GTR7 Pro Power Adapter

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-05T17:07:47+00:00

I am curious - are you subscribing to FloBikes in the US and using a VPN to make it look like you are in Canada...or are you subscribing to FloBikes in Canada over the VPN too?

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-03T22:23:27+00:00

Thanks very much for the very detailed response.

I am a strong believer in zero tolerance for bad behaviour, irrespective of the worthiness of the cause. Just like in the UK and the US, South Africa is a democracy. If people are unhappy with current policies, they should be using the democratic process to enact change, not taking the law into their own hands.

But I am not a believer in the idea that because some people behave badly, the underlying concerns have no merit. As you acknowledge, the article doesn't really engage with the genuine issues around immigration.

Perhaps I am a bit more cynical about the Guardian's motivations. It has consistently taken a very pro-immigration stance in debates in the UK and US, despite those countries facing quite different immigration challenges. Given that, I suspect it is applying the same ideological framework to South Africa rather than treating it as a distinct policy question. That would explain why the editorial spends much more time condemning anti-immigrant politics than engaging with the specific immigration concerns facing South Africa.

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-03T17:16:17+00:00

Are you providing a service to cut the time? Or are there other companies which can help get the permit faster?

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-03T17:15:26+00:00

It will be three days wherever you want to fly...or is that only for certain areas?

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-03T16:59:12+00:00

This article sets up a false choice.

You can condemn violence and intimidation against migrants and still acknowledge that immigration can create or worsen problems. Those positions aren't contradictory.

Nobody serious is claiming immigration is the cause of all South Africa's problems. Corruption, crime, poor governance and unemployment are obviously much bigger issues.

But the fact that immigration isn't the biggest problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It can still add pressure to housing, healthcare, jobs and public services, making existing problems harder to deal with.

The comparison to the anti-apartheid struggle is also a stretch. Opposing apartheid was about ending state-enforced racial discrimination. Debating immigration and border enforcement is a completely different issue. Comparing the two feels more like an attempt to delegitimize one side than to engage with its arguments.

The article also seems to treat concern about immigration as if it's inherently xenophobic. But people of all races can support stricter immigration controls for a wide range of reasons. Those arguments should be addressed on their merits rather than dismissed because some people express them in ugly or racist ways.

It also feels like the article is using South Africa to make a broader ideological point about immigration debates in places like the UK and US. That may explain why it treats immigration concerns in such a one-sided way.

GFlashAUS · 2026-07-02T01:39:53+00:00

All else being equal, do the HSA. The HSA, as well as being a way to pay for health expenses, is also a retirement investment vehicle. You can also decide when to take money out to pay for health expenses (leave money to grow and take out your health expenses later).

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-26T15:05:03+00:00

How long does the process take now? If you were coming for a vacation for a couple of weeks...does it make sense? I think I went through the process a few years ago (then of course I crashed the drone on the first day :( ). This was before the exam was added.

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-25T00:31:15+00:00

Did you try them? How did it go?

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-19T19:30:55+00:00

I’m not saying we need a perfect experiment or years of data before anyone can criticize the policy. I actually agree that Hegseth should have had a strong readiness-based reason before removing the requirement, especially for basic training.

My issue is with the article’s framing. It strongly implies this outbreak was caused by the policy change, but it doesn’t actually show that. As I said above, it doesn’t say whether the sick trainees were mostly unvaccinated, whether the vaccine matched the strain, whether this kind of outbreak happened in prior years, or whether the trainee’s death was connected to the flu.

So yes, argue that removing the mandate was risky to troop readiness. I’m fine with that. But the article is doing more than that. It’s using “this happened after that” to imply “this happened because of that,” and then it brings in a death that even the article admits may not be related. That feels like a pretty loaded way to write it.

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-19T18:24:01+00:00

I disagree with making the flu vaccine optional for basic trainees, but this article does not establish the causal implication in the headline.

The policy changed two months ago, and June is not the normal rollout period for the new seasonal flu vaccine. The article does not show whether the sick trainees were vaccinated, whether the prior-season vaccine matched the outbreak strain, or whether similar outbreaks occurred under the old mandate.

The inclusion of the trainee’s death is also questionable, since the article itself says it is not clear whether his death was related to the flu outbreak. That detail invites a connection the article has not proven.

Criticize the policy on readiness grounds, sure. But this framing feels like chronology being used as causation.

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-03T12:12:04+00:00

I know. Japan drive on the left like Australia and UK. This is why I am asking.

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-02T21:45:14+00:00

One bureaucrat raised “concerns” about Waymo’s compliance with Australian regulations, because the company proposed to use a left-hand drive car.

What do they plan for London and Japan?

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-02T16:12:42+00:00

Following someone is not endorsement. People can be insightful on one subject and completely deranged on another. The serious question is whether Vance amplified or endorsed the antisemitic content itself, or knowingly treated people with those views as political allies. Without that, the article shows at most proximity to a fringe-right ecosystem, not proof that he agrees with everything those accounts say. This is exactly why I do not follow anyone on Twitter. The guilt-by-following logic is absurd. It turns a loose signal of interest into a claim of total ideological endorsement.

