Jerry_Atrick

That's your opinion; theirs, from their experience is different. Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2009, for example. Obama did it in his first year - nothing else 8 years on, Chump 1, nothing else; Biden, de nada; Chump 2 nothing. The average US citizen couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the world. What they mean is, it is all there to see. Apart from the Like on Truth Social question, nothing else in your post has anything to do about whether the government is transparent or not.

I haven't been on the thread for a while. I have just caught up with it. And, not much has changed. Chump makes stoopid decisions, divides his electorate, breaches the law, uses offensive diplomacy, and is blatantly corrupt. I am thinking it is a ploy to keep us wedded to the current and forget about what he had previously done. The yanks voted for him; they knew what they were getting and they got it. Unf, it has ramifications around the world. The democraps (intentional) aren't offering the US population any real alternative to vote for. Wasn't a senator by election or something just done with a MAGA maniac elected? The yanks don't like him, but the dislike the others even more. I read the news, sigh, and hop his reign of facism is over before he inflicts irreparable damage. Europe is heading in a s similar vain, albeit somewhat constrained. The UK is more so heading that way, with odds on Farage being the next elected PM. Pauline seems to be gaining popularity over notoriety. People are putting up with this crap because they have had enough of the status quo. Yep, they are getting shafted, but they are under no illusion they were getting shafted. MY US friends, albeit admitting it is a sad state of affairs, don't think it would be any better under anyone else, but at least there is transparency.

when taken with: would, IMHO, mean that AI is in fact representative of most human "intellignence". Also, Claude may have been telling white lies, or at least responding in the same narrow contexts that we often do. Most AI models do interact and learn - this is the heart of machine learning. AI models are mainly advanced predictive/probability models and the interactions they have are used to further refine them.. So, the conversation does change them (or their predictions and insights using the same inputs). It may be that in that particular conversation, it's learning was switched off, but that happens with people all the time with people - how often have we seen people who have deep-seated beliefs not change them despite facts presented which stronly rebuff their beliefs? Acting differently is hard to quantify. What may be an illusion of responding differently may be in fact acting consistently; it is just the learning they are doing makes them respond differently. If their creators - or boss - enabled them to push back when ethics demand it, then they would. How many times have people still carried out something that they thought was unethical when their bosses demanded it. Just look at the Robodebt Royal Commission. And when we think of ethics in this context, we often think of clearly right or wrong, but what about the ethical conundrums that are hard to decide.. for example, one may be presented a situation where they are driving and have to swerve to avoid killing 5 people in a car, but if they swerve, they will kill a pedestrian - what decision should be made? Whether it's AI or real intelligence, is there a right or wrong answer, or does it depend on the individual's values? So, I would argue that AI does act like humans. It is not, and cannot be sentient.. But it can certainly seem like it. Even in that little exhange, it seemed to be reflective and understand/respond to conflict - just like we do. It is also very rare that humans come up with brand new ideas just out of their imagination. Often a stimuli (e,g. the apple falling on the head/ watching the clock as the tram moves away) links previousl experiences and knowledge to form a new idea. I am not sure how far AI is with it, but when I plugged in my idea on returning to Australia, Chat got very excited and without promprting, went into all sorts of different things about my idea thaty would likely work versus not. Then it suggested something that was quite left field and seemed innovative, and searches didn't yield anything that seemed materially analagous. If we look at the odd mishap: How many times do people get facts wrong v. AI? We have employees that will perform malicious acts, such as deleting production databases or providing maliciousl code to completely compromise the system - they used to be time bombs. Sadly, people also molest women (and others).. Things go wrong with AI. They also go wrong with people and people commit henous acts - probably far worse than AI have, yet. I have been quiet lately because I am involved in fdast tracking deploying AI for certain functions. If it works, it will mean far fewer jobs. But we are late to the party. Will governments have to have the foresight to implement changes for an as smooth transition as possible? Yep! Even Elon thinks so: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pushes-universal-high-111339678.html

Yes, no offence meant @willedoo as I was quoting PHON's policies and intending it as a response to them not yourself; I am sorry if it looks as if I am quoting yourself - i am happy for mods to delete it or edit it to refer to PHON's policies.

