A similar RoboDebt-style funding algorithm is being rolled out for the NDIS too. That’s also going to be an expensive disaster of people getting useless supports, not getting required supports, and staying in hospital longer because they don’t have what they need to manage at home.

Last I heard about them was the 2017 shooting at their clubhouse in Brunswick.

If you think that’s brutal, FistingEnthusiast, what about fighting sports like boxing, MMA, UFC etc? The object of those games is to cause your opponent brain damage via KO. Celebration of violence and permanently harming your opponent.

This site has a database of EVs for sale in Australia - currently the cheapest is BYD Atto 1 at $23,990. For comparison, the cheapest ICE car to buy new is Kia Picanto Sport manual at $19,190 (Edit: or MG 3 Vibe auto at $20,990 if you can’t drive a manual transmission).

Cheapest new in Australia is the BYD Atto 1, $23,990, followed by the Geely EX2 at $26,490

Dyneema (by Avient) is the same as Spectra (by Honeywell) btw. Choose your patron megacorporation wisely.

But you can be imprisoned for this - even when the bulk of what you are providing is stuff you can glean from government websites, reports and whatever you find online with a bit of personal speculation and fibs sprinkled in. Not actual government clearance stuff.

That’s the part that blows my mind too. E.g. if someone from Qatar offered to pay me to write a report on Australian defense aircraft, and I just Googled public data and cut and paste into a report and also I made up a lie about having mates in the Air Force, that counts as spying for a foreign country? Even if I did not reveal or even possess any secret information at any point?

Now? Do you remember the Sports Rorts Affair and all the other pork barelling that’s been par for the course in Australian politics for at least 30 years?

I’ve been repeating this ever since the first 2026 Iran war when prices started to go up.

In Australia, the average commute in a petrol car costs $125 per week in petrol. To get an EV on a loan costs $85 in repayments per week and $10 of energy per week.

It is literally cheaper to give an ICE car away and take a loan to buy an EV than to continue to drive the ICE car.

Ok, you’re maybe 40% of the way to understanding the issue now. First lets look at the two examples you gave.

India has a very high population with lot of inefficient, unregulated high emission light industry, some barely regulated heavy industry, and lots of low-emissions transport such as bikes, buses and trains. This all adds up to having moderate emissions despite their high population. There’s not much room to improve things unless they start cracking down on the light industrial emissions which is difficult(from both policing/regulating and a social/poverty angles).

China as you have pointed out has both very high population and very high emissions. has lots of industrial output hence their high emissions, but they also have extensive low-emissions transport networks with many commuters using pedal bikes, ebikes or PT. They have a bit more room for improvement - they could certainly restrict emissions from industry much better. They could put more effort into switching to more sustainable power generation. There isn’t much they could do about transport though.

Now lets look at three other countries that have come up in this conversation.

Australia has a small population but moderate emissions. While there is a growing percentage of renewable energy, most transport is still via high-pollution petrol and diesel vehicles, causing a lot of emissions. Australia has made some progress but can make a lot of changes to improve in both transport and power generation.

The USA has a high population and also very high emissions. They have high pollution transport, with many oversized and inefficient fossil fuel vehicles. They have high emissions from industry and power generation. The USA has lots of room to make simple changes that would reduce their emissions.

Qatar has a very low population, but ridiculously high emissions for such a small group of people. They burn huge amounts of energy in inefficient transport, because fossil fuels are extremely cheap there and emissions are not regulated. They generate nearly all their energy from high-emissions gas plants, only 0.27% renewable energy despite being ideally located geographically for both solar and wind power. Qatar has lots of room to make basic changes that would lower their emissions drastically.

Now - this is the key part you are struggling to understand - what trend can you observe across all 5 of the countries above, from India to Qatar?

In all these cases, the ratio of emission to population - the emissions per capita - relate directly to how easy it is for each country to make changes that will reduce their emissions. India and China have high net emissions, but its not easy to reduce them when you have a massive population that needs to be warmed, cooled, transported, fed, etc. Australia, the US and especially Qatar could make simple, rapid changes that would drastically cut emissions.

