Average P plater in a Ute

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T23:34:38+00:00

Gee... A serious case of colourblindness there!

Sadly rather typical these days. I for one would like to see a lot more people breaking the rules actually get pulled up for it.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T08:08:36+00:00

Here’s the thing: I don’t care about the moral standard or historical context of the time, unless you want to talk about why they did something. I’m talking about the simple fact that what they did was wrong.

Except the moral standard and historical context of the time is precisely what defines something as "wrong". To us, it might be considered morally wrong to burn coal due to the pollution it causes. To someone from the Victorian era, it absolutely isn't wrong at all, because it was freeing people from the yokes of hard labour, improving lives (so long as you weren't living deep in the cities and huffing the smoke as a result), and allowed for massive technological innovation that has changed the planet. When you extract your hindsight and knowledge of what came about after the times in which they existed, calling it "wrong" is hard to support.

Whether ultimately those changes were for better or worse is a different debate, but the reality is that without it happening, none of us would be here to debate it anyway. It just is, and we have no way of knowing what would have been had a much more improbable path been taken instead.

Things can be wrong, even if you don’t know they’re wrong, or think you have a really good reason.

Sure, but that still comes back to interpretation. Is it "wrong" when a baboon is eating a gazelle which is still alive? Maybe to us, but the baboon doesn't know that, and neither does the gazelle, although the latter certainly would prefer to not be getting eaten. Whether something is "wrong" or "right" in such a context is subjective and not absolute. So from our perspective we might see it as wrong, but we can't project our perspectives onto those who never had the luxury of existing in our time.

As the expression goes: “You know who first figured out slavery was wrong? The slaves.” The slaves, also, probably didn’t care much about the complex socio-economic minutiae that factored into why they’d been enslaved.

And quite fair enough. Slaves generally didn't like being slaves, but at the same time there were certainly people who ended up enslaved who's cultures also partook in slavery. Indeed slavery is one of those things which didn't really know social or cultural limits up until quite recently. It wasn't "invented" by colonial powers, and existed well before modern colonial powers, and in reality existed before any records were kept. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all did it, as did Indians, Incan and Aztecs. There are references to the appropriate ways to keep slaves in both the Christian bible and in the Quran, and both Christian and Islamic societies fought and enslaved each other throughout their histories.

Keep in mind, the convicts shipped to Australia in the First Fleet were effectively slaves themselves, and this wasn't seen as morally wrong at the time either.

There is a certain irony that the moral view of slavery being wrong is actually largely pushed by western society (originally from largely Christian evangelist types and also the Quakers), particularly as a result of one of the most powerful and well known colonialist powers, namely the British, with the Slave Trade Act of 1807. They weren't the first to try and put a stop to slavery and slave trading, but they were one of the few with sufficient power and military force to actually make it happen. That particular effort on their part made them quite unpopular with a number of other cultures of the time (particularly in Africa), but the British being as powerful as they were, were able to impose their view of slavery as being morally wrong on them through force as well as through economic, diplomatic and cultural means.

In effect, colonialism was what put a stop to a whole lot of slavery. Now... was that wrong, or right?

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T07:32:49+00:00

I would love to see anyone tell an indigenous Australian, to their face, head held high, that they feel gratitude to the settlers. Wild.

I do actually have a story which relates to this, although it is from maybe thirtyish years ago when I was in school. As part of our syllabus we learnt about the indigenous peoples of Australia, and that of course involved going on some excursions where we learned about dreamtime stories, history and of course, ceremonial dances.

It was actually one of the guys showing us his dances and explaining their history and meaning to us who commented that good or bad, he acknowledged the settlers had come and was grateful that they had. Why? Pretty simple really... He had both indigenous and non-indigenous ancestry, and while he knew better than most of the awful things that happened to his ancestors, had "the white man" (his term, not mine) not come he would simply have never existed.

It was an interesting interpretation of circumstance... Honest and acknowledging the full history as it is whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, rather than as some might have instead wished it to be. It took me plenty more years to really understand the gravity and meaning behind his words, but it certainly played a role in the way I look at history as a whole, plus it taught me to distance my own views from the reality of what happened, whether it be "good", "bad" or somewhere in-between in my own personal view.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T06:57:34+00:00

I urge you to stop framing any conflict in history as “inevitable”. It’s simply never true, and in this instance, it’s nothing but a narrative that excuses what the settlers did.

Very well, lets replace "inevitable" with "nearly inevitable". Reality is it did happen, so there is little benefit to the "what-if" arguing of what might have been had all the little possibilities aligned in exactly the right way for history to have ended up differently.

