I think the AEC (and related State bodies) has codes it must enforce under its legislation, anything outside those codes it cannot enforce and would be going beyond it’s remit to attempt to. The agency won’t have the latitude that the judiciary have, nor should they.
Although these cases all build on the reality that the AEC’s rules may be inadequate for the multitude of bad faith partisans infecting Australian democracy.
Look in all seriousness, you have to consider the medium to long term effects of climate change on the chocolate industry and how thats going to affect the marketability of TimTams in the future. I would say the chocolate content of Timtams puts these biscuits into the medium risk category.
There are a couple strategies I’d suggest First Crumb Super consider implementing,
A diversified index tracking the current selection of family favourites. As a biscuit drops out of the family favourites, that money is reallocated to the remaining family favourites biscuits.
This is a high risk random sampling strategy, that may indicate such risky investment allocations into Wagon Wheels or Meiji Hello Pandas, or to such safe options as Monte Carlos themselves. This method may seem counter-intuitive but the method’s randomness can simulate the randomness of our world quite well, and may pay off with significant returns.
And finally,
Probably the most high risk strategy, but has monopolisation potential. This strategy calls upon the historic role Scotland has played in both biscuits and economics. Over leverage on, and attempt a hostile, and very snackable, takeover of the shortbread market. I’m talking Walkers, I’m talking Arnotts Scotch fingers, even Black and Gold Scotchies. If theres Tartan on that package, its a Buy! Buy! Buy!
Is a possible way to help Gazans directly. Due to aid organisations being systematically suffocated by Israeli authorities, see article.
The site and people running the organisation seems genuine, although some of the case managers will undoubtedly be swindlers. So care is required.
I don’t know how this interacts with Australian laws, but there are lots more civilians there than terrorists and they need help, and we have an extent of free association. But the ‘so called’ ethical ‘West’ doesn’t only ignore them (like we do Sudan), we actively support this through our acceptance and civil and military connections with Israel.
Its violence for a political outcome, so it probably fits the definition. The broad definition of terrorism makes it easy to apply to all kinds of circumstances. Add to that the general perception of terrorism being an extreme act and something only ‘bad people’ do. And it suddenly feels a bit over the top in this case, but is probably appropriate.
Alternatively, maybe there are legal and certainly moral arguments for the active defence of a group being murdered and terrorised supported by the actions of the company in question. There are undoubtedly moral arguments, not sure if there are legal arguments for that. I’d not excpect there to be.
From a police and authorities perspective I suppose the use of the word ‘terrorism’, release of footage, and stated extent of resources committed is likely part of a strategy to create a chilling effect around this act in order to deter further escalations.
I can only hope they investigate and strategise around Australians who serve in the IDF with an equal display of intent and rigour…
Stop raven about your corvid murder conspiracies, you have nothing to crow about.
I’m not sure they have.
Your idea is good. I’m, slowly, trying to develop an idea for a foundation/association that acts in support of user/developer projects like the ones you suggest. Like you, I think one of the issues holding back the fediverse/social web is a coordination problem. Lots of fabtastically talented people here, but its a herd of cats at the best of times! :p
From your article,
Nick Srnicek (eeewwww Linkedin!) argues that even if every platform were open sourced tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter, because Facebook has the data, the network effects, and the resources to fight off any co-op that shows up. Evgeny Morozov points out that a co-op of drivers in a small town can absolutely beat Uber locally, but it will never build a self-driving car. Rufus Pollock warns that co-ops can’t raise venture capital, move too slowly, and can even go bad, becoming an exclusive club where the drivers exploit the passengers instead of the other way around.
I’d previously thought about these issues with any small development and found a un-tethered tier system could help. The individual projects owned by the users and developers involved and a, or series of, Foundations with values missions of their own support individual projects that align with that mission.
Its a format that could be loosely based on the Climate 200 political movement supporting independent parliamentary candidates in Australia.
I feel like the two ideas gel well.
Buds patties… not reds… I don’t know, they’re nice.
Yeah, i don’t get it. As I read the article I did wonder if maybe he was made aware of Noel Pearson’s call to have direct federal funding of these communities, instead of State Aboriginal affairs bodies. But I don’t know, theres been no suggestions that is the actual case.
Its burgers from the local burger place… and chips… Think I’ll get a double jon-meat burger. They have a nice option, i think its Reds patties or something.
