For me, I’m studying space women and cyber women.

I don’t get where do they see the accomplishment in defining “woman” as “biological woman”

It just seems like a mental-gymnastic pseudo-intellectual way of just saying “female”. It’s a weird coping mechanism to try and handle the idea that a feminine gender (woman) doesn’t have to match to a biological sex category (female). And yes, you’re right, biology is complex and doesn’t just have two neat sex categories in humans.

Well, if this is some attempt at a virgin sacrifice, I don’t think they’re doing it right.

Personally, I don’t want the Coalition to keep the promises I’ve heard so far.

The parties obviously aren’t the same, I haven’t seen anyone say that here. In fact, I prefer one far more than the other and my preferences reflect that. But both are inadequate. The false dichotomy people keep implying, despite the consistent rise of minor parties and the crossbench, is bloody irritating. (I know your post is talking about parties that have held government and there are only two of those, I’m referring to the “both parties are the same” line)

Absolutely. I’ll try and find the post, (update: found it) but IIRC the OP quietly vented their annoyance to their wife that, as a newer vet, they felt ignored by that town’s service only mentioning the Boer War, WWI and WWII. Some grouch overheard them and tried to argue "this isn’t about you!’ then made posts on FB trying to shame them and get them banned. And look, I am critical about most wars Aussies have been in from 1900 to the present, but you’re absolutely right that it’s a stupid take, and I’ll add that it’s horrible and ridiculous too. Vietnam is especially complex because (among other things) there was still conscription ongoing, so it’s unfortunate to see how many people broadly directed their frustrations at the soldiers (mostly fellow worker-class victims of the situation) rather than the people responsible for commanding our citizens.

Disagree as much as you want, but assuming you’re a user, will you keep using it? This isn’t a whoopsie, or unexpected. As you pointed out, it will happen again. And it was always the safe, profitable choice for them - they’re a for-profit business beholden to VC money, not a political organisation or community project like Mastodon/Pleroma/etc.

It’s far easier to make that decision before they gain critical mass like twitter and reddit did.

Agreed. It’s an unfortunate situation, it really is, but there is a housing crisis and it’s been [FAIAP] uninhabited for 18 years. Hope they manage to recover the furniture somehow, but ultimately, I care about housing people more than sentimental values.

As for the second one, I love what van den Lamb is doing but there absolutely needs to be critique and correction to avoid those slip-ups getting through vetting. Mess-ups can have serious impacts to innocent people and furthermore could further harm the public perception of squatting as a valid coping mechanism for combatting homelessness.

My naive guess is that if the Turkish government ban access to BlueSky for not complying, that cuts into user count and therefore profitability.

Honestly, did anyone outside politicians actually have an issue with this?

On reddit’s military forum, there are stories there of some ANZAC day memorial services themselves were excluding modern veterans, claiming the day isn’t about them. Regardless of one’s own opinions on the armed forces, it’s bizarre to see towns arbitrarily considering post-Vietnam ANZACs invalid.

[update: I just had a look around and they’re not even talking about the Greens today]

So, my guess is, actual veterans probably have far more important complaints about the day than some ragebait headlines about some people actually doing fun things long after the ceremonies.

If a tenant isn’t home they will have the key with them, it won’t be in the box.

I was thinking about if a key was taken when it was there, then the attacker leaves to have a duplicate key cut, returns it (to prevent suspicion and the lock being replaced) and infiltrates with it whenever they want.

insurance

I don’t know how that kind of property insurance works, but surely there are limits to what is covered? Plus, as another motive, it might just be out of spite, rather than to devalue property.

If you wanted to sabotage surely a molotov through the window would be more effective.

Yes, but there’s surely a larger chance of needlessly getting on the federal shitlist for firebombing.

Even if someone picked the lock or cloned a key… all they can steal is some shitty ikea furniture and maybe make an instant coffee.

Well, they could also sabotage the AirBnB if they wanted to devalue the property, or they could steal from a tenant who isn’t home.

You can just cut them off (or knock them off the wall), and open them at your leisure.

