went on to consolidate West End Brewery in Hindley Street that he sold in 1888 to the new South Australian Brewing Co. Ltd.. Simms also was connected with the Waverley breweries of West Terrace and Mitcham, and the Halifax Street Brewery (now site of the former city destructor).

W.H. Clark, who built the West End Brewery, also occupied the Wyatt Street brewery briefly in 1858. That year, South Australian Register, advertised the Pirie Street Brewery “to be let with right of purchase” by James Walsh, who now owned the property and became a large shareholder in the Kadina and Wallaroo Railway Company. The buildings were occupied in 1860-61 by E.J.F. Crawford of the Hindmarsh and Halifax Street breweries.

In 1862, Walsh leased the Pirie Street Brewery to James Syme and Frederick Sison, who were "brewers at the adjacent brewery". In 1871, Syme, a Scotsman who’d worked for John Primrose’s Union Brewery, and Sison bought a small section of the buildings, continuing to lease the rest of the premises until buying it all in 1873.

This is when the business became known as the Adelaide Brewery. Syme and Sison revived and expanded it to a well-equipped brewing operation in the 1870s and the business successfully supplied city hotels including the Queen's Arms in Wright Street, the Somerset at the corner of Pulteney and Flinders streets, and the White Conduit House Hotel in North Street.

The brewery was virtually rebuilt in this era, with stables and offices constructed by Thomas Martin at a cost of £300 to Daniel Garlick's design. In 1872, Charles Farr erected a malthouse and cellar to Garlick's design and, in 1876, again to Garlick's design, a cellarage, stores, malting floor, malt kiln and bottling rooms were constructed by Brown and Thompson.

Syme and Sison carried on the business until they retired in 1882 when they sold to Andrew McIntyre, William Wicksteed and Henry Anthony, none of them having any brewing experience and continuing to trade as Syme & Sison. Wicksteed and Anthony were found insolvent in 1886. The Adelaide Brewery was bought “on very advantageous terms” by the South Australian Brewing Company in 1902 and it was closed around this time.

The buildings became commercial warehouses, with an extension and new frontage on Pirie Street around 1910. The printers Hunkin, Ellis & King occupied the Pirie Street premises from 1924 to 1974. In 1982, Kenneth Milne Architects refurbished the building, with Samuel Hill Smith buying it for an art gallery from 1983 to 2019.

The new engineering consultancy partnership of Wallbridge and Gilbert moved into the historic Wyatt Street brewery buildings in 1982 and bought them in 1991.

Een mooie opsteker voor SBS: het heeft een ware kijkcijferhit te pakken deze zomer. Het programma Zomerklagen, waarin een BN’er drie uur lang mag zeiken op Zomergasten, trok gisteren maar liefst 1,6 miljoen kijkers. De eerste aflevering, met Victor Vlam als hoofdgast, smaakte volgers kenners zeker naar meer.

“Taart voor de makers van Zomerklagen!”, schrijft Tina Nijkamp op Instagram. “Een kijkcijferknaller op primetime voor SBS. De eerste aflevering, waarin Victor Vlam gevraagd werd om drie uur lang live te reageren op de Zomergasten-aflevering met Tommy Wieringa, was meteen raak. Mooie opsteker voor presentator Thomas van Groningen.”

Angela de Jong noemt het desgevraagd “logisch” dat Zomerklagen een groot succes is. “De recensies over Zomergasten zijn al jaren populairder dan het programma zelf, geen wonder dus dat deze nieuwe show een groot succes is. Zeuren over Zomergasten is inmiddels een nationale sport geworden, het is zonde dat daar voorheen niks mee gedaan werd. En het mooie is: Zomergasten stopt dit jaar dan wel, maar Zomerklagen kan nog jaren door met afleveringen uit het rijke archief.”

Volgende week gaat Jack van Gelder zich als hoofdgast eens even flink ergeren aan de aflevering met Sigrid Kaag.

​

&'

Government assessment warns of supply shock that could leave homes and businesses without gas within a decade

Great Britain risks running out of gas in the 2030s despite its growing clean energy sources, unless ministers take “unprecedented” action to guard against a future gas supply shock, according to an official assessment of the country’s gas security.

The government is considering plans to provide direct financial support to safeguard the country’s ageing gas infrastructure after a consultation found that a “high stress scenario” could mean homes and businesses run out of gas within the next decade.

Bridget Phillipson writes to watchdog asking it to look into claims Tether.bet and Fispay operated without a licence

The Gambling Commission has been urged to investigate claims that companies linked to Reform UK donors and allies of Nigel Farage have been operating without a licence.

The Labour party’s chair, Bridget Phillipson, has written to the watchdog asking it to look into Tether.bet, a Montenegro-based gambling company, and Fispay, a UK company owned by Reform’s data protection officer, Mowbray Jackson.

Whether Tether.bet, and its operators, provided or advertised remote gambling facilities to consumers in UK without the required licence

Whether Fispay Ltd, or any other UK company, provided or supported gambling facilities or services to consumers in the UK without the required licence.”

