• 69 Posts
  • 519 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle




  • Good question, it’s nuanced but the census isn’t for people WHO LIVE in the country. The best way to describe what the Australian Bureau of Statistics is trying to do is take a ‘statistical picture’ of the nation on that night.

    That’s why I’m not a big fan of them extending out the fill in time, that muddies the data somewhat.

    Having a quantified idea of what is happening in the country at a given time is incredibly useful because it gives everyone from students to the PM a better understanding of what ‘Australia’ was that given time period, and what it is over time. The more exact measures you can get for those the better targeted things like Medicare, tax, or social care benefits can be.

    Example 1. It means a small city doesn’t need to run their own census if they want to know how many families live in a particular suburb to ensure they have enough school places for the kids, they can quickly check those sorts of things on the ABS.

    Example 2. People can then also get an idea of the long-term trends. In a wine growing region there is often a large working and very productive backpacker community staffing the restaurants, wineries, and breweries in these places. This wasn’t always the case and may diminish over time again, this is important because economists can then use statistical analysis to assess whether those backpackers were a costly workforce compared to what came before or a highly beneficial workforce for the owners. They can also do comparative studies on wine growing regions with a large backpacker workforce to a small backpacker workforce.

    There are all sorts of other uses for the data, for people who live here, and even for people who don’t. The British may want to know, for instance, how many British are moving to Australia, as an indicator of their own countries comparative economic health. Without the transitory people present in Australia at the time of the census some key parts of these populations would be unidentified until they eventually become citizens or residents, which can be over half a decade.




  • A bigger impact found by the research was that parents are now increasingly in the dark about their teens’ social media use, with those who were unaware their teens had used social media going from 23 per cent to 33 per cent.

    If I remember correctly I had soft reservations about the effectiveness of this ban, I definitely felt a better path was a better social media… like the fediverse… where ‘healthy by design’ isn’t something that must be begged and pleaded for, but could just be built and delivered for families. But I also don’t remember considering a ‘black market’ of sorts forming from a ban, but it makes sense.

    One particularly prescient submission warned that age restriction efforts on platforms were already ineffective in practice and that bans by themselves would not teach young people to use the internet more safely.

    That was a submission from the eSafety Commissioner, the regulator who’s now been tasked with enforcing this law.

    This is a case where use should be taught, not bans enforced. It’s like driving. In the world young people are joining they’re going to need to function in society with these tools and forums. Better teach them good and effective use.



  • Oof! I have thoughts…

    As an engineering student, she said exam times are particularly difficult.

    “You can smell people from across the room who’ve been cramming for exams …” she said.

    Sydney optometrist, Lauren Leung

    Or they’re nervous, or they have a medical condition, or there’s many other reasons… What a horribly vain person to think she knows the reason why someone might not smell nice out of 20 or more people crammed in a room for over an hour together. Glad she has the foresight to appreciate she takes her vanity too far.


    John built a multi-million-dollar air-conditioning business from the ground up in western Sydney’s Mount Druitt and believes whingeing limits our potential.

    What a lovely, positive outlook. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but positive nonetheless… then proceeds to participate in a favourite past-time of tradies, whinge about his apprentices…

    "We have it with our apprentices.

    “After a year and a half of being an apprentice, they want to be the CFO.”

    How oblivious can you get?


    Although people struggle with different things, the psychologist says we must be careful of “competitive suffering”, the act of comparing or ranking one’s suffering against others.

    "This idea that we hold onto now that ‘my pain is worse than anyone’s ever in history’ becomes a problem … like I think 1850s for women [was] probably not a great time [neither was wartime in the 1940s] …

    Good point, but we really don’t need to be looking back in history for comparisons that give us some perspective. It’s a real pick and mix out there at the moment of horrible lives being lived that we compare ourselves to, from war, genocide, famine, and natural disasters. This isn’t a time to look at the past, this is a time to look at our neighbours, and outreach our hands to them.






  • 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…




  • So I listened to Ette Media’s interview with J.Gilham he says in that interview the 3 complaints were from the same group. One complaint on the day, and two subsequent emails/communications later.


    I took a look at the Summary Judgement found here. I’ve got questions regarding how the two acts in question interact and the difference in the judge’s interpretation of their interaction compared to the plaintiff’s interpretation. I think i’d have to look at the full judgement to understand that but haven’t had time.

    From reading the summary it seems a fairly tenuous legislative path that Gilham and his team were making their claim based on.

    Big picture? Yet again, it seems the outsourcing of the employee-employer relationship to be one of contractor has undermined any claim that could be made like this. No wonder employers live to have so many contractors instead of employees.


    But here is where I totally agree with you.

    Possible avenues of appeal aside. While there may be no legal pathway to hold MSO to account for their actions in this case or for their reprehensible stance not standing against a genocide, (see quote from judgement below), they have acted with no regard to the moral imperative to stand against crimes against humanity and war crimes. The general public, and more importantly patrons must remind and when opportunity arises hold the people now leading the MSO and the organisation itself to account for their cowardly action in this case and for their cowarsly inaction in the broader issue.

    We are a nation of cowards if we are collectively too scared or lazy to stand against the murder and starvation of children.

    the Court finds that the MSO did have a policy of not expressing support for either side of the Israel-Gaza conflict. The description of that conflict in the MSO’s policy might not be “neutral”, but the MSO was committed to not supporting either side. Judgement Links