Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

351

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, wow. Exactly. I hadn't heard about this movie before. But yeah, hits the same point i's making! With better looking delivery!

Reading OP, i thought the same. The problem seems to be a sorting issue they have with the algorithm. Quit the reliance on that, rely instead on curated song lists and OP might have a happier time whatever new service they end up with.

I feel compelled to represent as a moderator of c/perth/westernaustralia over on the Aussie-Zone server.

There are tots-defs ten or twenty people here that will understand this hop, skip and a jump reference.

So, ah, yeah, sure showed you! 3! pffft!

The second comment also seems low effort to me.

At least for the introduction of such a separate perspective to the one being discussed.

Yeah, totally agree the cops or prosecutors won't do anything for joe blow in a situation like this. But thats why its so wrong and the rules of the game need to change.

It doesn't matter the wealth of the person bringing the case, they are the aggreived party, therefore he has a right, and in the end, if they make progress it sets precedent strengthening others claims.

And also what has the public prosecutor done for Forrest withbthwir involvement? The article didn't go into detail, it seems his lawyers triggered something that federals had to get involved in, but then at the first opportunity they've come back saying 'yeah nah, we not gona take this further.'

What am i missing here? I suppose the details of the Australian proceedings would shed more light.

Yeah true, i'm no IT guy, so in general i assumed it was always near impossible to talk with a human.

I'd argue they've always operated with a lack of accountability. The key difference, like always in power relationships, the power differential now is far more noticeable than a decade ago.

You to can get on the minimisation gravy train!

Claim that extra washing of your uniform pants that you actually forgot to do. You'll be on a yacht in Cannes before you know it!

The 'asset wealthy' being spoken of here use credit all the time as they arent in a liquid position to transact at that point, but provably do have the capital in assets to satisfy the transaction. And we all use credit, often in very reasonable situations.

For instance, a first home buyer borrowing when interest rates are low, locking in a low interest rate for a long period, can be very beneficial for the individual concerned, where house prices get higher for an extended period. Even if it does lead to some perceived realty market stickiness.

Widespread use of Credit is not the problem (in this regard), and in fact could be a sign of a more trusting global society beginning to establish itself.

Credit is also bot new. It is the OG, and has been with us since well before tokenised money. Read David Graeber's 'Debt'. And look up debt sticks, or the origin of the yin-yang symbol. The essence of David Graeber's argument is tokenised money, uniquely gold, is used when you transact with someone you are unable to trust, credit is used when you can trust.

It's of course more complicated now, the vendor is not so reliant on trusting the individual in front of them, and more reliant on the name on a bit of plastic in their pocket.

I heard on the radio they hadn't kept the receipts. Theres an accountant at channel 7 with a growing migraine trying to locate which dealer supplied, which coke, on which night. The outgoings column is a coked up mess!

Nice, that was one of my favs suggested.

I think its also the closest representation of the music thats popular in Australia right now.

That indie-surf is so hot right now!

I don't really get the idea you've explained, but i'm sure its good. I'm generally excited at the prospects of less centralised internet, and so can't wait to see projects like yours grow.

Flibboard is a social magazine thats jumping into federation. They're doing a really uplifting podcast. Their conversations might help you clarify your idea. Or even just pump you up when your feeling less motivated.

I like it, i always leave it feeling excited and hopeful about the fediverse. Anyway heres a link, https://dot-social.simplecast.com/episodes/mike-masnick-cuZMZfe9

Sorry you've had to deal with those things.

I'm happy you've looked up the definition of race. My comment was about your use, not the definition.

Now we are on the same page, i'm sure you can see that the use of the word 'race' didn't meaningfully capture the kind of group we're talking about.

Unfortunately you've applied my use of the word irrevocable too broadly. Fair enough there was no explicit mention of group. I was inferring the ability of Parliament to remove without replacement, not the general populace, who always have the referendum option for constitutional change open. We had previously discussed the need for parliamentry restraint as a key reason for the Voice, therefore i didn't feel a need to re-establish the notion. Nonetheless, now we understand each other on that point also.

Your last point is good, and i largely agree with the sentiment. The problem with the US constitutional example is that its not an example of an irrevocable law, and no law should be thought as irrrevocable in the broad sense. They could and probably should amend their constitution.

Lack of gun reform in the US is actually a problem of their legal and political systems losing the essence that makes the Western legal system strong. Our legal systems are supposed to slowly react with the changing world, be it a local Magistrate interpretting common law, or the Constitution, these legal instruments are built as changeable entities. Because as you rightly point out nothing can be truly irrevocable. (And this is why i am personally worried about the increasing codification of laws, like the police assault offences i highlighted earlier).

With my clarification of parliament being unable to revoke a Voice power, i hope you understand the misunderstanding between our positions.

Ah, 'race', always dangerous ground to take the discussion to.

The constitutional change wasn't about 'race'. It was about giving a group of people with a similar context an irrevocable minimum base of contact for the wider community to engage with, and build upon.

I don't know that calling all aboriginal australians a single race is well thought out. I defer to 'nations'. The important distinctions between people, especially where policy decisions are concerned, are their contextual groupings, not ambiguous 'racial' groups. This is demonstrated in no better place than the population of Australia, we are many races, and they aren't what defines an 'Australian'.