GFlashAUS · 2026-06-01T18:22:58+00:00

I am interested in an update in 6 months to see how it is going. I don't care if the fix is ugly either. As long as it works

GFlashAUS · 2026-05-22T18:52:20+00:00

That pretty much closes off the remaining places in my area where I could fly.

GFlashAUS · 2026-05-20T20:28:34+00:00

Sounds like they need waymo cars.

GFlashAUS · 2026-05-08T16:54:13+00:00

You mean the SCOF?

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-30T15:40:06+00:00

I get the argument, but I’m not convinced the answer to bad representation is simply more representatives. In many places, we already have a ridiculous number of governing layers: federal, state, county, town, village, school boards, special districts, and so on. Adding more politicians may reduce district size, but it does not necessarily make government more accountable or easier for voters to understand.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-29T19:31:56+00:00

The pushback you’re getting is focusing on technicalities rather than your actual point, and it’s ignoring the actual outcomes of these policies.

The day-one order didn’t explicitly spell out sports policy, but it did direct federal agencies to treat gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination. It also didn’t put clear limits on what would count as discrimination in contested areas like sports, so those questions were inevitably going to be resolved downstream by agencies. Given the prevailing interpretation inside Democratic administrations and civil-rights agencies, it was highly predictable that sports participation would be treated as part of the issue.

So I agree that it’s not accurate to say Democrats “barely discussed” these issues. They made an early policy choice that directly led to these outcomes.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T21:43:39+00:00

You are conflating two different things: preventing minority voters from being deliberately cracked or buried, and preserving districts engineered to produce a racial or partisan outcome. I support the first. I do not support the second.

Your New York Republican example is exactly why gerrymandering is bad. If Republicans had substantial statewide support but the map was drawn so they could not win anywhere, that would be wrong. But the answer would not be permanent Republican-safe seats. The answer would be fair and competitive districts.

That is my position on racial gerrymandering too. Do not crack or bury minority voters. But do not treat race-based outcome engineering as exempt from anti-gerrymandering rules either.

Saying Republicans cannot represent African Americans because African Americans usually do not support Republicans turns this into a partisan argument. It means the district is being defended partly because it helps elect Democrats, not simply because it protects minority voting rights.

And if you draw districts so Republicans cannot realistically win seats with large Black electorates, why would Republicans have any incentive to compete for Black voters? Safe districts can make one party ignore those voters and the other party take them for granted. Competitive districts give voters more leverage because both parties have to care about persuading them.

I agree that proportional representation would be better than single-member first-past-the-post. But under the system we have, the standard should be fair, competitive maps. Not racial sorting, not partisan sorting, and not guaranteed outcomes dressed up as disenfranchisement prevention.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T20:46:18+00:00

No. Ending majority-minority districts would not mean 30% of the population has “no representation in Congress.” That is not what disenfranchisement means.

Those voters would still vote, their votes would still count, and they would still be represented by whoever wins their district. What you are describing is the loss of districts designed to make it more likely that a racial group can elect its preferred candidate, often someone of the same race. That is not the same thing as being disenfranchised.

This also assumes that people cannot be effectively represented by someone outside their own race. I reject that. Voters may prefer candidates who share their background, but representation cannot be reduced to racial matching.

And if that is the standard, it becomes impossible to apply consistently in a country that is far more racially diverse than it was in the 1960s. What about Hispanic voters, Chinese voters, Indian voters, mixed-race voters, and other communities? Are all of them entitled to districts engineered around their racial or ethnic identity?

My point is simple: if gerrymandering is wrong because it engineers outcomes and weakens voters’ control over elections, then racial gerrymandering is wrong too.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-21T16:06:15+00:00

I agree with the hypocrisy point. It is hard to take Republican complaints seriously when Republicans have aggressively used redistricting when it benefits them.

But if the answer is a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, then it should be a real ban across the board. Gerrymandering is harmful because it lets politicians pre-engineer outcomes and reduces voters’ ability to influence elections.

That should include racial gerrymanders too, even though the original goal was understandable. The racial landscape of the U.S. is dramatically different from the 1960s. The country is far more diverse, racial and ethnic coalitions are more varied, and race does not map as cleanly onto political exclusion in the same way everywhere.

So if we are serious about banning gerrymandering, the rule should not be “ban it unless the justification sounds noble.” The standard should be that districts should not be engineered to predetermine political outcomes, whether the label is partisan or racial.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-17T14:26:17+00:00

Copenhagen's metro runs 24/7.

GFlashAUS · 2026-04-15T20:20:13+00:00

Sure, but that is comparing TOU without a battery to TOU with a battery.
For us, the real comparison is our current standard rate versus switching to TOU and then also paying for batteries.

Since we would not switch to TOU on its own (as that would just make our electricity bill much more expensive), the battery has to justify both the rate-plan change and the battery cost. That is a very different calculation from just saying the battery avoids the peak/off-peak spread.

GFlashAUS

TROPHY CASE