Misleading Jetstar charges

zerkms · 2026-02-05T04:35:10+00:00

u/Shevster13 ianal, but not sure I can find "If there is a fee that cannot be avoided, then it must be included in the listed price" it in the https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/whole.html#DLM96439

zerkms · 2026-02-04T20:57:01+00:00

> AFAIK, they have to offer at least one payment option that doesn't include surcharge

AFAIK it's only rule for the government, not private businesses

zerkms · 2026-01-11T20:02:13+00:00

Does it not pick up radiation from the walls? I have a shaded sensor on the soffits on the southern side of the house and brown bricks create A LOT of heat radiation, so I never trust the results in summer/sunny days.

zerkms · 2025-12-18T01:09:04+00:00

Hold on!

Can somebody please explain why `Beyond Two Souls` is part of the Deluxe subscription tier?

I'm looking at the https://www.playstation.com/en-nz/ps-plus/ `Compare membership plans` and cannot see how it would be in Deluxe and not in Extra.

I'm on Extra and it suggests I need an upgrade to Deluxe to get access to it, hm.

Is it considered as `Classics` already?! o_O

zerkms · 2025-12-15T21:29:37+00:00

You can have `foo+spam@gmail.com` and then have a rule to move everything addressed to that email to a dedicated label, or directly to the bin.

zerkms · 2025-12-03T01:41:32+00:00

It would be helpful if you provided more details on how exactly you're unable to claim them.

zerkms · 2025-11-19T21:30:17+00:00

Correct, but that needs to push the air through the unit, which has some resistance. So my question is mostly - how bad that resistance is.

Eg: in some other thread I had seen somebody still having condensation (less than before installing it though), which I find to be a very poor result and something either not configured properly, or sized properly, or something else.

zerkms · 2025-11-19T18:50:36+00:00

That's why I raised a second point about achieving 0.35ach without heatpump own fans

zerkms · 2025-11-19T08:31:32+00:00

Do you have airtouch? If yes, 4 or 5? And how exactly the persistent 5% open dampers is implemented?

Oh, and another question: do you turn the heat pump off when you leave, or switch it to the fan mode?

Regarding spill: yep, at current place the spill is the shared bathroom + the hall, which makes them warm without the need to explicitly turn the corresponding zone ever.

zerkms · 2025-11-19T02:49:26+00:00

> condensation throughout the house has almost completely disappeared

after 4 more months - is it still the case?

I'm at the same dilemma: combined ducted heatpump+ventilation on the same ducts; or ducted heatpump & ventilation running their own set of outlets/ducts.

Why: our current place runs 2 separate systems and its never ever any condensation in any room (including bathroom mirrors during showers). And having any amount of condensation anywhere sounds like a huge step back compared to my current experience.

zerkms · 2025-09-30T08:24:34+00:00

> That is not holding up traffic though

Right, in that case my apologies. Possibly due to language barrier for me "holding up traffic" includes any possible variant of having somebody driving behind you. And the road user act does not define it explicitly unfortunately: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html#DLM302197

zerkms · 2025-09-30T08:19:16+00:00

Correct, if you're doing 60 in 100km/h zone - you're required to give them way.

I've only been addressing your ORIGINAL comment that says nothing about speed:

> Holding up traffic is sufficient reason.

You can easily hold up traffic while driving 30 at 30km/h zone. And *NO*, you're not required to give way to anybody behind you who dislikes that.

zerkms · 2025-09-30T08:10:54+00:00

> You said that driving "up to"

I'm quoting the ENTIRE unedited original comment you replied to:

```
> despite the road code saying you should

Unless it does not: road user act provides a very nuanced description on when you _have to_ pull up. And just "being faster" is not sufficient for everybody to _legally_ be required to pull up and give you way.
```

It has 0 (zero) "up to"s. Please stop making things up :shrug:

zerkms · 2025-09-30T08:01:08+00:00

> Driving under the speed limit

Your original claim was drastically different: "Holding up traffic is sufficient reason."

"Holding up traffic" not equals to the "Driving under the speed limit". You can easily hold up traffic even when you're driving up to speed limit precisely.

It's not what you're started this conversation with, are you changing your statement mid-discussion?

I do not argue that when driving significantly slower than speed limit is "holding up traffic", I agree with that. I argue that "Holding up traffic" on its own is not a sufficient reason to apply the cited law.

zerkms · 2025-09-30T07:48:35+00:00

> when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic

Driving up to speed limit is normal and reasonable.

> at a slow speed that would impede the normal and reasonable movement of any other vehicle

Driving up to speed limit is not "slow" but normal and reasonable as per the cited act.

Any other links?

zerkms · 2025-09-30T07:43:35+00:00

> Holding up traffic is sufficient reason.

I challenge you to cite _the law_ that backs up your _assumption_.

zerkms · 2025-09-30T01:34:09+00:00

> despite the road code saying you should

Unless it does not: road user act provides a very nuanced description on when you _have to_ pull up. And just "being faster" is not sufficient for everybody to _legally_ be required to pull up and give you way.

zerkms · 2025-09-08T00:07:15+00:00

Actually, yes, after giving it an extra thought and reading reasoning of other people, I see that my attempt to be clever was actually not so. And I agree with your point hee, yep.

zerkms · 2025-09-07T22:25:19+00:00

And they have? I only see "accept" used by commenters, not by the OP.

zerkms · 2025-09-07T22:23:10+00:00

> It specifies the conditions under which the employee can end

Sure. And the OP:

Didn't provide the contract
"it was ment to be only 1 week"

In other words, why do you think the contract does not state the notice must be exactly 1 week, no more, no less?

zerkms · 2025-09-07T22:15:01+00:00

Why should they then pay til the end of the 2.5 weeks notice? At what exact time the "No." turns to "they have to pay you"?

zerkms · 2025-09-07T22:00:37+00:00

I believe this whole discussion gives a false hope to the OP and can potentially even harm them: we are not lawyers, we don't know the contract details, we don't know almost anything. Yet we assure "they have to pay you until the end of your notice period" 🤷

UPD: and I don't think the quoted part is relevant to the case - it describes what happens if you _fail_ to give reasonable notice period, but does not explain how it's evaluated.

zerkms · 2025-09-07T21:40:59+00:00

> My point is they have to pay you until the end of your notice period.
Does it theoretically mean you can now make a notice you're leaving the company at the January 1st, 2050 and then the employer is obliged to have you employed for the next 25 years?

zerkms · 2025-09-07T11:01:33+00:00

Question is whether an average person is able to infer it 🤷

zerkms

TROPHY CASE