To say one group in a society, who is identified as having particular impediments to their prosperity, getting particular attention is anti-equality means you misunderstand the point of the Australian, and Western, model of social welfare states. Instead of demanding equality for all, which has been tried and failed through many different types of governance structures its more practical to demand minimum standards for all. And thats really what we attempt to do in Australia, we equalise to a minimum standard. If you want more, go for gold.

Your comment reflects a confusion about the 'apples to apples' comparison, (say white to black) but the focus on race is the comments problem. So far as you can ever distinguish a specific 'race'.

The real 'apples to apples' comparison is with other contextual groupings of people in Australian society who do, or do not get much attention from the government. These groupings are diverse and overlapping they include, disabled people, the oil and gas industry, farmers, immigrants, Tasmanians, retail workers, retailers, the Swedish diaspora. These are all groups of people based on all sorts of significant contextual and cultural, geographical characteristics that aren't based on the ambiguous term race.

Read the calma langton report, and you'll see their approach to a Voice representative body never treated the Aboriginal people of Australia as a single entity. They have a plan for a broad spectrum of geographic and nation based representation.

But we're back again at, putting it in the constitution lifts the negotiating position as a, 'this will happen' we just have to work out how, from 'this might happen, convince us that we should'. The bargaining positions fundamentally change.

Give it a few years, another of these commissions will be implemented, or expanded etc. And the cycle will continue. Perhaps it'll even resemble the Voice proposals, but they'll never have the constitutional backing. And they're weaker for it.

The money spent on the referendum was worth the risk of failure. And the residual benefits ameliorate the cost of failure to a larger degree than people give credit.

Another quick aside, you say its wasted money, but if you're a Classical Economics fan, who puts stock in a nations yearly GDP, then that money probably contributed to "Grrrr0wtH!!" :) /joke

Be careful with outcomes based achievables. Its a nice sounding phrase, but as the Abbott government, and their successors found out when they introduced and favoured the Indigenous Advisory Council, (to the detriment of the National Congress).

Without the buy in from the people themselves you get no where fast. A body and decisions about your life foisted upon you by a distant and obscure leadership leads to poor putcomes and decision making.

A different example, to illustrate my point:

I and my peers were once forced to learn Indonesian when the school had other subjects available and a notional choice. The Principal decided the enrolments in Indonesian weren't high enough. So all students from the primary school who'd learned Indonesian were told they must carry on with Indonesian while the rest of the year could pick. Suffice to say little Indonesian was learned in the years following, and few teachers stayed due to their inability to control a student body who were made an enemy in their own education. I'm not saying the student body were right in how they acted, but the source was an out of touch decision by a distant leadership.

Back to the Abbott decision:

In the case of Abbott's direct outcomes based solution all the money spent seems largely wasted, as the larger population indicators over the period have all deteriorated quite dramatically.

This is a key reason why the structure of the Voice was so important. The model proposed in the calma*, langton report went a long way to ensure fair representation of all Aboriginal nations across Australia. (notice i say nations, not people. There was a glaring omission by both sides about the guarantee of personal democratic rights that was never addressed in the campaigns).

Anyway, here i've gone rabbiting away again. Suffice to say the 'involvement' of stakeholders in the research and decision making process is key for a trustworthy and effective governance. This is largely why the failure of the referendum hasn't blown back on the Labor party, as evidenced in the Dunkley by-election, with a minor 3 point swing to the libs and a Labor retention.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. The 'possibility'of a representative body is a very different proposition than the 'requirement' of a representative body. Both for practical purposes (the guarantee of continuance), and in negotiating when the pollies decide they aren't happy with the old body.

An example,

I'm not sure about other States, but my State (WA), changed the law a few years ago to a mandatory jail term for people who assault a police officer. Before that, i'm sure it would have been very likely you'd go to jail for assaulting a police officer. But, it was never guaranteed. The change to a guaranteed minimum jail sentence, while functionally might not have vastly different outcomes for the perpetrators, the guarantee does give the police officers an added psychological barrier from assault in highly charged situations.

Note: This is one among other reasons the law was introduced. Eg, One punch assaults leading to deaths come to mind.

So, i hope this finally explains why, said need was not bullshit. And the wiser decision at the time, even in failure.

Here's a case i hope helps, and is illustrative,

*Think of a newstand, an older style one. Painted dark green, a little kiosk with two stands either side, lets say street side in New York.

The operator of the newstand sets the papers, magazines, et al, out along the racks. Its general practice to face the most eye-catching part of each out towards the eyes of passers-by.

A potential customer stops walking and looks along the rack for a minute, looks at the Washington Post sitting there, maybe The Economist, but settles on the New York Times.

That customer has seen the front page of the Washington Post, maybe even perused The Economist a bit, but they settled on the New York Times.

In that situation are The Economist, and Washington Post entitled to a share of that newstands revenue from selling the New York Times? Afterall that customer did read the front covers, and then a little more of one of the rejected papers.*

Facebook and Google, et al act as today's equivalent of the newstand. The BLUF is no different from any other eye catching material editors/marketers put on their publications/products to generate sales. A marketer is trained to make a sale as enticing as possible, the enticement, in this case the BLUF, is not the product.

The news business might suck at the moment, but the news media bargaining code is not the solution.

Round peg, square hole.

I really love the Medicare-esque model idea. It leaves room for journalists to be creative in their approaches, while demanding a minimum level of competency in their reporting. This of course would mean those shaded truths would probably still have to be passed, but the outright lies will be squashed. It also means journalists policing journalists, alla 'media watch' are also included in the funding model.