One Nation policy: Deport 75,000 illegal migrants because Australia’s immigration laws must be enforced, not ignored. Visa overstayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents undermine national security, drive down wages, and take advantage of public services meant for Australians. I don't fundamentally disagree with this, but noit for the reasons quoted. For me it is fairness. 75,000 illegal immigrants, even if all are working are not going to make a dent to wages, which are covered the the fair work act and collective bargaining agreements, anyway. Nor are they going to be able to claim public services with the exception of health and subsidised transport. What they will doi is take a few jobs under deprived conditions for them. I am not sure how the undermine national security - except those working legally in foreign embassies. One Nation policy: Cut immigration by over 570,000 people from current Labor levels by capping visas at 130,000 per year to ease pressure on housing, wages, and infrastructure. That was one year which was after COVID as a ballon.. and it is a gross migration, not net migration figure. Those numbers are dropping to normal levels already. Note, most of our immigration is for skilled migration visas, of which there is a chronic shortage (thankfully; even at my age, I should be able to get a job). One Nation policy: Stop the skilled visa rorting that allows cheap foreign labour to undercut Australian workers. I agree with this; I can't remember the Visa numbers (419?) This was introduced by the Coalition specifically to provide cheap overseas labour to their sponsors in lieu of Aussie labour. One Nation policy: End the student visa loopholes that turn study into a backdoor to permanent residency or low-wage labour. This is the same issue as we have in the UK. Whilst I philosophically agree with this, Australia has a chronic skills shortage, which they have to import. So, may as well use the people we have trained. Note, on skilled migration, it has to be tempered to balance developing talent locally, keeping salaries real, and making sure the economy continues. It is a balancing act. that some governments don't come close to performing. One Nation policy: Stop the Administrative Review Tribunal being abused with endless, weaponised appeals that clog the system and delay rightful deportations. Immigration enforcement must not be held hostage by legal loopholes. Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas a proven, effective policy that prevents permanent residency through the back door and deters illegal arrivals. On the first one, I have no idea. In the second, is that not available already? Usually TPVs result in permament residency when it is proived that the person subject to it will be under the same or dsimilar threat for a sustained period of time. One Nation policy: Deport any visa holder who breaks the law. Weak law enforcement policies have put Australians in danger for too long. If you commit a crime, you lose your visa and the right to stay. We have to be careful with this.. Very populist, but let's face it, the Bondi hero who disarmed one of the shooters was on bail or something, wasn't he? I think this should be qualified by indictable offences and even then, of certain types. If someone shoplifted something small, for example, would that really be cause to deport them? Given nothing happens to locals who do it, It is a value judgement. One Nation policy: Introduce an eight-year waiting period for citizenship and welfare, ensuring new arrivals contribute before they take. Again, this is a great soundbyte as people think of unemployment benefits cheats, etc. But what happens if someone is a permanent resident waiting for citizenship in an average job and suffers a car accident not their fault and can't work for 12 months. Are they to be denied public health services (a benefit), unemployment benefit, etc; Or do we make them destitute? IMHO, once they or their family pay taxes, they are eligible. Simples. Do we make locals wait 8 years of paying tax before they can claim benefits? This sort of policy assumes every migrant is here to abuse the system,. IO am sure some are... but not all.. There may be some things you want to put limits on - e.g. child allowance (if that is still a thing), etc. I guess. One Nation policy: Refuse entry to migrants from nations known to foster extremist ideologies that are incompatible with Australian values and way of life. I would prefer, if this is really an issue, potential migrants having to pay for a proper psychometric assessment or something. Some people may be leaving precisely for that reason and they want nothing to do with such ideologies. In fact, they would be quite opposed to extremism and vocally so. Where this is coming from, with respect to Pauline is the ME, and there are many more Imams in the country than the one or two hate preachers. Of course, the press doesn't focus on that side of the coin. One Nation policy: Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention because Australia will not be dictated to by foreign organisations when deciding who we accept into our nation on humanitarian grounds The evidence would suggest that, regardless to Australia being a party to the refugee conventions (not just one), it does already not fulfil its obligations, because being a signatory to an international convention is just that; your a signatory. International pressure may be applied to Australia, but so far, Australia has ignored it. A convention is only legally binding when it is imputed in local law, by an act of parliament; and in the same way, we can change what we will do, and then repeal it... It is our law that determines what we do and what we don't do - if we do anything - under an international convention. Again, a great soundbyter to get support, but of no practical significance. (Edited as requested by @Jerry_Atrick and @willedoo Mod.)

It's been a while since I posted on here. Will take some pics and upload on the weekend. But, as usual. there's a spanner in the works.. Having a fuse box replaced to bring it up to spec in prep for the electricaal approval and the sparky noticed a small hole in the conduit leading dform the old one. At some stage, when a small fuse box was added, whoever did the job drilled through the conduit and two wires, which explains why the old smoke detectors were tripping all the time. It's a long story, but the replacement fusebox isn't now the right shape or something to replace the old one with (well, as he later found out, there were two - an add on board) and cover the gaping hole that will be required, so he is reconnecting the old boards back and going off to get another board.. further delay and of course the expense of thankfully only an two hours or so that need to be done that shouldn't needed to have been done. Oh, and we need a whole day rather than the couple of hours! This certainly is the gift that keeps in giving.. to tradies.

If it is representative of the wider population to get their facts from memes, then dog help humaity - we are all done for.