Alright… deep breaths… deep breaths… calm… okay… push!!!
Its a saying playing on the ancient greek Kairos (knowing when to act). But introduces ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ as its driving philosophy in the intervening periods of waiting. Dr Seus, a doctor of some repute, said of the Waiting Place, a most useless place for people just waiting, however it has been established by Mordecai Ali Van Allen O’Shea that ‘Keeping Calm and Carrying On’ is a far more effective waybto think about the intervening periods waiting to act.
I’m not exactly sure who told me. I heard it ridiculously early in my life, and whoever said it was rather muffled and hard to hear. But I follow that advice every day!
So I have a more narrow issue I’m targeting in your comment than what your reply here seems to be replying to. I’m not trying to attack you for saying something positive about Hanson. A lot of your points I wholeheartedly agree with. Its about giving an unnecessarily wide band of excusibility when compared to her political/finances conduct. She seems to have shown a pattern of corrupt intent when it comes to financing and seems to have no intention of acting in good faith or sincerity where there is no perceived threat of journalistic exposure. This has led to the endless rolling financing scandals that she shows no intention or capacity to alter.
Its not about an insincerity of her beliefs around race or her backward looking frankness of Australia. Its the seemingly duplicitous intent behind the finances that without journalists constantly holding her to account she’s loathe to acknowledge.
Take Sarah Martin’s (Guardian) reporting,
This is a random example I found within moments. She’s only acting honestly around her political finances when tge pressure is on.
This is more of an overview article
From the article,
According to Ashby, the declaration of the Florida flight and Rinehart’s hospitality failed to happen on time because of an administrative error. Ashby, who has been working in parliament for more than 15 years, claims he submitted the wrong paperwork and only realised his error when contacted by the Guardian… …But last week, after further questions from the Guardian, which were ignored, Hanson’s office suddenly found three more undeclared flights that had been gifted to the senator through Rinehart’s beef company, S Kidman and Co, last year. The party updated the register along with a dump of flights provided for the South Australian election campaign, where the state’s new laws ban political donations… …Whether deliberately or absent-mindedly, Hanson has concealed the extent of Rinehart’s support for her. Indeed, in December, back on the ground from Florida for only a few weeks, Ashby said suggestions Rinehart was bankrolling the party were unfounded. “I haven’t seen any money from her,” he said. …
Noticeably a lot of the behaviour in the article is from Ashby, which on face value supports your thesis that her Party may be dodgy, but she’s “upfront”. But this view cannot be accepted due to her dictatoral control over the party itself. This control means Ashby and the rest are conducting themselves with the formal or informal consent of Pauline Hanson by dint of her position of total constitutional control. She has the power and the knowledge of these failures to demand reporting improvements but seems not to.
Hanson president for life of One Nation. Published 12 May 2018 2:40pm, in the years since I haven’t found changes that reverses this course.
“The president of the party is Pauline Lee Hanson,” the constitution now states.
“Upon resigning from the position of president, Pauline Lee Hanson shall appoint her successor to become the next president of the party.”
Only after the resignation of Senator Hanson’s hand-picked successor will the party’s national executive be able to elect future presidents by majority vote.
Looking back at your controversial take, what set me off was,
upfront about the gifts, it’s all in the open
When it takes journalists digging through and asking questions about expenses and many instances of corrections to the public record after that fact, that demonstrates an intent to conceal, not an intent to be upfront.
They’ve taken every opportunity to keep their close relationship and friendship low key. This is because it seems a genuine personal relationship, but there is genuine public interest in this relationship which they are only forthcoming about because of media spotlighting. So many would not, and still don’t, know about this power-pair if it weren’t for a significant and ongoing campaign journalistically uncovering this relationship.
I say journalistically, because many people in WA already are well aware of this relationship, but thats through the gossip grapevine, not established facts.
All in all, I think that comment is going very easy on actions Rhinehart and Hanson cynically wouldn’t be upfront about if they hadn’t been ‘humiliated’ into it. In other words I tip my hat to Guardian, ABC, Michael West and the many other journalists in the country who’ve actually delivered a public good for the community in this instance.
If this person is using alts and still commenting then they really, really need to touch grass. Thats gona be a fairly unhealthy psychological behaviour.