As another person here put it, emissions per capita = how extreme policy and lifestyle changes they have to make to change.

I don’t approve of killing either of them, but at least cows aren’t endangered (or close to being so).

Fin whales, the primary target of Iceland’s whaling industry, are classified ⁠by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as vulnerable.

Norway and Japan also commercially hunt fin whales.

If a single person ‘A’ eats 5 sausages at a BBQ, and a family ‘B’ of five people eat 10 sausages between them, it’s technically true that A ate less sausages than B. It’s technically true that the family B has caused the sausages to run out faster than the single person A.

But it is also true that the family only got 2 sausages per capita while the first one had 5 per capita - more than their fair share - and it’s both easier and fairer for A to reduce their consumption than B.

PLANET DOESN’T CARE ABOUT PER CAPITA

The point isn’t that the anthropomorphized “planet doesn’t care”, the point is that some people are emitting more and therefore have more room to cut back. Again, per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is causing more than their fair share of emissions.

Family of 5 B ate more sausages than Family of 1 A. Who is best placed to reduce their sausage consumption?

Every single time you point out that a country of 1412 million people uses vastly more power than a country with 28 million people, someone points out that they obviously aren’t comparable without allowing for the massive difference in the population?

All else being equal, emissions should be proportional to population because consumption is proportional to population and emissions are proportional to consumption. Per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is more wasteful/overconsuming and causing more than their fair share of emissions.

PS: An analogy: If a single person ‘A’ eats 5 sausages at a BBQ, and a family ‘B’ of five people eat 10 sausages between them, it’s technically true that A ate less sausages than B. It’s technically true that the family B has caused the sausages to run out faster than the single person A. But it is also true that the family only got 2 sausages per capita while the first one had 5 per capita - more than their fair share - and it’s both easier and fairer for A to reduce their consumption than B.

Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, and I’m aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by “pegging” a PSU.

A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn’t “draw 65 watts regardless”. It will draw less than max power if it is using less.

This can be easily verified by using a power meter on the outlet. I have machines with 90W and 25W PSUs drawing only 9W and 4W respectively at idle.

Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

If they’re all lining up to condemn it, its probably a great idea.

There isn’t much point including the chart all the way back to 1750 when only the last 100 years at most is significant. Notably India only became independent in 1947, the Chinese civil war only effectively ended in 1949, the EU only officially came into existence in 1993 (although the EEC started in 1957) so many of the quoted entities didn’t even exist as a polity for most of this chart’s timeline.

If you look at the per-capita emissions on Our World in Data, Qatar is by far the worst offender, followed by Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain and similar mostly Gulf petrostates. Australia is 11th from the top, the US is 12th. Pretty shameful for us.

Here’s your starter: Anti-wind group sues planning minister and wind project owners, threatens public servants

The group is promising that if this suit is successful, it will then sue public servants involved in the decisions “such as James Todd, Inka Veltheim and present and past DELWP/DEECA/DTP Secretaries,” according to a form letter intended for other wind farm developers, sent to Renew Economy.

Cookers threatening public servants for doing their jobs.

Their complaint is the sharing of edited clips and soundbites, especially with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words and subject them to abuse online from randos. Ironically, the headline sensationalizes the discussion without context, demonstrating the problem.

They are OK with full video being available for transparency, they don’t want to be remixed into a 7 second tiktok with some “infuencer” overlaid pointing at them and misleading/abusive text on top.

Calling for footage of full hearings and transcripts to be made available instead of clips, and for comments to be disabled, the board said its proposal would ensure “that scrutiny remains focused on evidence, administration and accountability rather than becoming personal”.

He’s talking about the misleading use of editing, especially soundbites with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words.

Ironically, the headline demonstrates the same problem by sensationalizing the issue out of context.

The board called for rules that would stop videos being edited or having captions added. Politicians would also be stopped from sharing content or commentary that targets individual officials for ridicule or harassment.

Calling for footage of full hearings and transcripts to be made available instead of clips, and for comments to be disabled, the board said its proposal would ensure “that scrutiny remains focused on evidence, administration and accountability rather than becoming personal”.

Thankyou.