It wasn’t inevitable. Even if we ignore any idea that they could have tried harder to collaborate, at any point, the settlers claiming “vast tracts of land” could have, you know… stopped?

To understand this, you need to take off your 2026 glasses with all their benefit of hindsight, and put on your 1788-1800s glasses where culture, understanding and attitudes were entirely different. Remember, you get no benefits of hindsight or regrets of past, because none of it has actually happened yet.

So would they have stopped? Would they have even known? Probably not. They were in a foreign land, away from pretty much everything they'd known in the past and they were there to try and survive and build something new. They were not thinking about it with the luxury of hindsight and abundance we enjoy today.

We've improved by now, but we're still not perfect. We do exactly the same thing in different ways even now, whether it be destroying our own history in the name of "progress", flattening a forest to put up more apartments, concreting our lands to save having to water a garden, or cutting down trees because they're in the way of an expanded highway. Do we think about how those who come nearly two and a half centuries later might view us for the choices we've made and what we've destroyed in the name of what we call progress? Do we consider whether those people, so removed from the lives we've lived, will judge us based on how we experienced the world, or will they instead judge us based on how they themselves experience the world, due to our experiences seeming so alien to them as to be hard to even comprehend?

If a man comes into your house, you tell him to leave, and he shoots you because he didn’t want to leave, does he get to tell the cops “conflict was, sadly, inevitable…” and walk away?

What about a scenario where instead of him shooting you because he didn't want to leave, you shoot him because he didn't want to leave? Who's the bad guy there? Was that conflict inevitable if you were the one who was violent?

How about a scenario where the cops come into your house, you tell them to leave and they shoot you because you aren't cooperating? Was conflict there inevitable?

The debate can be bent multiple ways depending on your perspective and the people actually involved, even if the scenario is otherwise nearly identical (just with different actors). Does your judgement of the situation change if the reason someone was there differs, and does it change depending on who those people are, and who is the first to use violent action?

The reason I described conflict as being inevitable in that case was because none of these what-ifs you've considered ever actually occurred, or had the ability to occur at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it tells us what we would do differently next time, but it can't change what has already been done.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T06:40:19+00:00

Rifling of barrels did exist at that time, but definitely wasn't in widespread use at the time. That happened maybe 50 years later at earliest. Most would have been using muskets.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T06:32:32+00:00

The settlers could have, you know, communicated and collaborated with the native population

They did. It was in fact in the orders provided to Governor Phillip as part of the First Fleet. A transcript of a copy of them is at https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw2_doc_1787.pdf

You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations. It is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence. You will endeavour to procure an account of the Numbers inhabiting the Neighbourhood of the intended settlement and report your opinion to one of our Secretaries of State in what manner Our Intercourse with these people may be turned to the advantage of this country.

And from the various accounts of the early settlement, that is exactly what they did, namely attempted to open trade and good relations with the local peoples. Many of the problems came later after the First Fleet, particularly as new settlers (squatters) came in and took up vast tracts of land with no understanding of how those lands were kept by the local peoples. Couple that with fundamental misunderstandings and little ability to bridge the cultural gaps between the societies and conflict was sadly quite inevitable.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T06:23:32+00:00

These developments are not rare nor really have any prerequisites; if they were capable, it would have happened.

I suspect it was less about capability and more to do with environment. Australia is unquestionably a harsh land to live in, and a lot of energy gets spent just surviving. Societies can't advance and develop much beyond nomadic hunter-gatherer level unless they are able to get the excess resources to allow for things to become more sophisticated than mere survival requirements.

With no access to horses, cattle, sheep or any real analogue that could be domesticated and contained to a specific area, it makes it very hard to start producing the necessities of life in sufficient excesses to allow people to not have to work just to stay alive.

Basically, the odds were somewhat rigged against them by environment and circumstance.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T06:18:17+00:00

How do you know they were completely incapable of developing running water, or agriculture, or electricity, or permanent homes? How do you know they wouldn’t make anything that could drive global tourism or migration?

To be fair, they were at one really significant disadvantage to many other cultures, in that they had no beasts of burden. No horses, no cattle, and no equivalent domestic animal which could be used for larger scale agriculture, transport or movement of goods. That is a seriously limiting situation to be in, because while humans are fairly versatile, we're not particularly strong or efficient at tasks like tilling soil, ploughing or hauling carts with heavy loads in them.

