I really need to work out some kind of shade cloth setup for my apartment balcony. We don't have AC; and when there's a few hot days in a row heat from that balcony is a lot (even with the inside blinds fully closed).
I agree that the relative openness makes the choice more transparent to the public. Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is clearly bent on acting in the interests of Gina Rinehart - and we as voting members of the public get to decide whether we're ok with that.
I think that a lot of people are not ok with it; including a lot of people in One Nation's target audience. That's why Pauline Hanson downplays the relationship.
Also, the main reason Gina Rinehart's influence over Pauline Hanson is well own is because articles like this one exist. People go out of their way to shine a light on their relationship, because we it well understood that billionaires buying political influence is bad - even when that influence is not kept a secret.
And finally, Gina Rinehart's obscene wealth allows her to buy vast amounts of influence over the general public. And she is doing this, sometimes in obvious ways (such through ads, and their One Nation cartoon), and sometimes less obvious ways (such as armies of social-media sock-puppets, and close financial ties with media outlets). That's how One Nation is able to be so popular despite having no members with any policy skills, and selfish goals bent around what is profitable for Gina Rinehart.
The information may not be relevant to how you live your life, but it is relevant to the census - which is trying to build an accurate picture of the variety of people who live in Australia. These questions, which you say are irrelevant, are what the census use to determine how many trans people exist. It is literally the opposite of what you said in your first post. (i.e. they ask these things because they acknowledge such people exist. That's why they have to ask.)
I think the ABC buried the lede a with the bit about tomato country of origin. All of these things are serious problems, but I think products not being what they say they are is bigger then not being where they said they were from. And the one about methanol... that surely requires an immediate product recall for safety. Right?
“[This law has] never been applied to moral offensiveness in the way the landlord is seeking to do,” Bradley said. “We don’t doubt that the landlord is offended by what Heaps Gay was doing, but that’s a subjective personal question.”
It would be a very bad precedent to allow the landlord to evict people solely based on the landlord finding them morally offensive. The tenant's behaviour was not illegal, or damaging, or slanderous or anything like that - but the landlord found it 'offensive', and used that as a reason for eviction. If that is allowed to stand, then basically no renter is safe.
Before they were evicted, Divine Playhouse had already made hundreds of bookings and was set to support more than 1500 artists, producers, performers, technicians, small creative businesses and staff during its year-long lease, organisers said.
That's a lot of people who are hurt by this decision, and a lot of lost economic activity amongst people who need it most - apparently crushed without effort or thought by representatives of billionaires.
Codeberg has always had rules about what kind of projects can be hosted right from the start. In particular, it is for projects that have permissive open-source licences. In this sense, Codeberg has always been community focused, rather than a generic 'public infrastructure' general purpose hosting platform. With this in mind Codeberg's recent decision about AI created code is very much in line with who they are. So I'd suggest that the article's author simply misunderstood what Codeberg is, and then got unset about it.
It's a shame that it didn't work out, but the council is right with this one:
“We will reopen the tender if we have a company that comes back and meets the bare minimum standards, which is not a corporate monolith expecting an underfunded council to bankroll them.”
And I think Lime's response is a bit disingenuous:
“Those against it do relate a lot to user behaviour, but we don’t ban cars for user behaviour,”
Perhaps we should ban cars for user behaviour... but that of course is beside the point. Ebikes are not being banned or removed; only Lime's service is being discontinued. So this decision is nothing like 'banning cars'. A much closer analogy would be telling GoGet to end their car sharing operation due to users dumping those cars the middle of random roads or footpaths. (GoGet users don't do that, obviously, and so their service can continue.)
There are lots of examples where banning stuff does work. For example, its very rare to see anyone smoking in a restaurant or cafe - because it is banned. Perhaps more on point: cigarette advertising in Australia doesn't happen. No logos, no sponsorships, no TV ads... because they are banned. So then, banning vape ads is obviously a similar thing to try. But apparently TikTok, Instagram, and youTube are not doing a good job of enforcing it.
I just want to reiterate what you said about party names.
Do not vote for a party you've never heard of just because you like the message in their name. Their name does not necessarily reflect their values at all, in fact it is often quite the opposite.
Read candidate statements and decide (at least roughly) who you will vote for before you go to the voting booth.
I think that was a fair line of thinking before their current US president, but as the previous poster pointed out, the US have become erratic and dangerous in their own right. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are the enemy, but certainly we cannot rely on them to protect us. The USA now has a policy of "America first", which means that they will not help anyone unless it also serves the USA's own self interest. And frankly, the USA does not rely on Australia for anything.
