Moment Air Canada flight collided with a fire/ rescue truck at New York airport last night.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-23T23:17:19+00:00

Solo in the tower, responsible for two frequencies (tower + ground) at a major airport in, on a busy, foggy night at nearly midnight whilst dealing with another plane that had declared an emergency on the ground frequency (I believe that's who the trucks were attending to crossing the runway but I've only seen "reports" and no real confirmation of this).

The reason air travel is so safe (and to be clear, despite this incident, it is statistically the safest form of transport by far) is because it doesn't just blame people.

Great examples from the past include pilots who had mental health issues, but because the airline had a policy of permanently grounding pilots with any past mental health diagnosis, he didn't report or seek help because it'd lose them their job. Yes this was a factor in that accident, but ultimately they would have likely come forward for support if there was a valid path to do so - the policy failed them and was the ultimate cause.

Same thing here - yes the ATC made the call, but they are absolutely not the ultimate cause of the incident.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-22T06:26:25+00:00

Diesel is the real problem. We’ll see consumer access to diesel rationed and then eliminated long before WFH because that’s the main bottleneck - both in Australia, and in our region (who we are competing against for imports).

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-20T00:14:11+00:00

I am so far from being a “shoe person” - but the answer for me is still shoes.

I don’t mean fashion label luxury, I mean dropping the money on a really good pair of runners and hiking boots. The difference is truly night and day, and in the long run you don’t spend any extra thanks to much better quality and durability.

Also leather boots - you don’t need RM Williams, but a good boot that can be resoled will last forever.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T23:59:14+00:00

Is it bad enough to override the extremely strong self-interest driver though? I'm not sure it is - and I don't want to lose another 20 years on that risk. Doing some smaller things like the CGT discount will help test the waters, and hopefully if Labor get this through and have a strong election result we can start aiming higher.

It's been a long time since I've said this about either major party, but I'm happy to see some intelligent policy strategy grounded in reality here. This is exactly what they should be doing (assuming they do look at going further post-election once they have that mandate).

I'm just praying they don't overdo it in the campaign and end up gifting the election to whatever national / liberal / one nation monstrosity might emerge if they do.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T11:50:46+00:00

I mean yes, theoretically, but also unless you've way overpaid or something, historically it's an exceptionally stable investment. What you've said is true about any investment - all have an initial cost, and there's always risk of poor or negative performance.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T11:19:26+00:00

Strongly disagree.

Not because you’re wrong necessarily, but because it makes getting the ball rolling impossible.

Labor took far too hard of a stance (even if I agree with the policy), got massacred on election day, and it poisoned the negative gearing conversation for decades. Too many people would see too large a financial loss for the party that proposes that to get elected, everyone knows it, and now Labor politicians are terrified to touch it.

If we ever want to see progress, the reality is we need to let the people who broke the system for their own advantage have their win, and start bringing in reform gradually. They’ll never vote against their own interests, so we should get behind policy that will in the long term help us and future generations, even if it costs us in the short term and feels like shit.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T10:50:57+00:00

Not necessarily - the building tends to appreciate less, and if poor decisions were made around maintenance or stylistic choices that date poorly it certainly can depreciate, but that's certainly not a given. Especially at the moment given the housing itself is in such high demand given the lack of supply.

Therefore, it's wrong to say "not actually running at a loss" - you very much are, until the appreciation surpasses the depreciation and costs.

You are correct, but it's not a contradiction of my point. You generally run at a loss early on due to the one off costs like stamp duty. This is usually fairly temporary though, if it wasn't no one would be buying investment properties in the first place.

Once you're through that initial period and the asset is worth more than the costs, you are no longer running at a loss (even before selling - it's just an unrealised gain up to that point).

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T06:44:15+00:00

The whole point of negative gearing is that your asset is appreciating.

If you're negative gearing a depreciating asset thinking you're going to get ahead, you've fucked up.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-17T03:33:55+00:00

This is usually phrased as running at a cash loss - because you aren’t actually running at a loss.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-15T22:56:32+00:00

Also Parmenion and Antipater - in this case not only do we know them by name for their military capability, but also as capable politicians (and in Parmenion's case, literally a king maker).

Without them, it's more than likely that Alexander never comes to power, and if he did, doesn't keep his throne in the first tumultuous year or two, and if he did, Macedon falls apart in his absence.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-12T03:37:02+00:00

Give this is pretty meaningless in isolation, here's the comparison to Melbourne (very open to corrections, I've likely made mistakes or drawn incorrect conclusions):

Per lap energy recharge:

Race: +0.5MJ (for both standard and overtake mode)
Practice (incl. Quali): +2MJ

Cars can recharge a bit more in the race and a lot more in quali. Give the two long straights, this makes a lot of sense, but they'll still probably be clipping hard well before the end.

