I like the callout to On the Beach, fits well with a post apocalyptic Australian game (it’s a good book, albeit not one you want to read if you’re already feeling down).

It’s not a fee for the beaches per se but the fee for entering the national park which covers the territory (though it is in effect paying to see beaches as that’s the main reason to visit).

There’s also basically no reason to ever go there unless you’re in or supporting the military bases located there.

It does have some rather pretty beaches, best to plan on checking out all that’s there to make it feel worthwhile though as they sting you $20 to see them.

Good to see some progress there, it’s not going to make a huge difference at this stage but if it helps progress a more ethical meat option it will be useful in the long run.

Although I can’t imagine an Internal Combusion Engine sub being at all stealthy

Diesel electrics can be very stealthy, with the potential to be even more so than nuclear subs when trying to hide (given equivalent level of technology elsewhere in the design). What they can’t do is continue being stealthy for anywhere near the time a nuclear sub can as eventually you need to come near the surface and run the diesel to recharge the batteries. Diesel electrics are also comparatively range limited - while they can travel a considerable distance nuclear subs are effectively only limited by their ability to supply the crew.

I’m going to say somewhere near this location looking towards the Gold Coast. Haven’t spent time in that region so can’t confirm but I’m liking my odds based on the skyline, terrain and view angle.

No. That is one question they ask. It is not how they define intimate partner violence.

It’s not how they define it in the report but it sure sounds like if you answered yes to that one question they went ahead and classed you as using/experiencing intimate partner violence anyway. It’s right there in the report:

To understand the use of intimate partner violence, respondents were presented with a series of questions following the prompt, ‘As an adult, how have you behaved towards a past or present partner?’, and asked to respond either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Respondents were also able to skip answering these questions. The questions included:

• Have you ever behaved in a manner that has made a partner feel frightened or anxious? (emotional- type abuse)

Similarly, men were coded as ever having used or experienced forms of intimate partner violence by 2022 if they had responded ‘yes’ to any of the types of violence at either the 2013–14 survey or the 2022 survey.

Regardless of the journalism it seems to be a pretty disproportionate outcome.

If it were just him stealing then getting immediately tackled I’d be more sympathetic, but considering he was assaulting people before even entering the shop I’d put decent odds on the guard not being the one to start the fight. He still shouldn’t have died over it but if you’re going to get into fights the chance of something going wrong is non-zero.

If it was a white kid in the ghetto the outcome would and is different. Look at the deaths in custody.

Indeed, the white kid would be more likely to die in custody if taken into it. Whether he’d be arrested in the first place is another matter but I think it’s a pretty good bet that if this same situation occurred with someone of any ethnicity they’d be ending up on the ground.

Pretty sure that’s an embellishment, but I can’t say I ever dived into that particular rabbit hole.

People are not “placed” on the floor – that is what you do with bags, boxes and rubbish. But that was the word used by the Northern Territory police to describe the sequence of events to the media.

Because they’re trying to put a neutral spin on them tackling the guy, it’s no surprise.

It’s like the spin they themselves have in this article with this quote:

I try to imagine a similar scene at my local Coles, where many people who have not been winners in life’s lottery also shop for little items to keep hunger at bay, but no image comes to mind.

Implying the guy was in there just shopping for little items is an interesting way to cover walking into a shop after assaulting a woman, stealing things, and getting into a fight with security when confronted. The Eulogy Song is definitely still relevant…

Agreed. Not indexing it seems a pretty deliberate move towards the same strategy as our tax brackets - capture more money each year due to inflation and occasionally make your government look good by raising the cutoff (by less than inflation).

It seems odd that they’re talking about phonics being a recent thing. At the risk of dating myself I remember a phonics based system being used when I was in primary school in the late 90s, though I couldn’t tell you much more since that’s a while ago now and I generally spent my time in those lessons reading rather than paying attention anyway. Did it drop out of use in the meantime or something?

Parks does often give the impression that they’d rather the plebs didn’t actually go into their parks, but I think them booking ghost camps might be a step too far given they could just reduce the nominal capacity further to get the same effect.

I would bet the vast majority of the problem is your second option of people booking out campgrounds to avoid others (with a side helping of those who aren’t sure which day they want to go out so they book all options). Looking at who has a record of cancelling bookings would probably allow one to cut out a lot of this as I suspect you’d find a bunch of repeat offenders.

Closer to cities where demand is higher, the campsites are more desirable and therefore the ghost booking issue is worse. A higher fee discourages that. On the downside, you pay more for convenience of not having to drive far.

The tier system described appears to be more based on available facilities though rather than visitor numbers, while it does mention demand in passing this isn’t quantified and the tier table shown works off facilities/servicing.

I would agree there does tend to be correlation between high demand campgrounds and highly serviced ones so you do have a point with high prices for higher tiers being necessary to some extent. I do think though that applying a state wide pricing system will end up with noticeably higher prices in a lot of places not near the major centres (or the major attractions).

The removal of fees and bookings for the unserviced and largely unmanaged tier of campgrounds is a welcome change, I did not like it when they introduced these.

Not getting 100% of the booking charge back sounds like it should cut down on people booking when they don’t actually mean to turn up, so I’d say that’s reasonable.

I have reservations about how expensive the higher tier charges are though, even the mid tiers are getting pricey for what’s supposed to be a cheap activity.

When it comes to preferences they go to the parties/candidates in the order that you number them. Others can suggest where you send your preferences (how to vote cards being the typical method) but ultimately it’s up to you.

For the house of reps if a third party doesn’t win the seat you will ultimately end up voting for Labour or Liberals, because you have to number all the boxes. You’ll have to decide which you like more (or least) and number accordingly. In the senate you can potentially exhaust your vote before reaching the majors (assuming you reach the minimum numbering before getting to them) but unless you truly believe both majors are the same I’d advise including them.

If you vote above the line in the senate your preferences follow party lines as you have numbered them (i.e. preferences will count towards the candidates for the first party you number, then the second and so forth). You still control what parties you’re voting for and what order.

It was always a shame watching the old timber bridges get replaced with the comparatively soulless concrete designs, nice to see that some are escaping that treatment.

I looked into volunteering for the local SES once (when I was looking for stuff to do with my life after uni) and they turned me down, so actually accepting people who are interested is something that might help with their numbers.

The gender pay gap is not about “equal pay for equal work”

Indeed, it seems to be primarily about making rage bait headlines.

Women work less hours on average, with considerably more working part time and those who work full time working less hours than men overall (so less overtime pay). What are you going to do to fix that gap, force women to work more? Between that and less women choosing to work in various higher paid and more physical/dangerous jobs (e.g. trades, mining) it’s no wonder there’s a difference.

Indeed, so now both the roads and cars are a lot safer I would be very happy to increase speed limits - particularly on highways and country roads. The idea that speed is the root of all evil however has been pushed enough that an unfortunate amount of people believe it, as can be seen by how this post has been dogpiled with downvotes despite the article presenting a quite sensible view. I even got several downvotes elsewhere in the thead for pointing out that cars are actually safer now than in the 70s, as if that was somehow a contentious point of view.