When it comes down to it, there’s usually a brute-force way through most standard locks, say, bolt cutters, pin raking (or bumping), unscrewing the door hinges if they’re on the wrong side. But in populated areas, a loud break-in isn’t ideal, especially for squatters who plan on sleeping overnight. So for all intents and purposes, I’d assume the point of the lock is just to make it not worth a basic squatter or thief’s time and tempt them to search elsewhere for an easy win.

Everyone hides the keys instead now.

I’m curious - if you went to a new construction site, do you reckon you could find their key/s within an hour or two without already knowing where they were?

I’ll put a pineapple on: “I legally own a house but it’s really just an investment for my parents”

I’m also talking about Australia, I only brought up Cambridge Analytical as a notorious case of a phenomenon we also see here, ABC alleges there were online misinformation bots interfering with the recent referendum.

I completely agree that the ABC and having The Guardian and to some degree Independent Australia and The Chaser media in the mainstream puts us in a better situation than our neighbours. Yes, definitely. However, I also emphasise that this is still a heavily tilted table, with 7, 9, 10 and (depending on your region) Sky on public television and online, plus the usual suspects like The Australian, but also many regional news sites are owned by them too.

Until we (as a general society) shift away from those media platforms, they influence the information we (as a general society) receive and how it’s framed. Yeah, it’s better, but it’s still very uphill. Legislation and our political situation have made it easier, it helps but it can’t solve the problem on its own.

And thanks for replying, it’s made me realise that I should be sharing more news from progressive publications to help make that shift happen.

Let the best arguments win, which is great cause their arguments rely on lies, fiction, and crimes against humanity.

How’s that been working out so far?

The “marketplace of ideas” is rigged when most media platforms are either directly owned by ultra-rich shareholders (e.g. most mainstream news outlets, and plenty of minor ones too, and most mainstream social media platforms) or dominated by astroturfed campaigns (troll farms, targeted political advertising e.g. Cambridge Analytica). Why should we expect the quality of an idea to determine its chances of winning?

You’re right that it makes those points easier to dispute and counter, but that won’t happen on its own, especially if the Greens can’t reach the same audience.

0/10, didn’t recommend an equally-weak lock at the end and call it “unbreakable, apparently, from what I’ve heard”

Why would they suddenly not vote if it became optional? The problem isn’t that they’re voting, it’s that they don’t have the class consciousness to recognise and investigate their core interests in federal politics.

From Condorcet’s jury theorem, it’s clear that having a few million less voters won’t solve the problem, but improving the political literacy of voters can.

yes I support all the policies, even the ones which contradict the other ones. Uphold gay Islamist-Chinese—Australian solidarity. My political ideology is the colour green. I will bring us a Great Green Wall, Libya’s old national flag, and make it illegal to have purple as an official party colour because purple is the opposite of green. I don’t know how you managed to see though my disguise, but no point hiding this anymore.

Avowed! They want to take over the Labor Party by *checks notes* campaigning as a completely different party.

I wonder if Tony always talks about themself in the third person.

I’ll admit to knowing comparatively little about the position of each party on Israel/Palestine stuff so I’ll have to leave a direct reply to that one to someone else

I think it goes without saying that the Greens support Palestine, and that doesn’t imply they align with all the social policy of Palestine’s various political parties, just like Australia supporting Ukraine doesn’t imply alignment with their prominent Azov Battalion. The only parties in the Zionist Regime’s genocide which somewhat align with the Greens overall values are minor parties who inevitably are forced to join forces with Islamist parties because they don’t have enough power alone, we’re dealing with decades of siege and accelerated genocide, beggars can’t be choosers.

If we were (hypothetically) invaded by the US or China, and we all had to join forces behind a Liberal government to repel it, would that make us all (materially) supporters of a misogynist, anti-gay and racist government? That’s debatable, but consider the alternative. It certainly doesn’t contradict our progressivism.

I think an important part of the pitch for federated instances is being on one instance while interacting with another. If someone new can’t do this before they make their account, could they get the impression that we’re unfederated? I worry that it might give the illusion that we’re a “dead”, insular site, at least as a first impression.