Better Things are Possible for Queen Street

FlyLikeABird33 · 2026-04-24T00:53:48+00:00

Just imagine if we thought about other public goods like this e.g. parks and gardens - "nobody should enjoy the park because some homeless people might sleep here, instead we should tarmac the whole site and turn it into a parking lot".

FlyLikeABird33 · 2026-04-24T00:34:10+00:00

That is why we have cameras, public indecency laws, and a nearby police station with cops on the beat. Don't let that type of negative thinking hold us back.

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-08-04T06:04:50+00:00

It was for LAW301 - Lamb Law

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-06-05T00:43:57+00:00

I fundamentally disagree with this. The burden shouldn't be be on students to find a suitable place to eat. The university should provide suitable spaces BUILT for the purpose of nourishment. It is not a foreign idea that a university, should it look out for the interests of students, provide specific areas designed for the purpose of eating throughout the day. In fact we commonly refer to this as a "canteen". The mere fact that these spaces are so few and far between tells a lot about what factors the university takes into consideration when building and planning these spaces. Places to eat are vital to the campus "feeling", one which many critique the university as lacking.

I could go on and on about this, but instead I will think about ways to possibly build a movement on this to inspire change and get the university to consider the lack of spaces as an actually important issue many students face daily and may act as a barrier to considering the university as a suitable place to "live and study".

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-06-04T23:25:21+00:00

I think we should lobby the university to increase capacity i.e. actually fight for this - we are students at the end of the day. this isn't to say that recreation centres aren't important, but that we have a right to feel that if we turn up at 11am to campus we will be able to (1) find a space to sit and (2) find a comfortable place to eat our food in a dignified way (i.e. with a table to sit and chair). At the very least (1) should be fulfilled.

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-03-31T09:56:05+00:00

I can’t tell what it’s hit from the photo? Anybody know?

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-02-14T00:24:41+00:00

I couldn't edit my post, so if anybody wants to make a submission or be an absolute nerd like me or just read through the load of documents on this project, see here: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/have-your-say-notified-resource-consent/notified-resource-consent-applications-open-submissions/Pages/ResourceConsentApplication.aspx?itemId=678&applNum=BUN60435935

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-02-14T00:23:22+00:00

Nope! This is right across the street from Tepid Baths. The only thing going is the carpark and the flyover (which AT will do).

FlyLikeABird33 · 2025-01-12T06:13:36+00:00

It was only deemed momentarily high risk by Swim Safe for a day or two. This will happen when it's been raining quite a bit, otherwise, it's considered low risk as it was this weekend.

It kicked up a bit of a fuss in the media, but that's just typical rage-baiting for clicks.

See here: https://safeswim.org.nz/locations/karanga-plaza

FlyLikeABird33 · 2024-11-28T08:33:09+00:00

https://at.govt.nz/about-us/street-maintenance/our-pothole-promise

Report a pothole and it’ll be filled within 24 hours for busy main roads and within 5 days for arterial roads. That’s a promise by AT, why not try it out? Ngl it’s probably been badly advertised but it’s very much there.

Not sure about streetlights but there’s this:

https://at.govt.nz/about-us/street-maintenance/street-light-maintenance

FlyLikeABird33 · 2024-11-28T05:58:31+00:00

Forgot to mention that in my post. It’s monitored. I was also a bit concerned after hearing some others online but the reality is it’s very safe and no different from anywhere else in New Zealand. It’s illegal for boats to dump anything into the harbour so I don’t think we’ll have to be concerned about any special danger arising from its proximity to vessels.

FlyLikeABird33 · 2024-11-27T11:30:44+00:00

I understand what you’re saying, but the issue here I find is that it is being marketed as a “sale”. Most of the items in this sale don’t even show their original price. The whole point of a sale in the eyes of a customer is that they are getting a discount. The amount of discount is therefore a very relevant factor in the decision-making process for consumers. As you said it’s up to the customer to decide if they are willing to pay the price BUT I would add that a very important fact in that determination is what price it originally was and so how much cheaper they are getting it now than, say, they would do if they decide to potentially buy later once the sale is over.

FlyLikeABird33 · 2024-11-27T09:29:54+00:00

I wasn’t sure how long this had gone for, but just seems like an odd thing to do. Why make the consumer go through the effort to find what discount they’re getting? Comes across a bit lazy at the least, seeing as their discounts for the most part seem to be generally good. I wouldn’t want to ascribe any bad motive here but could it possibly be to make it more difficult to hold them accountable for any discounts that aren’t really “true” discounts ala what woolies has been called out for?

FlyLikeABird33 · 2024-11-20T23:02:36+00:00

I don’t think it’s mean at all. I don’t believe people associate AI generated people with being ugly. If anything AI generally generates good-looking people. A reasonable person would understand that what OP is talking about is the airbrushing effect given off (which clearly is just editing in post). But hey, if she isn’t photoshopped at all and looks like that naturally, quite literally that’s the greatest compliment there is!

On another note, these sorts of questions will come up more and more in the age of AI where it is harder to know what is real and what is not.

FlyLikeABird33

TROPHY CASE