This is the first result from Google. It’s I guess ancient history now being it was the labor rights push to (probably) unintentionally discredit kevin07, but internal politics aside Conroy (famous for his opposition to adult rating for videogames) was for aong time a candidate for ‘biggest piece of shit in Australian politics’. Stephen Conroy was the face of it, so search for him and firewall to your hearts content. The Alana and Madeline foundation were involved in some of the testing that damned the project, if I remember right (as if common sense hadn’t already damned it with seconds of the sales pitch).

Theres a scale of influence, with a big difference between foolproof and entirely unenforceable.

In this case, it’s effectively unenforceable, so what’s the point in wasting time and effort drafting something that won’t actually make any difference?

A few years ago the Australian government spent an enormous amount of money on a proposed firewall to protect the children. After years of development they were ready to pilot test their white elephant, and discovered that, on average, the Australian 12 year old could bypass it in ten minutes.

It’s unlikely that the government could even enforce an obstacle as robust as the “are you 18+” checkbox that porn sites opt in to. This new law will not have any influence on under 16s online presence.

The court found him guilty, and then in a super sketchy, never before seen, closed door jury free appeal, a federal judge overturned it. Regardless, throughout Francis maintained support for Pell, including the period between his conviction and his incredibly sketchy appeal. There’s no lense where I can accept anybody as moral, Catholic or otherwise, when they have publically supported a convicted abuser of children.

This is also only a a single example, there have been numerous cases of the vatican, under Francis, offering insultingly low settlements to silence victims based on their inability to afford to pursue what’s fair (the average is $268,000). There’s a clear pattern of the vatican, including during Francis’ leadership, of shirking the victims of their organization. This suggests is what little progress they actually do (very publically) achieve is more about marketing than justice.

There are lots of ways the Pope behaves that make it seem like anything he’s doing to address child rape by clergy is theatre.

Pope Francis stood by George Pell and even let him have his funeral at the vatican. Standing by someone who’s been credibly accused of sexual assault of a child (and has definitely facilitated it by others) isn’t, in my view, something that can be done in parallel with an honest and good faith attempt at fixing the problem. It looks even more shady if you look at the conditions of Pella conviction being overturned (definitely special treatment because of his connections).

Children should be raped, but not killed

-Pope Francis (probably)

I’m not sure I could be happy if I hadn’t made the choices I made, poverty felt like a prison so I did what was necessary to set myself up. I played the hand I was dealt and I think I played it reasonably well, but if I was born in easier times I’d have definitely made different choices.

I don’t the insinuation that “millennials had the opportunity to achieve wealth like their parents” these type of articles make, it feels dismissive of the sacrificed youth and relationships.

This is" true" for a (tiny) subset of the Australian population. I know that I straight up sacrificed my 20s to an engineering degree and fifo job and now, at 35 I have comparable material wealth to my dad when he was my age (who was a sheet metal worker in a major city). But even still, the tiny population who did what I did will never get another run at what should’ve been the best 15 years of their life.

I’m unconvinced that my decision was better than the ones my (much poorer) friends who now have families made…

*words hahaha

Only the first 7 letters words of this headline are needed.

XP sp1 and 2 were more or less the same as me with an updated UI and non existent 64 bit. However flawed vista was, it added an actual tangible benefit for 7 to further improve on.

I’d argue 7 was the last windows os that could be described as “better” in some way than what came before (which most, even the ones we remember as “bad” at the time, did offer some real step forward which isn’t true for 8/10/11).

The “speculative investors removing housing stock to drive up costs” folks tend to be corporately owned and industry coordinated properties that deliberately keep units open above the clearing rate, in hopes of driving up the prevailing cost of new housing.

This is dependant on the market (the post didn’t say where they are), but I understand is true in the US.

In Australia, the speculation is driven by individuals who get incredible tax incentives if their income is above a certain level. Because of this, the housing market is distorted to the point where housing values are detached from rent potential, with all the value being driven by capital gains and tax offsets. This further leads to a situation where it’s often more economically viable to leave a house empty (and therefore not have to maintain the property or deal with tenants) while the value grows and the tax is written down.