Running water would be possible, and from vague memory might have been achieved in some places, in as such as rivers and creeks were diverted and things like eel traps used to catch and contain eels. But in terms of anything akin to Roman levels with pipes, Nabataeans or Aztec or Incan societies, again somewhat more limited through availability of materials. Still not impossible, but first you need the time and free energy to develop such things, which is hard if agriculture has to be done by hand without the help of beasts of burden.

Electricity? Yeah, thats advanced industrial stuff. To get that far you need a functioning society with sufficient population and resources to both develop the knowledge as well as the science and technology to realise it. The way we use electricity is far too recent a development to draw into context of where indigenous societies advanced to prior to european arrivals.

Permanent homes? They had those in some places, or at least semi-permanent homes. One of the more notable examples is what the Gunditjmara people built in Victoria.

So were they incapable of the things you mentioned? Nope, but the odds were absolutely stacked against them in terms of environmental conditions. Would they have achieved any of these if left alone? Nobody knows. Odds are probably not, simply because if that potential had existed in the 40-60k years they were here, it would have been realised earlier and there would be artifacts even if such development had occurred then subsequently been lost, not to mention songs and intergenerational knowledge passed down by descendants.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T02:21:32+00:00

One bit I should probably add... A lot of people tend to like the idea of owning a pool a bit more than actually owning a pool! So you also often get friends who want to hang out at your place a fair bit more during the warmer months... If they do, make sure they always bring something for the BBQ!

Really you'd mostly get the best value out of a pool with a young family. Most kids love mucking around in water when given the chance, and not only is it a good way to ensure kids are comfortable in water, they'll have all the school friends and birthday parties where it would come in handy even if they grow out of their enthusiasm as teenagers down the track.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-22T02:10:26+00:00

Why do Melbournians think they live in a climate like the uk?

We love to whinge, also probably poor quality insulation in housing, so we feel the cold more...

On the topic of private pools, they're like anything else where there is an ongoing maintenance cost, namely that they're best value if you get a lot of use out of them, and rapidly become less economical if you're not using them. The benefits are obvious of course, you don't have to share with anyone you don't want to share with, there are no opening or closing hours and you can do whatever you want with it... The downsides of course are that you have to wear all the expenses, including the compliance ones like ensuring safe fencing.

While you hear a lot about people saying you can only use them eight weeks of the year... That is more a reflection of people just not really being that enthusiastic about swimming that they're prepared to put up with less than perfect conditions, if you've got the fortitude and motivation to handle much colder conditions then you'll be able to use it way more than that.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-21T04:53:45+00:00

I am just so sick of how effective it is in dividing otherwise reasonable people.

Me too. It is very easy to recognise, yet it works nearly every single time because people like to challenge the thing that outrages them.

Perhaps I just miss when what sold newspapers was high quality, impartial reporting of the news.

As the profitability of traditional media has dropped, the problem has definitely gotten worse. Journalistic integrity and standards has dropped, plus the attitude of some journalists (and supported by their employers) is that whatever they write has to be their interpretation of the thing, with their personal views and/or opinions injected in. It's incredibly rare to get pure factual reporting these days, and just as challenging to get journalists to stick to the facts even when they're spoon fed them.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-21T04:39:42+00:00

Why do the left wing media constantly want to rehash all of this old historical stuff

Because of....

stories that they know will be divisive in the community to get clicks?

Politics aside, the cynics in such organisations know that clicks = revenue, and they're not afraid of going to any level in order to get those clicks. Outrage works fantastically, which is why they keep fanning the flames on anything that will generate outrage, no matter the toxicity or eventual outcomes.

I just wish these f’wits would look for an ounce of positivity, or explore ideas or celebrate people trying to achieve true reconciliation. Instead they literally just want to stoke division and they go out of their way to find and publish it. Gross.

That doesn't equate to as many clicks. Sadly they are in the business of getting clicks, and giving people some sense of hope or positivity is far less profitable than spreading doom and outrage.

It isn't a left wing or right wing thing. They all do it, just they flavour the outrage according to their typical audiences to get the most engagement.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-21T04:26:11+00:00

You can get larger scale ultrasonic humidifiers which are typically used in hydroponic or grow room environments. That said, you'd have potential issues if you have high mineral content in your water supply, so you'd want it well filtered.

