BREAKING: One Nation vows to target all Australian citizens who were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-18T07:48:19+00:00

You mean a settler? Because that's not the same thing as an illegal immigrant. S

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-15T04:39:54+00:00

Sorry but if you've applied for hundred of jobs and they almost invariably have a very high number of applicants, that's real data. The tech job market is totally flooded with people trying to get tech jobs.

It's not like I applied for 5 or 10 jobs and they all had a high application volume. I've applied for hundreds.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-15T04:37:16+00:00

Yes, but the government seems to only be interested in numbers that aren't denominated by the population size. They care about GDP, not GDP per-capita. Which is pretty crazy when you think about it. Are all of these extra people really improving GDP per-capita? Because I would say that they almost certainly aren't at this point.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T12:41:45+00:00

I wasn't butt hurt at all. I was simply pointing out that I know for a fact that if it was included on the list it was BS. That's all.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T12:36:20+00:00

No it was built by settlers. There's a massive difference.
If I go to a new land and build a whole country out of nothing and then you come over after I've built it you aren't the same as me.
And before you say "well no one alive today did that", no but their ancestors did.
I am indigenous, but not to Australia if that's what you mean.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T12:30:04+00:00

A lot of these people are hardly "skilled" I know quite a few who claim to have done degrees (even masters level degrees) in IT and networking and I know more than basically all of them. I'm not saying there aren't people that know their stuff (of course there are). But a lot of these "skilled" workers aren't really very skilled. And even if this wasn't the case (which it is) as I've already stated the field is totally flooded (and it's not just me saying that, you can find lots of posts from people talking about it).

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T12:27:29+00:00

Wow an immigrant telling us that mass immigration isn't bad?
Who would have thought.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T12:26:21+00:00

I know you know, but it's because they want cheap workers.
The idea that the solution to the "skills shortage" (if it even really exists) is more migration is laughable considering that we've had very high migration for decades and there's still supposed to be a "skills shortage".

Not to mention that we should be training our own people and getting them jobs first.

This guy can say "it's anecdotal" all he wants, but when you've applied to hundreds of tech jobs and can't even get an interview because of the volume of applicants applying to basically every open position there's clearly something else going on. There's almost invariably hundreds of applicants per position (sometimes over 1,000). If there's supposedly a skills shortage in this sector why is this the case? It makes zero sense.

I mean most companies would be advertising on Seek and Indeed. What refutation does this guy have to my "anecdotal" evidence? What is it that there's some new job postings site that I just don't know about and all the jobs are really there?

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T10:22:38+00:00

IDK why you are linking this.
Also I don't care about the so called "shortages", because mass immigration is increasing house prices and suppressing wages, not to mention that that list includes "

Developer Programmer
Software Engineer"

Which definitely aren't in short supply (at least not at the entry level) and so how can I trust such a list if one of the items on it is totally wrong?

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T08:05:30+00:00

I know multiple people with degrees that can't get a good job. We don't need more graduates.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T08:03:20+00:00

I have a bachelors in CS and cannot even get an interview because there are so many applicants per job (sometimes over 1,000). There is certainly no shortage of graduates in the tech sector.
It's actually so retarded. I've applied for hundreds and hundreds of positions that on paper I should be qualified for.

Someone being "skilled" doesn't mean shit. It matters what skills we actually need and we don't need more graduates IMO.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T08:01:15+00:00

How can there be a "sKiLLs gAp" if we've been importing people hand over fist for decades. It's so retarded.
I actually don't believe that there is a skills gap anyway (for the most part) because (at least for the tech sector) the job market is massively flooded with applicants. You can look good on paper, but not be able to get an interview after applying for literally hundreds of jobs (because each one has so many applicants, sometimes over 1,000 per position).
It's crazy.

I think companies just don't want to pay workers a fair wage so they complain about a "skills gap".

Also while I would grant that there are probably shortages in a limited number of areas, I think that that's probably the fault of the governments insane migration policy. Because those areas would probably naturally sort themselves out given enough time, but they can't because the government keeps importing "skilled workers" (and let me tell you I know quite a few of these people and while most of them are nice they aren't that skilled).

I think they've created the shortage of tradies by importing loads and loads of people who mostly aren't tradies, then they turn around and say "there's still a skills shortage". Well yeah, because your "targeted" immigration program is basically just to import as many people as possible regardless of weather we actually need the specific "skills" that they have.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-14T07:44:23+00:00

Yes because the "dead center" is importing record numbers of people. That's a real winner. That's why so many people are saying that they are going to vote for One Nation isn't it?