Dude he’s losing money year on year and capital gains carry it through to make it profitable longer term. The problems isn’t “landlords make a profit”, the problem is “speculative investors are removing housing stock driving up costs”.

Through that lense this guy is no saint.

Because he has unrealized capital gains - in yearly income/expenditure their losing money but big picture, when they sell, they profit.

In Australia, rental returns are paltry (less than 2%) compared to any other investment, but steep tax concessions on and insane capital growth (often higher than 6% annually) incentivises speculative investment in real estate… This is what’s driving up the cost of housing to the cartoonist levels they currently are in. It’s not unusual for these speculators to not even bother with tenants, because like op suggests they often lose money maintaining the property, it’s cheaper to speculate and maybe renovate immediately before selling.

The problem has nothing to do with landlords and everything to do with speculators going for capital gains. Greedy landlords can be a problem where there are no rentals protections, but that can easily be resolved with regulation.

I used to have a pebble back in the day, and then later a pebble steel. I’ve not found a modern smartwatch that is as good for my needs (partially because it doesn’t look like a smartwatch).

I use a Samsung Galaxy wear, which also looks like a normal watch. I’m sure competing products are used a lot and you just don’t notice them because their styling is modelled off of dumb watches.

If people wanted them, they’d sell them here.

Yeah depending on where “here” is different things are available. If people don’t buy them or if dealers make more money off SUVs, then they will be gone.

Also seems they have bigger engines and clearly a larger physical footprint than my wife’s CUV, so that argument is gone as well.

Size and fuel economy weren’t things I mentioned above, but yeah I agree with you. Usually station wagons, like SUVs, have different engine configurations which dictates fuel economy more than ride height. The fuel efficiency argument against SUVs is a little out of date, the smaller ones are shared chassis with passenger cars often with the same engine, so fuel economy is more or less unchanged (the aero is worse on an SUV, but the kind we are discussing it’s not really significant). By footprint I guess you mean length, which in the example I have is right, obviously height goes the other way. Smaller SUVs are more comparable to hatchbacks (eg Mazda 3 is the same as CX-30), I don’t think the mid sized car platform is as directly comparable to the mid sized CUV/SUV.

Ok so we could’ve saved time if you just said you’re the least cool person imaginable with negative sense of style. Claiming that this is somehow cooler than this is entirely indefensible, SUVs are the literal antithesis of cool, the “soccer mum” moniker is not a term of endearment and your insinuation that wagons are uncool or old fashioned is, at best, misinformed.

Aside from just being criminally uncool and unsexy, there are objective ways that SUVs/CUV are worse as well, most notably safety for other road users but also higher cost and of course the one people like me care about: that they also that they universally drive worse than a comparable passenger car.

I guess you didn’t Google the safety stats on SUVs vs passenger cars, your allegory to blaming the tools is flawed. It’s more like saying guns without safetys are more dangerous than those with them. All cars (much like all guns) are dangerous, but some are more likely to be involved in accidents than others.

Google pedestrian deaths by SUVs compared to conventional sedans. To say there is no rational argument against the SUV trend is laughably ignorant.

It also confuses me why yanks keep pretending small SUVs have more space than conventional station wagons. Unless you’re going full Yankee and think a 7 seater is “small”… despite the size they often have worse visibility and less passenger space, it’s a genuinely impressive how bad something like a Nissan kicks or toyota C-HR manage to be.

A station wagon is easier for moving animals, more space than a small SUV - it’s lower to the ground (huge plus if you have to lift them in, easier for them if you are leading them up a portable ramp).

The trade off is you can’t do soft sand, cross deeper streams etc, but IMO animals don’t need to be released far off track, to me it’s worth the trade off.

People always down vote when I point that out as well lol. Windows mobile was already moving towards icon based UIs pre iPhone, so while the UI was a definite improvement it wasn’t the revolution it’s made out to be. The iPhone 1 had no app store or 3g so was not good for emails and, back in 2007 when flash still mattered, couldn’t access most of the Internet where windows phone could. I’m pretty sure it was successful purely based on the iPods popularity, at least until the iPhone 3gs and app store came out and the iPhone became arguably a better smartphone than those that came before.