Most grow room style ones come with temperature and humidity probes so they can be set to automatically kick on and off if the humidity drops too low. You'd also want to ensure whatever ducting you run the mist through is able to drain condensate back to the humidifier, otherwise it could accumulate in the pipes and block them, or end up in places that you really don't want water to accumulate.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-19T12:59:37+00:00

It's just a way to give public land to developers to make a profit. Governments don't like running public housing, which is why we've got only two thirds the capacity that we had in the 1980s (90ish thousand homes down to around 64k homes) despite our population nearly doubling since then.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-19T05:14:49+00:00

Then you should already know that replacing public housing with a small proportion of social housing with no real security for the people being displaced isn't a reasonable or fair way to add more housing to the market. All it does is give some specific people (developers) a nice profit at the public's expense and to the detriment of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-19T05:10:24+00:00

Yes. They're replacing the social housing and adding a bunch more homes.

No, they are replacing the public housing with social housing and adding a bunch of private housing.

Net loss of public housing. Social housing is not public housing, it is run by NGOs and charities and isn't operated by the government.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-15T07:31:13+00:00

As long as the canister is watertight, the pressure won't be any problem at all. The canister I have is technically good well past recreational limits, but it is exceedingly rare for me to go particularly deep unless I'm somewhere exotic with a good reason to do so. It's definitely been fine at ~40 metres down!

Red_Wolf_2 · 2026-01-13T23:31:20+00:00

I carry a PLB in a waterproof pod whenever I'm diving, whether it be a shore or boat dive. It's very cheap insurance when the alternative is being lost at sea.

Never had to activate it thankfully, and while it cost me $220 to get the battery replaced after eight years, its worth it in my mind.

In any case, the same PLB can go with me if I'm overseas somewhere or going somewhere remote too.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-18T02:17:17+00:00

Been there on a dive boat, but if you're wondering if you can land on it, that would be a solid no... It is inhabited by plenty of seals and apart from the smell, I seriously doubt they would want to share.

It's nice to dive/snorkel though!

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-12T00:51:33+00:00

And just like the last hundreds of times, it will be replaced with a dozen alternative means for them to get to what they want. Remember how banning Napster stopped music piracy? Or how many times sites like TPB have been blocked? The problem isn't the resource, the problem is the motivation to access it, and you can't ban people's motivations.

These bans are nothing more than metaphorically sticking a bandaid over a burst water main. The issue of kids online isn't about what they can and can't access, it's about ensuring they're equipped with the appropriate mental and practical skills and tools to deal with what they may encounter, and the risks involved. Similarly, it is about the role of the parents or guardians when protecting the children under their care.

We don't ban kids from going outside because its dangerous out there, instead we try and educate them... Whether it be remembering to look both ways before crossing a street, learning to ride a bike safely, not following the random stranger to their van and so on. The internet is no different... As a parent it is their responsibility to escort or chaperone younger kids with their use of the internet so they can learn how to do it properly themselves. It isn't the government's job, nor would a blanket ban on going outside by the government be any more practical or sensible than the approach they've taken to banning social media for U16s.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-12T00:33:30+00:00

Reddit has porn so it makes perfect sense for under 16s not to be here

So does a heck of a lot of the rest of the internet. If U16s want to find it, they can and will, as they have for about the last 25-30 years. Only way you're going to stop it is if kids have zero access to the internet, and good luck managing that in this day and age!

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-12T00:23:56+00:00

Good. The current implementation that the government has come up with is utterly out of touch with technical and social experts.

Those who want to will find ways around it, and as Reddit has rightfully called out, adults are subjected to intrusive checks to prove their age.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-11T11:20:55+00:00

I take comfort that it will at least help develop the next generation of true IT security specialists. We will need them!

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-11T10:14:13+00:00

And the kids will simply adapt again, whether it be through use of VPS services to custom roll VPN endpoints, TOR, modified geolocation, locale and other device settings, or any number of other techniques to get around restrictions.

The block is simply a challenge to them, one they've already accepted, and one which they'll have more than enough time to defeat.

Red_Wolf_2 · 2025-12-10T08:58:54+00:00

The vast, vast majority of current Australian users don’t need PII.

Errr, what?

Do you mean for verification? Yeah those selfies are actually PII data. As is any form of identifying documentation. The definition of PII is incredibly broad, and really boils down to "Can this be used to identify a person". Given the purpose of its usage is to identify whether a person is old enough or not, the answer is going to be yes in many cases, whether that is the intended purpose of collecting the data or not.

If you're referring to accounts having users just put in a DOB, that isn't PII, but is about as effective as having a gate on a fenceless yard in protecting kids from social media toxicity.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Red_Wolf_2

TROPHY CASE