The USA has by far the highest military funding in the world. But we are not going to benefit from sacrificing our money and resources on that altar. Their 'art of a deal' is that they'll take everything we're willing to give, and give back as little as possible in return - which is likely to be nothing at all.
Our defence resources therefore should go elsewhere.
So is the plan is to use a heat-pump to cool the computers while getting some waste-product as hot as possible, and then eject the waste product? Or perhaps rather than ejecting it, the heat could be put into a large surface-area heat-sink thing to just radiate the energy black-body-style...
I think ideas like this are fair and reasonable if we have to have a data centre in space (for example, if we wanted people to live indefinitely on a space-colony or something like that). But its pretty clear that no plan will ever be anywhere near as good as what we can do on the planet's surface.
Building and operating these things on the Earth's surface is already expensive and resource intensive. And doing it in space is going to be a lot worse.
Yeah, I find it very difficult to properly enjoy unseasonably 'nice' weather because of this. Like sure, it's a comfortable temperature and I could have a nice picnic or something - but my thoughts tend to turn to mass-extinction and stuff like that.
They have a lot of policies and I'd dare say that their polices the kinds of things that a lot of people are asking for.
Here is a link to their policies page for you to see for yourself: https://greens.org.au/vic/policies
It is difficult for The Greens to get any kind of positive media attention in our current media landscape, which is why we mostly just hear about their stunts and complaints rather than policies and actions. The polices and actions do exist though.
This gradual shift in discussion makes me feel like a visionary. I mean, obviously I'm not the only one, but I've been saying consistently from the very start (2007) that students using personal laptops instead of books at school was a mistake.
(My reasoning was that the laptop would be a major distraction for students, and also that having it would be very expensive and wasteful to have a laptop for every student. At the time, things like cyber-bullying weren't on my mind.)
And now, after almost 20 years, the policy pendulum seems ready to swing back in the other direction.
As an Australian, my understanding is that tortoises walk around on land, and turtles swim. Sometimes people say one when they mean the other, but that's a bit like confusing bees and wasps (i.e. people understand they are different, but in some circumstances that difference isn't important enough to try to get it right!)
On the one hand we have locking a discussion about sexual assault.
On the other hand we have a post suggesting we stop talking about what happens on a social media platform.
Those seem pretty different to me. But maybe you see things differently. I wonder how your own post would fit into it. Same energy too? Or somehow different?
I really need to work out some kind of shade cloth setup for my apartment balcony. We don't have AC; and when there's a few hot days in a row heat from that balcony is a lot (even with the inside blinds fully closed).
I agree that the relative openness makes the choice more transparent to the public. Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is clearly bent on acting in the interests of Gina Rinehart - and we as voting members of the public get to decide whether we're ok with that.
I think that a lot of people are not ok with it; including a lot of people in One Nation's target audience. That's why Pauline Hanson downplays the relationship.
Also, the main reason Gina Rinehart's influence over Pauline Hanson is well own is because articles like this one exist. People go out of their way to shine a light on their relationship, because we it well understood that billionaires buying political influence is bad - even when that influence is not kept a secret.
And finally, Gina Rinehart's obscene wealth allows her to buy vast amounts of influence over the general public. And she is doing this, sometimes in obvious ways (such through ads, and their One Nation cartoon), and sometimes less obvious ways (such as armies of social-media sock-puppets, and close financial ties with media outlets). That's how One Nation is able to be so popular despite having no members with any policy skills, and selfish goals bent around what is profitable for Gina Rinehart.
I don't think linking to a reddit thread is a great idea.
The information may not be relevant to how you live your life, but it is relevant to the census - which is trying to build an accurate picture of the variety of people who live in Australia. These questions, which you say are irrelevant, are what the census use to determine how many trans people exist. It is literally the opposite of what you said in your first post. (i.e. they ask these things because they acknowledge such people exist. That's why they have to ask.)
I think the ABC buried the lede a with the bit about tomato country of origin. All of these things are serious problems, but I think products not being what they say they are is bigger then not being where they said they were from. And the one about methanol... that surely requires an immediate product recall for safety. Right?
It would be a very bad precedent to allow the landlord to evict people solely based on the landlord finding them morally offensive. The tenant's behaviour was not illegal, or damaging, or slanderous or anything like that - but the landlord found it 'offensive', and used that as a reason for eviction. If that is allowed to stand, then basically no renter is safe.
