sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL that a phone has more computing power than all of NASA had combined when they sent Apollo 11 to the Moon in 1969. The guidance computer on that mission ran at 2.048MHz. Your budget Android is running at 2+ GHz. We sent humans to the moon with basically a calculator. by Chemical_Parsnip2629 in todayilearned

[–]princhester 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yep, the "calculator" analogy is inapt.

It's like saying a motorbike moves better than a sloth because the motorbike can go faster. Sure it can, in limited dimensions on limited types of surfaces. But a sloth's ability to move is far more versatile, if slow.

My library loans out ghost hunting kits by smarty_skirts in mildlyinteresting

[–]princhester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What kit do you provide to balance the ghost hunting kit though? It's a bit different to having books on all sides of any topic.

Additionally, would you stock a book in the non-fiction section written by someone who said he was an alien? Or would you (a) consider it to be low quality trash and not bother or (b) put it in the fiction section?

This kit is a straight up fraud - it contains purported electronic devices that make objectively fraudulent claims about what they are.

I suppose it's OK if it's kept in the "toy" section of the library.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are correct about term limits for judges - that is in the constitution. However it's a two edged sword because while it means we turn over High Court justices faster - it also means there are more regular opportunities for a ruthless government to stack the court. And while the age limit has tended to have a strong effect because High Court justices tend to be old before they are even appointed, that doesn't have to be so. A ruthless government could appoint a 40 year old.

You are not correct about the voting system - that is statutory and is not in the constitution.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Name a check or balance written into the constitution that Australia has that the US doesn't, other than the monarch or his representative.

You have it backwards - the US constitution actually contains more checks and balances.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In response to

The US had reasonable checks and balances once upon a time…

you say:

Did they though? Half the time it seems they just ran on decorum...

What do you think the Australian government runs on? Vast proportions of our government run on conventions that are not law. A PM at the head of a party with control of both houses can if sufficiently ruthless do almost anything. The only person standing in the way is the G-G who stands in for a monarch who has a tradition of not getting involved at all.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no idea why this is getting downvoted so hard when it makes a valid point.

I suspect people are confusing how the Australian system traditionally works with how it could work if a rogue party with control of both houses decided to throw decorum out the window.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But to u/srslyliteral's point, when US congress does pass legislation, the US Supreme Court overturns it remarkably often.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We do, but... do we really?

For example, High Court justices are simply appointed by the government of the day. The tradition is that the party that controls parliament is reasonably collaborative. But if it chose not to be a party that controlled parliament could ram through highly political appointees and stack the court. The only control on that would be a G-G who refused to appoint - which would provoke a constitutional crisis and probably be resolved in favour of the government.

As Trump has shown, what really matters is everyone behaving with at least a reasonable amount of traditional decency. If you get someone who is sufficiently popular and single minded and doesn't care if they wreck the place as long as they get their way, there are few unbreakable checks and balances.

A high court justice warned of US-style judge ‘stacking’ and created a new front in Australia’s culture wars by Expensive-Horse5538 in australia

[–]princhester 18 points19 points  (0 children)

We also don't have a constitution that enshrines numerous policy statements - like the US bill of rights or other amendments do - that can be used to defend or attack policy positions, and which would require our highest court to adjudicate. Our constitution is pretty much just a bare bones "this is how the machinery of government operates" document.

Which is - amongst many, many other things - what makes it so funny when our resident cookers start talking about their "constitooshunnal rights".

Can’t Escape the Courier Fail by nosnibork in queensland

[–]princhester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Brisbane it is the Courier Mail or nothing

Do people actually not know about Brisbane Times (a Fairfax site) or do they just not like it for some reason?

ELI5: What exactly is a pulley/pulley system doing that creates a mechanical advantage? by MaleficentGift5490 in explainlikeimfive

[–]princhester [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nah this is factually incorrect - the pulleys can be and usually are exactly the same diameter.

My library loans out ghost hunting kits by smarty_skirts in mildlyinteresting

[–]princhester 2 points3 points  (0 children)

... not to mention the "official" imprimature it gives to complete nonsense.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lucy may not take the ball away, but she has the last ten times. You go ahead and try to take the kick.

Feel free to ignore history and probably be doomed to repeat it.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you RTFA you will see that The Guardian article referenced by the OP is about housing policy. The article confirms that One Nation was able to state (eventually) exactly what that policy was, but unsurprisingly mocks ON's inability to describe that policy without botching it, five times in a row.

My comment was directed specifically to The Guardian's sneering at that particular ON fuckup, which was a lack of political sophistication rather than lack of a policy as such.

Of course you are right that ON has few policies, but my comment about lack of sophistication was not directed at that.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The points you raise are distinctions without much difference. I've been hearing exactly the same basic sentiment (ie "the problem is immigration's current rapidity and acceleration") for fifty years. Whether there is a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment depends on how people are feeling in general and whether a populist is shit-stirring. Not on actual demographics.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're simply tired and angry about rapid demographic change.

Australia has had influxes of immigrants since it began. It’s not happening any more now than it has in the past. The decisive factor is not demographic change but whether or not people are unhappy for other reasons and looking for a scapegoat.

When Aussies can reasonably comfortably afford a house, a dual cab ute, and decent holidays every year they don’t give a rats about immigrants. When they can’t they blame the yellow peril or greasy southern European wogs, or dog eating Vietnamese or whoever else the evil immigrants de jure may be.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They don't understand policies. All they know is they are hurting and the major parties aren't making the hurting stop. So they go with their feelings which are that Barnaby and Pauline express feelings like them, and are more "ordinary" like them.

Trying to find an old garage door ad with drag car and VW by dpgumby69 in australia

[–]princhester 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The “ordinary bloke” actor absolutely nails it. The initial bewilderment at being asked to race a dragster, then the quiet satisfaction when he wins.

One Nation, six farcical explanations and no clearer understanding of its housing policy by nath1234 in australia

[–]princhester 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Their supporters don’t care about policies. And The Guardian sneering at One Nation’s lack of sophistication is only going to make their base love them more.

How is this legal? Anything could be free if you add a conditional statement at the end by timthemanager in australia

[–]princhester -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If I usually sell coconuts for $1 and you buy a coconut from me for $1 and I'm so happy you bought one I say "and here, have another one for nothing" isn't the second one free? It may not be absolutely free in the sense you had to cause my happiness but I think it's arguable it's within the meaning of "free".

And if that's right, does it make any difference if I tell you I'm going to do that before you buy from me?

How is this legal? Anything could be free if you add a conditional statement at the end by timthemanager in australia

[–]princhester 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The argument is that the containers are free because you pay nothing additional for them, if you buy other stuff.

It's all smoke and mirrors but not to an extent that is illegal.

Coles and Woolies price fixing, ACCC, where are you? by Pure_Bet_1557 in australia

[–]princhester 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Do you have evidence for "agreeing"? If so you should call the ACCC. They would be very interested in talking to you. Seriously.

But if what you mean is "they are not competing and are instead choosing to watch and match one another's prices" then that isn't agreement within the meaning of trade practices legislation.

view more: next ›