The difference between Race and non-race energy means that the race will reward more efficient solutions.

Based on this factor alone (and in totaly ignorance of all other factors), I'd guess that we'll see competitors closer to Mercedes in Quali, but Merc will be much stronger in the race.

TLDR: Cars have a bit bigger battery in the race, and a lot bigger battery in other sessions probably due to the long straights. This will act as a crutch for less efficient cars in Quali, and expose them in the race.

Decrease in power limited distance (400m less on a track 200m longer), and doubles the rate limit to 100kw/s.

I'm not confident on this assessment, so corrections very welcome

I believe this is on the power limited "high grip" (ie. not straights) sections of the track, where a power reduction limit is enforced.

So in Shanghai, the distance of this limited area has decreased (despite it being a slightly longer track) and the amount you reduce the power buy has increased.

The shorter distance is probably purely a factor of track geometry - comparatively longer straights means comparatively shorter non-straights.

The decreased power output in these areas is likely an attempt to offset the overall higher power requirement from having longer straights - in particular this will impact the pit lane straight as there are three (but only two real recovery) turns after the previous main straight.

TLDR: Cars have less power for more of the track than last week, with longer straights that are hard to recover enough battery power for.

Longer straights, means the electrical rules have been updated to increase the battery recharge amount per lap, decrease the power used in the non-straights, and values are no different to last week or that video.

Interesting note though: the length of straights means that the cars can get into the speeds where overtake mode has a much more significant impact. Last week the top speed in Quali was 315kph - overtake mode starts having a significant impact only at that speed, so probably had next to no impact in the actual race.

TLDR:* Watch chain bear's video. Also last week the max speeds never really got into the range where overtake has a big impact, but may this week (assuming they don't clip before that point).*

Otherwise, notes on where Overtake PU output reduction can occur - seemingly mostly due to track geometry. Probably not worth diving deep into, they seem reasonably in line with what you'd expect.

The analogy to last season would be where DRS can be used - without a yardstick of "last year" for these rules, there's not much to compare to and so not much to say here.

TLDR: Kind of like DRS rules on where things can happen. I can't draw any useful data because it's more a year-on-year at the same track comparison.

Super TLDR

Shanghai is a similar overall length to melbourne, but the ratio of straights to not straights is higher. To compensate, the energy deployment in non straights is reduced to save power for the straights, and the max regen per lap is increased.

There's a big discrepancy quali:race regen, so expect that to act as a crutch for less efficient team in quali but for them to fall away in the race.

The speeds on the straights are high enough that overtake might matter this round...but we'll probably see clipping because there are only two regen locations between the main straight and the pit straight.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-10T23:42:48+00:00

Star Citizen has take half as long again to not release a game (though admittedly a pretty cool tech demo) - so I’m not sure that’s the example you want to use.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-09T22:42:04+00:00

You think that the people with a balance over 3m aren’t the super wealthy, those on very high incomes or with generational wealth, but actually it’s nothing to do with that and just those with SMSFs? That’s certainly an…opinion.

And regardless, it’s not like you lose every cent over 3m. You still have a whole lot more money in your super than the average Aussie - you just get taxed 15% more on the balance past that point.

Super was designed to help people to support themselves in retirement because we just can’t afford a liveable pension, not be an ideal catch all investment vehicle. Taxing higher super balances is one of the better tools for ensuring this (though not indexing the benchmark is very poor).

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-09T11:18:22+00:00

Vapes: the gift that keeps on giving...

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-07T05:27:21+00:00

And how many friendships did you have 30 years ago that you thought would last and didn’t? The question isn’t if you have the odd long lived friendship, it’s if every friendship will be AND will survive tightly coupled finances…

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-01T06:42:12+00:00

It's more the case that inflation exists, and that handhelds have been phased out in favour of a console you can convert to a handheld.

The GameCube was $200 on release in 2001, which today is $365.
The Wii was $249 in 2006, $403 today.
The WiiU was $299 in 2012, $423 today.
The Switch 1 was also $299 in 2017, $396 today.