X’s algorithm learns what you hate and shows you more of it, according to a new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper, titled Value misalignment of X’s feed algorithm is a reflection of value tensions in engagement, found that the site’s algorithm prioritized engagement above all else when it generated a user’s For You Page. It also showed that X serves more ragebait to people who say they are Democrats, although the exact reason for that is unclear.

“In 2026 that’s maybe not the most surprising headline ever,” Ziv Epstein, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University, and co-author of the paper, told 404 Media. “So we actually dug in a little deeper to figure out why this is actually happening, and it turns out that X's feed algorithm, like a lot of these social media algorithms, is optimized for engagement [but] it turns out that not all types of engagement are considered equally.”

The study’s goal was to understand how a user’s self-professed values system might shape what they see on X. “We recruited a nationally representative sample of N = 715 Americans who are active users of X in September and October 2024, quota matched on ethnicity, gender and partisanship, to install a browser extension to collect their [For You Page] and Following feeds,” the study said.

Epstein said the study was observational and meant to get people asking questions about what they want to see on social media, how their feed is designed, and by whom. “There are these social media algorithms that have enormous amounts of power in our lives, they shape the information that we consume, and we have very little transparency into how they operate and what their implications are,” he said. “And so, we were very interested in trying to understand the particular effects of this particular algorithm, and so I think that has kind of important implications for civil society and just fighting some of the technofeudalistic tendencies of platforms to control these algorithms.”

For the study, researchers collected a “values inventory” of the volunteers using a research tool called the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. The values inventory in the study is presented as a wheel with 19 points that corresponded to features like “tolerance,” “dominance,” “hedonism,” and “openness to change.” Users also reported their political alignments.

Then researchers watched how users engaged with posts on X and how those posts reflected their self-reported values. “We observe that the inventory of posts from followed accounts reflects users’ self-stated values — but that there is an overall negative correlation (misalignment) between users’ explicit values and the values in content that the algorithm is more likely to amplify,” the study said.

When a user on X sees a post that makes them mad — like a press release from a politician from a political party they don’t like — sometimes they’ll fight about the post in the replies. It doesn’t matter who you follow or what your stated values are, X reads replying as engagement and will send more of the infuriating posts the user’s way.

“When we look at commenting, the act of replying to posts, that's where we actually see some kind of meaningful misalignment between people’s values and the values of the content they’re replying to,” Epstein explained.

Most of the participants liked and reposted content on X and got served more of the same sort of content. Replying was rare, just 6.8% of the interactions according to the study, but had an outsized impact on the algorithm. “Replying is only a fraction of engagement, but there does seem to be some evidence that these algorithms are prioritizing and learning more from this kind of rarer form of engagement,” Epstein said. “So it’s this feedback loop of outrage baiting. The algorithm learns that you get outraged and then continues to serve more content in that direction and that seems to be particularly true of the Democratic users of our study.”

Though this happened across the political spectrum, the study found that ragebaiting occurred more for users that identified themselves as Democrats. “Democrat users confront the abundant value-misaligned content by replying to it, which the algorithm in turn preferentially learns from and continues to feed them,” the study said. “This highlights a core tension with how engagement-maximizing algorithms operate on social media: frictions between users’ stated preferences and their behaviors of reactive confrontation are exploited by engagement-maximizing algorithms to create runaway feedback loops of increasing value misalignment.”

Epstein said he’d need to do more research to find out why X seems to serve ragebait to Democrats more often than Republicans. It could be that there’s more rightwing content on X overall or it could be that Democrats tend to engage with posts they disagree with more often. “There might be some kind of differential effects on information diets there, or it might be something more psychological about how different you know partisan identities are triggering different kinds of actions and reactions, but ultimately I don't want to speculate too much,” he said.

I asked Epstein if he worried that prioritizing “values” in a social media algorithm might lead to more siloed user bases and more echo chambers. “I do think that if we go kind of down this path of thinking through and imagining value line social media feeds, we do have to be very aware of the potentials of value echo chambers, right?” he said. “Where people just, you know, they have the certain values that they have, and all the content they see is just aligned with those values. I think that is a very scary and dark reality.”

But he also said that values are intentional and that thinking about the kind of stuff you want to see on a social media site before you pull up your feed is a positive. “You're pumping the brakes, you're taking a breath, and you're thinking about what you actually really care about. In this world — and I don't have the data for this — but I would speculate that a lot of people actually do care about seeing a diverse set of content and engaging meaningfully across these lines, and you know maybe that isn't a particular value on my 19-dimensional wheel, but this is just a starting point of thinking about our intentions and thinking very deliberately about the kind of information we want to be exposed to, versus the the knee-jerk reaction that we're kind of learning in this very kind of short, shallow attention span, emotion and negative affect-driven model of these very myopic forms of engagement.”

X did not return 404 Media’s request for comment.