That's a lot of people who are hurt by this decision, and a lot of lost economic activity amongst people who need it most - apparently crushed without effort or thought by representatives of billionaires.
Codeberg has always had rules about what kind of projects can be hosted right from the start. In particular, it is for projects that have permissive open-source licences. In this sense, Codeberg has always been community focused, rather than a generic 'public infrastructure' general purpose hosting platform. With this in mind Codeberg's recent decision about AI created code is very much in line with who they are. So I'd suggest that the article's author simply misunderstood what Codeberg is, and then got unset about it.
oh boy. How are they going to find enough groundwater criticised by experts?
Fair enough.
It's a shame that it didn't work out, but the council is right with this one:
And I think Lime's response is a bit disingenuous:
Perhaps we should ban cars for user behaviour... but that of course is beside the point. Ebikes are not being banned or removed; only Lime's service is being discontinued. So this decision is nothing like 'banning cars'. A much closer analogy would be telling GoGet to end their car sharing operation due to users dumping those cars the middle of random roads or footpaths. (GoGet users don't do that, obviously, and so their service can continue.)
There are lots of examples where banning stuff does work. For example, its very rare to see anyone smoking in a restaurant or cafe - because it is banned. Perhaps more on point: cigarette advertising in Australia doesn't happen. No logos, no sponsorships, no TV ads... because they are banned. So then, banning vape ads is obviously a similar thing to try. But apparently TikTok, Instagram, and youTube are not doing a good job of enforcing it.
I just want to reiterate what you said about party names.
Do not vote for a party you've never heard of just because you like the message in their name. Their name does not necessarily reflect their values at all, in fact it is often quite the opposite.
Read candidate statements and decide (at least roughly) who you will vote for before you go to the voting booth.
I even don't remember Catwoman being in Dark Knight Rises.
I'm sure that happened as one of the subplots in Optics.
I think that was a fair line of thinking before their current US president, but as the previous poster pointed out, the US have become erratic and dangerous in their own right. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are the enemy, but certainly we cannot rely on them to protect us. The USA now has a policy of "America first", which means that they will not help anyone unless it also serves the USA's own self interest. And frankly, the USA does not rely on Australia for anything.
The USA has by far the highest military funding in the world. But we are not going to benefit from sacrificing our money and resources on that altar. Their 'art of a deal' is that they'll take everything we're willing to give, and give back as little as possible in return - which is likely to be nothing at all.
Our defence resources therefore should go elsewhere.
So is the plan is to use a heat-pump to cool the computers while getting some waste-product as hot as possible, and then eject the waste product? Or perhaps rather than ejecting it, the heat could be put into a large surface-area heat-sink thing to just radiate the energy black-body-style...
I think ideas like this are fair and reasonable if we have to have a data centre in space (for example, if we wanted people to live indefinitely on a space-colony or something like that). But its pretty clear that no plan will ever be anywhere near as good as what we can do on the planet's surface.
Building and operating these things on the Earth's surface is already expensive and resource intensive. And doing it in space is going to be a lot worse.
Yeah, I find it very difficult to properly enjoy unseasonably 'nice' weather because of this. Like sure, it's a comfortable temperature and I could have a nice picnic or something - but my thoughts tend to turn to mass-extinction and stuff like that.
They have a lot of policies and I'd dare say that their polices the kinds of things that a lot of people are asking for. Here is a link to their policies page for you to see for yourself: https://greens.org.au/vic/policies
It is difficult for The Greens to get any kind of positive media attention in our current media landscape, which is why we mostly just hear about their stunts and complaints rather than policies and actions. The polices and actions do exist though.
This gradual shift in discussion makes me feel like a visionary. I mean, obviously I'm not the only one, but I've been saying consistently from the very start (2007) that students using personal laptops instead of books at school was a mistake.
(My reasoning was that the laptop would be a major distraction for students, and also that having it would be very expensive and wasteful to have a laptop for every student. At the time, things like cyber-bullying weren't on my mind.)
And now, after almost 20 years, the policy pendulum seems ready to swing back in the other direction.
As an Australian, my understanding is that tortoises walk around on land, and turtles swim. Sometimes people say one when they mean the other, but that's a bit like confusing bees and wasps (i.e. people understand they are different, but in some circumstances that difference isn't important enough to try to get it right!)
On the one hand we have locking a discussion about sexual assault.
On the other hand we have a post suggesting we stop talking about what happens on a social media platform.
Those seem pretty different to me. But maybe you see things differently. I wonder how your own post would fit into it. Same energy too? Or somehow different?