Ilandar 54m ago • 66%
Have you actually watched the oath? You're acting as if there is some kind of hypocrisy here, like she was perfectly happy at the time and is now contradicting a previous position. But her swearing in was also a form of protest, she intentionally got it wrong the first time around and was quite literally coerced into correcting it by the President of the Senate.
Ilandar 1h ago • 100%
As far as I know, MSG is generally cooked into food whereas chicken salt is a seasoning you add on top at the end. The single exception I'm aware of is sometimes MSG is added as a side to certain Korean dishes (you dip whatever you're eating in the MSG). In general I don't think it's something you would eat in the same way you eat chicken salt, though. MSG doesn't have the same use, it's more about feel than taste which is why it's usually mixed in with other things as opposed to being the main seasoning. It enhances other flavours whereas chicken salt is the main flavour.
Personally this is why I never have chicken salt if I'm eating chips with fish, because it is too strong and dominates the fish flavour. I would say the way vinegar is used in the UK, particularly on similar foods like fish and chips, is a more accurate comparison (I wouldn't have this combination either for a similar reason).
Ilandar 3h ago • 100%
Potential fragility aside, I think flip smartphones (at least the cheaper ones without a proper outside screen) solved the problem for me since I was never really a one-handed user of my XZ1 Compact. I liked the smaller size because it fit into every pocket safely and the smaller screen was more annoying to use and therefore less addictive. Flips have a similar barrier in terms of having to physically open the device to use it. It's a shame that even the cheaper models are getting the bigger outside screens now, though. It just makes these devices more addictive and more fragile.
Ilandar 4h ago • 90%
Get media coverage, like pretty much everything she does. She doesn't have much power as an independent senator so basically all she can do is try to exist as a cultural figurehead.
Ilandar 1d ago • 100%
Yes, that was my experience at OTR. I worked there for like 7 or 8 months before quitting and they'd only just started the "training" around the time I left and even then it was super slow, like one session a fortnight or something. The HappyWash employee at my place was immediately moved into the store when he completed his traineeship (they had a different one to us) so the company put him on the retail traineeship and lowered his wage back to $16 or whatever it was. Then they hired a teenager to fill the HappyWash role.
www.sbs.com.au
This is very reminiscent of the On The Run traineeship scandal that occurred in South Australia not long ago. Anyone know of other companies still using these traineeship loopholes to commit mass wage theft?
Ilandar 2d ago • 100%
but I guess people could preference Coalition above Labor just to hurt Labor in the 2PP figures.
I feel like reactionary swing voting like this would not be a common behaviour among union members. Like the whole point of joining a union is that you have some pretty entrenched beliefs about worker's rights, and one party here clearly has a worse record than the other in that regard. Like the thought occurred to me too, but I think you guys are right that people going further left to independents or The Greens, before ultimately preferencing Labor above Liberal, is the most likely change that could occur.
Ilandar 2d ago • 100%
Yeah I think that's a decent comparison. There are of course still hobbyists and enthusiasts today who know a lot about cars despite not being professionals working in a related field, but it does feel like the general understanding among the public has fallen because the cultural phenomenon of a father teaching his son about cars has dissipated. Piracy has always been a niche activity but the core skills and knowledges it requires were taught more to millennials than they were to zoomers. If people have grown up with less education about motor engines or desktop computers then it's not surprising they struggle to expand on that later in life.
Ilandar 2d ago • 80%
Acknowledging differences is not "war".
Ilandar 2d ago • 100%
ONE OF US ONE OF US
Ilandar 2d ago • 100%
No worries, it's not surprising you thought that because there are quite a lot of people out there like OP who spread complete misinformation about browsers they dislike/don't use.
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render it less accessible.
Not when they use the conjunction "so". If they'd used "and", then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using "so" as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of "therefore", so it's like saying "Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it's harder for users to investigate", which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain't it.
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
Remember the good ol' days when everyone bought the overpriced chicken breasts and left the cheap thighs to those of us in the know? Then for some reason everyone wised up and started buying thighs and the prices completely reversed - now chicken breasts are the cheaper option.
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
"Australia" didn't consider it. It was a conservative opposition party in one state that pushed the bill, and it was ultimately defeated.
Ilandar 3d ago • 66%
(Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi's source code is harder to investigate because "users need to download a 2 GB repo" or a "tarball dump".
Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of "so" in the sentence you typed?
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
This was a pretty underwhelming article. Most of it is a pretty uninteresting story about how the site was founded, which isn't really relevant to the headline.
Ilandar 3d ago • 81%
But that's not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):
Vivaldi users point out that the built in blocker is noticably worse than uBlock Origin, with some guessing that Vivaldi doesn’t fully support uBlock Origin filterlists (Vivaldi is closed source, so it’s harder for users to investigate).
You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi's source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it's closed source. This is not true.
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
This article has some misinformation in places. Like it claims Vivaldi's ad-blocker cannot be investigated further because the project is closed source, but the only closed source part of Vivaldi is the UI (approximately 5% of the total code). The ad-blocker C++ code is published along with the other 95% of the browser's code.
