In the last couple of months I just bought 12 months through a voucher that is no more so doubt I’d get a refund, so I’ve got some time to decide. I swear everything I look into deep enough has something going wrong with it, but I guess all we can do it take the battles we can handle.

Sure, that’s fine, I tend to agree, I was drawing out the picture of the collateral, so it’s considered as much or as little as it is worth, but at least considered.

I read it as he implicitly does understand that and is the reason he suggests getting a refund if that is your priority. He is just urging people to see nuance that there is collateral damage for the rest of the people that make mullvad too. A loose analogy would be, I disagree with Trump and I wish my country would divest from the USA, which is all well and good, but the workers don’t have great protections and would likely be the first to hurt. Sure a majority of them voted for him I could rationalize, but that’s not the same rationalisation companies use to layoff before they actually start to hurt.

Australia is investing a lot in renewables at the federal level these days. And from what I understand there are alternatives to evaporative cooling. So if we do it we better do it right.

The license people agree to, to use the software disclaim warranty and limited liability. So your analogy would be better if the bridge had signage explaining such that most people don’t read. So not a legal obligation, but maybe it hasn’t been tested in court yet.

Religion helps with being overwhelmed with nuance and grey (as in not black and white). I felt that I was capable handling/accepting the reality of life and was motivated by the few instances of pain that this same help can cause to other. What I really valued from religion was morals or the moral goal and a system that dictates which are okay to not worry about didn’t sit well with me. Not saying I’m doing any better, I just have the nuance to adjust my system to be better. Instead of faithfully following something.

My take is that it is all subjective, I feel like I busted ass, I feel like a god interviewed, I feel like it was my lucky socks. Without a study and metrics we can’t objectively measure reliably, but that would be overkill for every little thing. So we take our subjective shortcuts and move on. My advice would be focus on the sentiment, “that’s impressive, it’s good that hard work/gods intervention/lucky socks helped that outcome, because it seems so surreal otherwise.”. That or have the heart to heart and put in the effort to align if it’s important and they are important to you.

It seems like it will… eventually… stop the market growing like a safe asset. Doubt they actually want costs going down, but should at least allow people to catch up, or maybe the next generation.

NDIS is interesting, they have been rooting out a lot of corruption recently, I thought the cost was just scaling down with that. https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/media-releases

The idea is that people have built their retirement using these policies and given so much time has passed with them in place, its unlikely they’d have many working years left to change strategies. So the cut out is literally their death.

I enjoy the articles at https://michaelwest.com.au/ The editor was an ex-mainstream (I wanna say SMH?) journalist. I like them because they are quite evidence based. They have YouTube too but that is mostly just opinions going over the articles they have published.

https://independentaustralia.net/ seem to have a good repetition, but I personally don’t tend to find many articles that interest me.

I can see how that is basically privatising of the public housing system, otherwise it’s just a handout from what I can tell. I mean in the mainstream media the people who are listening are already hearing “This is terrible, this won’t affect me now I’ve had enough, but I feel for the other that need this “investing” crutch”. Now imagine how much sway they would have if it did affect them. Instead of boiling the frog slowly, it’s turning down the heat slowly.

And before that use a carrot to incentivise developers to make the majority of their income on the supply side so this stick wouldn’t have them yelling like the times before.

There isn’t so much of the story elements, especially if you’ve tried Braid, but The Witness has endless intrigue and abstract puzzles. https://store.steampowered.com/app/210970/The_Witness/

Yeah, so makes sense that they had to grandfather it. I’m not into fucking old people either 😜

As Kohler points out in his introduction, the demand for housing started taking off in earnest after the Howard Government’s reduction of the capital gains tax (CGT) by 50% in 1999.

Very much keen to see this divergence stop, that would be a big difference. Bigger if wages can catch up.

https://michaelwest.com.au/the-housing-crisis-we-didnt-have-to-have-and-how-to-fix-it/

And Plasma is part of their general branding too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE_Plasma

Pretty sure the bar for dystopia is above the bottom, so best not focus downwards too much or you’ll miss half the picture.

I think this depends on the speed of AI, If it’s a slow role out and unemployment/poverty is a slow boil over decades, it probably could be a manageable minority by the “super rich”. But if it does happen quickly like the hype would have you believe, well that’s a lot of unhappy people with not much to do or lose, which is quite a lot of bargaining power.

It’s a very slow roll, but it is a roll, most of the good policies probably won’t pay off for years. Turning property developers to make their money on supply instead of hording houses as assets should help eventually. And future made in Australia poised ready to fill the demand as fossil fuels slowly die out. Doubt there is much short term though with all this effort put into fuel supplies and only treading water as is.

Exactly, I very much meant perception and their own. Not weather it’s founded in outcomes or not. I think outcomes argue better that any reasoning about perception.

Everyone votes and everyone votes in their perceived best interests. Which could look like anything across the political spectrum. For those of us who can agree with your sentiment, we need to recognise that there are those that perceive or recognise correctly these repercussions as insurmountable. So a combined stance is just yielding ground to whoever isn’t a part of that stance. That said given how much ground Labor took last election, I don’t think they would be yielding that much. But who knows, maybe most people were only 51/49 for Labor.