Not keen at all on how it increases picture sizes and makes certain articles more prominent at the expense of actual information.

Also, what pelican told them that video shorts should take up such a massive section of the page (and not at the bottom either)? One of my bugbears these days is how information that can be conveyed much faster as text keeps getting pushed as video so people can spend both more time and vastly more data to find it out.

Highlights IMO are an amusingly ironic bit of tram signage at 7:20 and a very well timed song at 29:40.

Disappointingly I only saw two clips from Canberra but luckily both involved roundabouts (or faux-abouts) so at least the reputation of the city is intact.

it seems that the smaller the town, the higher the military worship. They may not even have a public toilet, but they will have a military worship statue that seemed to have cost more than all the town to build.

That’s because the vast majority of our towns pre date WW2, and basically every area lost enough people in WW1/WW2 to affect multiple families and the broader local community. For example I grew up in a country village of a couple of hundred people (with several hundred more in the locality and upriver) and it has a war memorial listing what would have been ~50 people killed in WW2 and at least that again in WW1. I think it is understandable that towns (particularly smaller or more closely knit communities) would be in general support of the families and friends wanting a memorial to their dead given that level of losses.

I haven’t seen anywhere near the number of memorials for other conflicts, they definitely exist but are significantly less common. If you want to avoid war related stuff your best bet would be towns/suburbs built well after WW2, but these tend to be suburbs of existing centres (which are likely to have a war memorial) instead of completely new towns.

Edit: Also consider that many of our country towns/villages have either not grown significantly or have even shrunk in population in the last half century or so, so historical memorials are more likely to retain the prominence they were originally intended to have instead of being surrounded or crowded out by new development.

It would’ve been completely unsafe to drive at 80

That’s why it’s called a speed limit, emphasis on limit. I believe limits should be set at a point such as you describe - a speed which reasonable people would consider clearly unsafe for a road. Drivers should then use their judgement of the corners/visibility, the current conditions, and their vehicle to choose a speed safe for their particular circumstances - this will obviously vary widely for different parts of the road, different conditions, and different vehicles. Setting speed limits to a point where you can safely drive the slowest sections of the road in poor conditions makes them effectively recommended speeds rather than limits, and I believe this trend has (and will continue to have) a negative effect on driver skill levels.

It’s one of these things that logically you know must happen occasionally (and I’ve even seen pictures of it) but still doesn’t seem right.

I am impressed the shark got it out again and didn’t end up with a permanent internal echidna spine collection.

The American inspired variety of sovereign citizen is enough, I don’t think we really need our own special version of the idea.

Sounds a pretty good use case for an electric truck; low speeds with constant stop/start driving is well suited to electric vehicles and a known route means range is much less of an issue (just spec it with enough to cope with expected decline over its service life and you’re set). The harder part will be making sure there’s enough charging capacity in the depots to cope with a fleet of trucks, I would expect upgrades will be necessary for that.

I feel like inflation has rather diminished the impact of the monetary side of a contempt finding - $5k just doesn’t have the same impact as six months in prison anymore. It’s like how you see the occasional old sign in lifts warning that smoking can be punished by a (presumably initially impactful) fine of up to $20…

I was concerned these recent stabbings would start a push towards screwing over people like me who regularly carry pocket knives, and unsurprisingly it’s started. It’s rather disappointing how many people go straight to pearl clutching at the mention of a knife even though I and many others have had them on hand as useful tools for decades without feeling the need to stab anyone.

They can get funding, but not in the next election. If you get more than 4% of first preference votes then you can get money after an election to help repay expenditure for that election, up to the lesser of the amount you have spent or the number of first preference votes multiplied by a few dollars (currently $3.29). Reading the info page it seems to make it easier they pay out $12k if you qualify and you can claim more if necessary.

This does mean it’s worthwhile spending your first preference on a smaller candidate you approve of though. They aren’t necessarily getting ahead with that funding but being able to offset their election spending would be a real benefit to people/groups which don’t have piles of money to spend (and makes it more likely they’ll be able to try again next election).

Didn’t even notice until now, but yes it is an unfortunate choice of words in that title…

Fernwood, a women only gym, is allowed to exist.

Because there are sections of the law which allow exemption from the gender discrimination section for various reasons, and they have successfully argued that there are benefits to having a women only gym which are important enough to deserve an exemption (to provide substantive equality). They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.

I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination

Neither do many other people, which is why such examples as Fernwood have received exemptions from the law and why there is a specific exemption in the laws for both female and male only clubs.

I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting

Allowing discrimination based on gender without substantiating the businesses eligibility for an exemption under the law absolutely would set a precedent for the courts. While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.

Good. I think the other option - setting a precedent allowing businesses to skirt discrimination laws by claiming their behaviour was art - would have been a rather poor decision.

That’s an expensive way to learn the difference between a hi cube and a standard container…

Impressed at the strength of that beam - to do that to a container (and the twist locks) would take a solid whack.

It is political - there are a variety of people who are against modern Australia’s British colonial roots, ranging the gamut from those who want all European influence gone and the remaining people to revert back to a romanticised view of the Stone Age to those who (more realistically) want more Indigenous influence upon our current system. Somewhere along that line is where the writers of this would fall, the ‘colony’ they want to fall would either refers to all European practises and institutions or some more abstract view of European influence over our society.

The ABC now likes to do clickbait style headlines like that to try and grab attention, it’s a trend that annoys me. They also often rotate through options including a more traditional headline depending on what device you use and what time you access it - currently the headline is showing for me as “Electric car sales in Australia’s outer suburbs take off as commuters pocket ‘ridiculous’ savings”, which while still a bit hyped up is more informative.

It certainly makes things harder than they should be IMO, I’ve always thought it should be more along the lines of just proving you are who you say you are instead of chasing parents etc.

If you were born post '86 your Australian birth certificate is not considered sufficient proof of you being an Australian citizen (not sure on the reason for that year being the cutoff), so if you’re going for the natural born Australian line of proof you would then need to prove you had a parent who was a citizen at the time of your birth. It doesn’t necessarily need to be your parent’s birth certificate, a passport from before your birth would also count (as would the certificate you get when becoming a citizen if they weren’t born here).

At least though my generation only has to go back one step to prove citizenship. It’s going to be harder work for the growing number of people who have parents born after '86 and will therefore have to go back to their grandparents birth certificates if their parents didn’t get a passport or citizenship certificate before they were born.

Once you’ve got a birth certificate sorted I would recommend going a bit further with the document hunt - assuming you were born after 1986. If you ever need to prove you’re a citizen (which you may for some jobs) and you were born post '86 you’ll also need to track down a copy of a parent’s Australian birth certificate or other proof of their Australian citizenship before your birth. You’ll also need this proof of citizenship if you want a passport in the future so it’s worth tracking down.