I would like that, but from what I read, the flu shot is about 10 times cheaper to make in the first place. I’m not sure if the government is keen to pay for 80% of a shot. At that point they might as well keep it free for everyone.

Exactly, I’m not sure how people can’t fathom how expensive it used to be to run everything on cash.

The free cash cost of the past had factored into it, the 30 minutes of wage needed to clear the tills and check the balances, the bank fee that they get to process 5kg of shrapnel, armoured guards to move large sums of cash around, specialised training, firearms and custom vehicles. Cash was an industry, of which a small amount remains.

Now the extra cents they slap on your card payment at the tap, that has always been bulshit. The price on the sticker being the amount you pay is a core tenant of this country, and I’m glad they are cracking down on it.

I’m also strongly in favour of keeping the cash option there. Many many good reasons to have it around.

There seems to be no news about how much they will cost. Though some estimates seem to indicate it could be in the $100 to $200 AUD range if they palm on the full price. If so, that’s pretty wild.

I was hoping that as a result of this, the flu shot would be added as a free vaccine for all, but seems like the money crunch is unstoppable.

Well that’s a development.

The most controversial thing about the program to me was the clear cheating and corruption that must have gone on in the English language tests used in that scheme. Hopefully I won’t have to teach more students via phone translate in the future.

The rest are full time.

From a science field, that is in no way how you ever define an acronym. I could assume but assumed knowledge is hardly ideal here.

Probably deliberately confusing. They assume we know what a DEAO is for one.

https://catronsimmons.com.au/digital-evidence-access-orders/

This was somewhat helpful. Right now it needs to be as part of a court issued warrant.

Honestly, decriminalisation of drugs will solve 90% of the shit they are trying to fight.

“Content produced by these creators appears to be, at times, in direct violation of Facebook’s own policies around content monetisation.”

Pretty sure the content perfectly matches their more clicks = more $$$$$ policy.

I feel like I’m missing info here. Do they need a warrant for this? Or is this some weird thing where they are able to arbitrarily generate a warrant to do this as needed?

I wonder if graphene will end up having a minimalist shadow profile that you can log into full of benign text and stock photos. The danger here is that cellbright might might find a way to escape that I guess.

Tracks with what I have been seeing in student cohorts where you get a fresh sample batch each year. We were blaming lockdowns recently, but there is clearly a bad trend here.

I bet the primary driver is economic. It’s hard to be happy when you can’t afford to live a happy life.

Yep. Tell us who you are and what you’re doing online mate. For the kids!

I’m yet to be forced to give any of these new identity tracking companies my personal data (I mean they ask but the workarounds are easier than finding my licence even if I didn’t care). So just the usual level of internet soul selling to google, meta and the like.

I’m kind of keen to see what happens when someone with a popular site just says fuck it and actively doesn’t comply after the government makes a fuss over them.

Thanks for putting your neck on the line for us!

I hate to imagine the colossal waste of time and money that would be involved in dragging any of this through the courts.

I was going to say minimal chance of anyone under 16 wanting to be on whirlpool, but that’s probably untrue. I for sure used it as a source of info when I was that young. Can’t remember if I posted at that age.

I’m hoping that labour can see the writing on the wall for this one and implement it properly. They will lose seats if they don’t. I get the impression that a particular ACT senator is quite concerned about this danger.

To me the words “independent public inquiry” typically means something that is started/funded by government and then run by an independent agency or board to investigate the thing they are set up to do.

The fact that they call it different things on the same page doesn’t exactly help with clarity.

If they weren’t asking for people’s money, I wouldn’t care at all. But I suggest anyone that donates figures out what their $$$ will be actually spent on before they send any (let’s hope it’s not to pay Peter Garrett).

Why is there a donate button for a public inquiry?

Ok, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the site.

“A non-partisan, civil society inquiry into Australia’s nuclear submarine partnership. Auspiced by the Australian Peace and Security Forum. Funded by Australia’s civil society.”

So not government backed in any way. I bet this confuses a lot of people. I dislike how it is named and presented, seems deliberately misleading.

As someone who had an application in for the AEA innovate scheme. I can attest to being pretty pissed about them just binning the 100+ page application that took weeks to write and organise with an industry partner who put aside over $200k for the project.

8 months of waiting for this outcome has not helped that colab.