Patrick if you read this please actually give yourself 48 hours offline. Disconnect and go have a cuppa with a friend or family member (or both). You don’t need to talk to then about any of this, the rest of the world doesn’t know or care anyway. :)
Don’t worry about this cesspit, we’ll all be here being our lovely toxic selves when you come back.
Its good that these things are being uncovered by ICAC, but it is really a weakness of our democracy that its so easy for these branch level activities to happen unnoticed. I think one of the problens is definitely low political party membership. Be much harder to pull this shit where there are large and active membership bases whatever the colours of the Party.
Prima facie, i’d agree on all those sentiments. But each one of those as I read, i find arguments that make those statements more complicated to agree to.
This here, is where most people say I get annoying. Please feel free to ignore my rambling thoughts 😆 Its really probably beyond yhe casual discussion fron a few day ago.
No innocents should be harmed.
It depends on the definition of innocents. There are many in Israel (by no means all) now who claim there are no innocence in Gaza and that every child is ‘a’ or ‘potential’ terrorist. This is an extreme position against human and moral rights of not holding the child accountable for the parents’ alleged crimes. It also assumes that a population has no right to defend itself. It is important to note that States label non-state actors terrorists for all kinds of things, without always just reasoning. For example, The IRA could have been described as a resisitance just as easily as terrorists. In the last few weeks the Teump administration has put someone on terrorism charges with 30 years imprisonment for distributing ‘leftist’ pamphlets.
People have a right to existence,
I think is indistuptable. I wouldn’t want to dispute that even for the most heinous people alive today.
violence is not the answer to solving problems
This functionally isn’t true, but is a good ideal for the world to work towards. In a world with low trust and high rates of use of cohersion and worse violence sometimes becomes an option. For instance how could Ukraine have stopped Russia invading without giving up its sovereignty, or down to the micro a woman being raped may be able to scratch her rapist on the chest during the act thereby leaving a mark, but also collecting the rapist’s skin cells under her finger nails for later. Both these examples are, i think, legitimate forms of violence to oppose a wrong being done to them by others.
no one is above the law
I love this phrase because of it’s subtlety. It says there is a law that is above everyone, but leaves room in the statement for an unjust or useless law to be ignored until such time as its amended.
Religious extremism leads to evil deeds
This is likely more a historical function of societies networks of formal ties being ordered by a religion. So I think any group/network of people with close enough bonds can be influenced into doing terrible things as easily as wonderful things, its not something limited to religious belief as such, the correlation is there probably becuase thats how humans have ordered themselves so often. For example the Bolsheviks were ruthless with their quarries, it wasn’t a form of religious extremism, but it was the same process of radicalisation.
Anyway, sorry. That screed was as much for me and ordering of my thoughts, as it was a response to your comment. Have a good day Seagoon :)
I have heard previously that migration out of Israel has been on the rise in recent years. I’ve never pursued it finding out how many or why though.
As a continuous observation network looking out for submarines?
If so, maybe, but that would entail an enormous amount of sonar going into the water that could have significant ecosystem effects. But I don’t know well enough the effects of sonar on marine life. Something that substantial would certainly bring in the cost verse benefit analysis.
I think its a better idea to think about Space/low earth orbit satellite networks in terms of continuous observation of frontiers first. More cost effective and a wider range of uses.
I’m not sure what other purpose but defence you could put continuous monitoring of the seabed to use in. I suppose there’d be marginal benefits from seafloor disruptions through tectonic plate movements.
Not sure we always agree on things, especially regards Palestine-Israel, but we can agree on the need to be quite sure of the facts of an instance before taking them into account.
This made me so incensed when I read it. If the Victorian government don’t have a response to this diagusting attempt at voter disenfranchisement then it undermines the creeibility of the whole system. There will be no reason to act in good faith, the clear signal to political players and Partys of all colours will be to attempt to deceive agendas and farm votes from those deceptions as much as this case.
In other words this is a potential precedent that should be decapitated in the strongest possible terms. It is worth the political cost to reject these deceitful and disgusting people’s plan.
Edit: Its cases like this that confirms my belief that the Social Web, spaces like this, need to be supported and grown. People like this are able to grow because governments are scared to demand change from big tech, and big tech have a financial (and sometimes ideological, ‘X’ at least) interest in platforming bad faith provocateurs.