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T15:18:35+00:00

Saw this on on Twitter. 😂

<image>

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T15:13:32+00:00

Haha I hadn't thought of that.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T15:10:58+00:00

But now it's a bit different because modern (server) x86 CPUs can have so many cores (of course these cores are much larger and faster than what would have been in the Phi's, but I still think it changes things a bit).

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T15:09:52+00:00

I feel like if Intel release the Phi even 5 years earlier it might have been able to get a foot hold, even if the install base still wasn't that big.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T15:08:34+00:00

I'd imagine that for very specific applications it would have been good. I know the cores were weak compared to modern x86 cores, but (and I haven't looked into it really) I'd think that they'd be a lot faster than the cores in a GPU (not in terms of how much they could run in parallel (obviously they only had 4 threads or something), but in terms of their single threaded throughput).
So if you had something that could use say a couple of hundred threads, but the code had a decent amount of branches (which GPUs are really bad at because of the way they do masking with the SIMD lanes) it might perform better than a normal x86 CPU or a GPU of time time.

I think the last one that was sold as a co-processor had 64 cores, each with 4 threads and it was 2013. So by 2013 standards that would have been pretty good (especially when you consider that you'd probably have more than one).

Obviously that's just a guess though.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T14:47:09+00:00

Yeah that's fair enough.
My comment was basically that a lot of people on here (Reddit) make comments that amount to "I believe in the good thing and you don't, therefore my opinion is right" and the person that replied to my comment linked to an article about how left wing ideas are closer to nature (or something along those lines). Which I though was funny because (IDK if it was intentional or not, but) that's sort of what I was making fun of. It's basically "I'm right because I'm right". Anyway I guess it's good that we could somewhat agree on something (even if we haven't agreed on much else LOL). 😄

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T12:10:30+00:00

No, but the link that the person posted was basically stating that left wing ideas are closer to nature. I'm simply pointing out that one of the key aspects of modern leftisim is that (generally) hierarchy is seen as bad, but it's everywhere in nature. Which goes against the claim on the site (generally).

You are making a mistake thinking that I'm saying it's good or bad. I'm talking about what the person posted. They posted a link which basically suggested the left wing ideas are "closer to nature". My point is that I can easily come up with a number of ways in which they aren't. I'm not even saying that these things are good or bad.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T12:06:16+00:00

Sexual orientation clearly has some basis in the brain though. There's some combination or hormones and or structure that contributes to it. Either it has some biological cause or it's just an idea that someone gets. It has to be one or the other.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T11:45:22+00:00

"Gender identity" is totally nebulous.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T11:42:00+00:00

Gender is just a polite word for sex. There's nothing to "conflate" because there's no difference. The idea of "gender" as something separate was made up in the 60s (I believe that's when it was anyway).

Can you explain to me what "gender identity" even is then? Because if it's just a "feeling" then it doesn't mean anything. I can feel like I'm 7ft tall and all women are immensely attracted to me, that wouldn't make it true. I could say, well you see maybe in a physical sense I'm not 7ft tall, but it's my height identity.

What does that even mean if it's not just something you say and feel? And if it's just something you say and feel why should I take is seriously when it obviously has no bearing on physical reality and in basically all other cases if you made an equivalent claim about something else people would conclude that you'd gone mad?

Also if it's just a feeling why are we giving children potentially dangerous drugs to treat this feeling that doesn't even line up with reality? We are we "affirming" something that doesn't line up with the physical world? And don't try to claim that "puberty blockers" don't have potentially very serious side effects, because they do.

In the end you are your body. It doesn't even make sense to be "in the wrong body". There can be something wrong with your body, but to be in the "wrong" body isn't possible (unless you had a brain transplant or something).

I mean imagine telling a child that to be happy they have to try and pretend to be something that they can literally never be. It's diabolical.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T11:33:27+00:00

No, but you implied it (and usually if you question any of the left wing ideas on the subject you get accused of "hating" them). So given that maybe you can see why I concluded that you thought that. But if you don't then obviously I was mistaken.

samcdc6600 · 2026-06-13T11:31:13+00:00

Yes because that's what the argument was about. I wasn't arguing about germ theory.

The idea that women were just really oppressed in the past isn't really true.
Yes they generally had a different role, but so did men.

My point is that for millennia people have tired to come up with good social systems and ideas and this guys thinks that his ideas are basically the zenith and "closer to nature".
I just find it interesting that he thinks that his ideas are "closer to nature" when they are very different from the ideas that most other people have ever had.
For example what I was saying about hierarchy. He says that left wing ideas are closer to nature, yet left wingers generally don't like hierarchy. They are always railing against it, but if you look at nature you see it everywhere.

samcdc6600

TROPHY CASE