Ilandar 3d ago • 75%
*zoomer
Ilandar 3d ago • 100%
Yeah I don't really like this trend of people trying to shame each other over how they spend their money. We get it: you're mad cause you're poor and others have more money than you but crying about it won't change that. Concenrate on improving life for yourselves and those around you instead of trying to tear down others through envy. There are plenty of people struggling financially who just get on with it and try to make the most of life but I guess some are born to sook.
"iN tHe MiDdLe oF A hOuSiNg CriSis" doesn't actually mean anything either. Housing is a long-term issue that will require long-term solutions, there is no quick fix here. So how long do the complainers expect Albanese to hold off on spending his own money, I wonder? He is 61.
Ilandar 4d ago • 100%
Sounds like the SA Liberals are providing free campaign material for Labor to destroy them with in the next election. As if they even needed it, the Libs are a complete mess.
Why? Why not? I don't care about the ranks themselves, but I am tempted to give it a go and see if it results in better matchmaking than standard play.
Just curious what the demographic here is like. The game seems to be appealing, at least for now, to both crowds. I am an FPS player whereas my friend is a ex-MOBA player and we usually struggle to find games we can enjoy equally. So far we are playing Deadlock a lot together though, and I am more hooked than I expected to be when I first realised this was primarily a MOBA. If you started playing this game for a different reason feel free to share as well.
www.theguardian.com
This sounds like a positive change, definitely a much better grounding in Australian history than I received at that age. It is pretty wild that you can live in a colonial country without ever being taught what colonisation means for indigenous peoples but that is the world we've been living in until recently.
You need to only look at the modern crossbench, and the teals in particular, to see the prospect of a 2010 repeat is unlikely. These modern independents aren't former Nationals blokes who have turned their back on their party. They're modern women who couldn't see themselves in the party that once took their seats for granted. "While the 2022 election might be heralded as a ‘breakthrough’ for the independents, the conditions for their election have been building over several decade," the Australian Election Study noted in 2022. "Many of these changes are associated with voters being ‘less rusted on’ to the major political parties and becoming more independently minded in their political choices." That's the problem with scare campaigns like the Coalition's. When you threaten voters with a minority government, that would require crossbench negotiations, some in the seats you're trying to win might be left thinking: "Oh, that sounds more preferable than you."
theconversation.com
Interesting article in relation to the media pile-on of Elle Macpherson earlier this week. According to the authors, her decision to avoid chemotherapy may have been completely normal and sensible given her circumstances. We don't actually know because no one from the ABC or any other outlet bothered to check before running their stories citing her former relationship with an anti-vaxxer, or claiming that she ignored centuries of medical advice. The authors conclude that Australians have missed a great opportunity here to discuss the current state of non-invasive breast cancer research and treatment.
Interesting video, particularly the statistics around where the majority of the market is in Western countries. If you buy a base S24 in Germany, you are actually spending less money on your phone than over 70% of the country, for example. The ultra high end market absolutely dominates despite seemingly everyone complaining about how expensive phones are these days. The video doesn't really answer the question, though. It sort of implies that it's because we are keeping smartphones for longer and because they are becoming increasingly important parts of our lives as our screen time also increases. Manufacturers are also able to bait consumers into buying these crazy expensive phones with trade-in and bundle deals (throwing in "discounted" watches and TWS earbuds, for example).
This is the written article of the latest Four Corners episode.
Thoughts on the redesign? I'm not sure how I feel about it yet but I didn't particularly like the old design so I don't mind something new. It looks a lot more conventional now, similar to major news outlets like The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, etc.
theconversation.com
Author: Paul Strangio, *Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University* For nearly 200 years, the notion of American political exceptionalism has had currency in the United States: it is an idea rooted in the nation’s status as the first modern republic. As we watch from afar, disturbed yet mesmerised by the latest chapter of violent political division in America, the country seems less a paragon than a symbol of democratic pathology. America’s certainty in its political uniqueness is symptomatic of a brash national chauvinism. By way of contrast, Australia is prone, if anything, to undue bashfulness about its democratic credentials. How else can we explain that this month marks the centenary of the most extraordinary feature of the country’s democratic architecture, and yet the anniversary is slipping by with neither comment nor reflection. I refer to compulsory voting, which was legislated in the federal parliament in July 1924. Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Calculating how many countries abide by the practice is notoriously difficult, since in around half the nations where compulsory voting exists in name it is not enforced. Most estimates, however, put the figure in the vicinity of 20 to 30. If not unique, Australia’s experience of compulsory voting is highly distinctive for a number of reasons. First, its emergence in the early 20th century was consistent with the nation’s larger tradition of innovation and experimentation when it came to electoral institutions and practices. This record is typically traced back to the pioneering in the 1850s of the secret ballot (sometimes called the “Australian ballot”) in a number of the Australian colonies and the embrace of other advanced democratic measures in the second half of the 19th century. These included manhood suffrage, payment of MPs and the extension of the franchise to women, beginning in South Australia in 1894. The innovations continued in the 20th century with such things as preferential voting and non-partisan bureaucratic electoral administration. Second, Australia is alone in embracing compulsory voting among the Anglophone democracies to which it typically compares itself. The electoral systems of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are all based on voluntary voting. Third, unlike many other