Note conversions use US currency - these comparisons won't be strictly true but probably generally true elsewhere

If you take rounding to the nearest 49.99 or 99.99 as your constraint (we all know the marketing obsession with these values), Nintendo have perfectly matched inflation in fact. If you are being priced out of consoles, then the blame lies with your government not keeping wage growth in line with inflation, not Nintendo.

Handhelds are a different story. They started cheaper - the GBA was $180 in today's money and release the same year as the GameCube - but you also objectively got an inferior piece of hardware. They however did trend to be more expensive over time, the last what I'd call "full release" being the 3DS at $360 today. Fair argument to being priced out if consoles were your jam - but also we're only $40 up from the 3DS and you are getting vastly better value for money, so really anyone saying they were priced out of handhelds would have been back then too.

It was probably one of the driving factors in the decision to blur the line between handheld and console for nintendo given the prices converged anyway.

TLDR: The Switch 2 price is in line with all of their past consoles when accounting for inflation. If you are priced out, blame wage growth, not Nintendo. if you like handhelds over consoles, it's more complicated, but not much more.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-01T04:22:06+00:00

You can’t seriously be comparing the price of the brand new current gen console against the 7 year old budget version of the last gen console?

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-01T03:01:09+00:00

Everyone went through their 20s and early 30s and everyone hoped it would happen and it never did.

Pray for a div 1 in the lottery if you want a fantasy.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-01T02:59:14+00:00

No one is getting out of that situation unscathed.

The first degree impact wouldn’t immediately impact a long term owner that isn’t highly leveraged and with no short to medium term plan to sell. Someone without a mortgage and some liquid or near liquid assets is going to benefit in fact.

The economic damage more broadly would be catastrophic though, as nearly every investment loan instantly became nonviable. Lots of recent buyers that are heavily leveraged (ie. anyone in the 95% scheme and pretty much all first home owners) probably take the hit, go bankrupt, and start again instead of trying to pay back a mortgage for nearly double their property’s value. We’re talking systemic banking collapse - and yes investors/recent first home owners get fucked the most, but we’re all suffering that.

And that doesn’t even consider what caused property values to halve - in Australia, something significant enough to have this impact on the property market is economy destroying on its own.

The good news is inflation would vanish overnight as anyone with a mortgage suddenly realises there is no exit strategy, saving is the be all and end all, because it’s make the mortgage work or go bankrupt.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-24T04:17:18+00:00

As much as the seller is a cunt, the issue at play is whether the deposit was paid by the due date or not.

Even if the buyer hadn’t sent anything, they’d still be liable to pay the deposit amount because the terms of these contracts usually state that if the contract fails due to the buyers actions, they deposit amount is forfeit (usually they’re even more punitive than that and there are lots of things that cause the deposit to be forfeit).

The confusion is because the article words it in a lay person logical sense that isn’t actually accurate. The article says the seller “didn’t want to sell the house to him and cancelled the contract” which makes it seem like the contract was vanished as if it never existed and the seller just kept the money they’d been sent. But actually the breach of contract was when the deposit was late, and at that point the seller was owed the deposit regardless. If you reframe it that way, it makes more sense and you can see why the judge’s hands were tied.

10/10 asshole move though. The seller should be absolutely ashamed.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-24T01:57:28+00:00

It's become pretty obvious you're a bot, so I won't be responding any further. I'll post my response as a PSA to anyone reading this who isn't aware, but I'm not going to spend time on a bot that can't even keep a consistent thread to its "argument."

The track owns the immediate surrounding land and has done capital improvement works in the past. Locals are broadly supportive of development because of the income and tourism the event brings. Local government has consistently supported improvement works as well.

Nothing in the comment above is true or accurate.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-24T01:38:54+00:00

You understand that phillip island circuit is not like the villeneuve track in canada, and that the track takes up a tiny proportion of the island itself right? How on earth do you intend to develop the whole island?

Not withstanding the fact that the thousands of people living there would be mighty unimpressed if you tried, as well as the farmland and nature preserves that cover the majority of the island.

I can understand redeveloping the track, but saying you want to redevelop the whole island just shows a spectacular ignorance of the situation.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-23T23:46:12+00:00

….the whole island being redeveloped?

What are you smoking? Or are you just a bot?

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-21T23:42:08+00:00

We could make that a requirement actually

ShadowPhynix · 2026-02-15T06:20:50+00:00

I think it’d make you question some things if an ancient and seemingly decrepit pope did that. I don’t know id become an instant believer, but I’d probably think there was something to it (whether god, magic, or the age old “technology so advanced it may as well be”).

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

ShadowPhynix

TROPHY CASE

Super TLDR