compulsory voting countries, Australia does not pay lip service to its operation. Electoral authorities enforce compulsory voting, albeit leniently. It has been strongly upheld by the courts and is backed by a regime of sanctions for non-compliance. Fourth, compulsory voting has been consistently and unambiguously successful in achieving high voter turnout. Though there has been a slight downward trend in turnout at the past five national elections (it hit a low of 90.5% in 2022), it has not fallen below 90% since the adoption of compulsory voting a century ago. This is around 30% higher than the recent average turnout in countries with voluntary voting. It is also well above the recent average in countries with compulsory voting systems. Fifth, the public has strongly and consistently backed the practice. Evidence from more than half a century of opinion polls and election study surveys shows support hovering around the 70% mark. **An impregnable practice** Perhaps the most singular aspect of the nation’s experience of compulsory voting, however, is how seemingly impregnable is the practice if measured by its durability, the dearth of controversy over it, the consistency of its enforcement by authorities and the way citizens have dutifully complied with and supported it. Together these things make Australia an exemplar of compulsory voting internationally. This is not to say compulsory voting has been a sacred cow in Australia. In the final decades of the 20th century and first decade of this century, there was a concerted push to end the practice emanating principally from within the Liberal Party. The torchbearer of the agitation for voluntary voting was the avowed libertarian South Australian senator, Nick Minchin. For Minchin, compulsory voting was anathema: > […] in relation to the most important single manifestation of democratic will, the act of voting, I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy. Minchin had a number of like-minded supporters of voluntary voting in the Liberal Party. Among them, importantly, was John Howard, whose prime ministership coincided with the mobilisation to abolish compulsory voting. Howard had been on record as an opponent of the practice since his entry to the federal parliament in 1974. The Liberal Party campaign against compulsory voting manifested in, among other things: * the party’s federal council resolving in favour of voluntary voting * shadow cabinet endorsing a recommendation for a change of policy to voluntary voting being placed before the joint Liberal-National party parliamentary room * the introduction in the South Australian parliament of two bills to repeal compulsory voting by successive Liberal state governments * Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters repeatedly recommending the abolition of the practice. In the end, these agitations achieved nought. The most fundamental reason was that the opponents of compulsory voting failed to generate community resentment towards the system. Howard, while restating his preference for voluntary voting, admitted as much in 2005 when shutting down debate on the issue in his government: > As I move around the country, I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, “You’ve got to get rid of compulsory voting.” Indeed, election survey data suggests the Liberal campaign coincided with a firming of public support for compulsory voting. In the two decades since, opposition has been dormant. For the foreseeable future, Australia’s compulsory voting regime is secure. **An Australian democratic exceptionalism?** As noted above, compulsory voting has kept voter turnout at elections above 90% for the past century. Kindred democracies marvel at, and envy, this level of participation. It affords legitimacy to election outcomes in this country. Significantly, it also produces a socially even turnout. Compare this to the situation in this month’s United Kingdom election. Turnout is estimated to have slumped to a record low 52%. There was a clear pattern of the “haves” exercising much greater say at the ballot box than the “have nots”. Those who stayed away from the polls were predominantly less well-off, non-homeowners, the young, the lower-educated and of minority ethnic background. Australia cannot be complacent in this regard. Low and declining turnout in remote electorates with high Indigenous populations is the most worrying chink in the performance of compulsory voting. In 2022, turnout in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari fell to 66.8%. Even so, the practice largely succeeds in achieving inclusive voter participation across the country. Crucially, compulsory voting is also recognised as one reason the political centre holds better in Australia than in many comparable nations. It exercises a moderating influence because it ensures it is not only impassioned partisans at either end of the political spectrum who participate in elections. This in turn means they are not the chief focus of governments and political parties. Under a compulsory voting system, middle-of-the-road citizens and their concerns and sensibilities count. This inhibits the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics evident in other parts of the globe. It helps explain why Australia has been less receptive to the aggressive conservative populism that has taken root in the United States and Europe. Compulsory voting also goes hand in hand with other institutional bulwarks of the nation’s democracy. While there is plenty of evidence in Australia of increasing disaffection with politics, one thing that helps bolster faith in the democratic system is the politically independent national electoral authority, the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC’s trusted impartial administration of the electoral system lends integrity to the democratic process. So do the many procedures it manages to facilitate voting. To name a few: Saturday election days, assistance for the ill, aged and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, mobile polling stations, postal, absentee and early voting, and active and regular updating of registration. Indeed, Australia has been described as “the most voter-friendly country in the world”. Compulsory voting encourages this accessibility: if citizens are obliged to vote, then it becomes incumbent to smooth the path to them participating. The ease of voting in Australia contrasts with what goes on elsewhere, for example, the rampant state-based voter-suppression practices in the United States. Dare we suggest, then, that compulsory voting is a mainstay of an Australian democratic exceptionalism? That we little note, let alone extol, the practice is perhaps not only a product of an inherent national modesty but because it is second nature after 100 years. Habituated to being compelled to participate in elections, we are inured to its specialness. Let’s hope this casual familiarity does not induce apathy rather than vigilance when next the system is challenged.