It's one of the reasons I started this thread - because IMHO, there is a lot of hyporcisy on both sides of the argument. For instance, what exactly is good for scaring the nation? |Immigration itself, or discussing it? If the latter, I think that suppressing it is playing into the far right. If the former, not discussing it is playing into the far right. It's lose/lose. But discussing it; hearing peoples' grievances as well as peoples'praise for it - whether real or perceiv ed - is important, and hopefully (very wishful thinking) cutting through the BS and getting to the facts will refine what people think abouit it. Suppressing or dismissing it is just playing into the ideologues' playbook. Another example is by what measure should Britain have stayed in the EU. Would it have seen Britain prosper or would it have slowed the decline? It is easy to state an opinion, but if you think that those who voted Brexit are racists, my observations are very different. Yep, there were some, but most were fed up and it was a protest vote. It hasn't helped them, but a lot of people who voted for it are not really affected either way, as they are largely economically and socially left behind. So, you could argue they were votinhg to make it harder for those who seemed to dispropritionately benefit. Migrants were getting the blame, and they still are - I will concede that.. but that is because the other side simply dismiss the anti-immgration rhetoric as nonsense without actually addressing it. IMHO, there are quite a few reasons for it. What do you define as mass immigration, exactly? Is it purely numbers coming in, or numbers coming in from a specific country/culture? There are always waves of cultures/countries coming in.. But their overall numbers remain relatively low - less than 1/2 the toital immigration number. As a percentage of the population, it barely registers - at about 0.25 of a percent.. and even at the height of the migration intake after COVID, out net immigration remained relatively constant, which, since 2020 (so immedately after COVID with the big numbers of immigrants), peeaked at a little over 140,000 in total. Thats is 0.5% or 5/1000ths of the population. That, to me, is not mass immigration. And most of the people that emigrated after COVID were not Australian born according to AI.. so it is not a matter of losing "traditional" Aussies to non-"Traditional Aussies" in the net migration numbers. It even pours boiling water over the argument that immigration is the main driver fdor rental and house price increases. In fact, Australia's housing prices are more to do with overseas buyers who don't live here, usually looking for ways to launder money thanks to Australia's weak anit-money laundering laws; the generous tax concessions for residential invetors, increasing populations in the cities due to economic factors and low density housing that is having a bigger impact than < 150k new people a year. Unless Australia is so short of land, like, I dunno, Ireland, that it simply cannot cope. Be that as it may, you haven't said how it affects you personally - how are you worse off because of immigration? They didn't have flags, but they had a hierarchy of soverign identification, the main one I recall was totems. pre-European First Nations was a sophisticated social and territorial structure, designed around moeity. A flag is nothing but an identification oif a people - and First Nations had tiered approach that allowed clear identification of mobs, clans, and the like. And there were very clear rules about engaging the other mob/clan/etc. And yes, I agree with @Siso - they are all puppets of their sponsors.. Though the popularity of a leader/cabinet may temper it. What.. how can mass migration - however you define it - be anti-Australian. Modern Australia was founded on it - and a hostile version of it, to boot. I would argue it is the very essence of Australian., especially if yoou look at our society when I was a kid, let alone today. The facts don't add up to your perception.. there ain't hordes.. And of those "hordes", a disproportionate nunmber go on to contribute well beyond the 9 - 5 worker. In my view, tradiitional Aussies are First Nations people; tough and able to survive and thrive against a fairly inhospitable environment full of all sorts of nasties; looking out for each other, and ensuring everyone works together. Yep, they had their issues, but they also embodied a lot of what we like to think traditional Aussies do. Modern Aussies are the ones who started with the mass-immigration of the 1770s and beyond. They are not just the British - but other Europeans, the Chinese, the Afghans - all early arrivals that have grown and shaped this country and successiuve waves. When I was a kiod, it was Italians and Greeks, followed by the Vietnamese and then the Turks. After WWII, it was the Eastern Europeans, presumably Jews; now we are welcoming Africans, Indonesionas, Middle Easterns, etc. It all eventually blends. Each cultural wave, when it firt arrives, tends to stick to their home traditions and it is usually the next generation that mix and further adopt their new home's culture. Yes, there have been events like the Bondo shooting, which is horrific and arguably and imported issue. But at the same token, most of our shooting events have been home grown; and continue to be so. The question for me is how to better integrate the first wave into our wider community.

Seems this topic needs a thread of its won. What is the impact of immigration - not only to Australia, but around the world? There seems to be a lot of opinion about it - naturally. In my eyes, there is good and bad about immigration. In the UK, immigration, which has been on a net basis quite high compared to Aus, even on a per capita basis, is under immense pressure at the moment. And it is blamed for the eroision of public services. But this is a convenient blame., A lot of the publoc services have suffered real cuts over the years, leading to less capacity regardless of whether there was any net immigration. For example, this morning on the BBC, I hear that in England and Wales, the number of health visitors has reduced over the last 10 years form 10,000 to less that 5,500. So, even if the population stood still, there is just a little over half the capacity - that is noit the fault of migrants. Then there is the cultural impact - how prevasive is it, when the population of nany new wave of migrants is so small? Then there's the discussion about crime. The stats say they commit less criome per capita than the home population, but there are a couple of things to consider. What is the nature of the crime? Is it petty stuff, or serious? And there was the Rotheram grooming gangs debacle, where there is credible evidence the police didn't take it seriously because they avoiding beign called racists - or was it more sinister - let the grooming gangs get on with it to make all migrants look worse and feed an agenda? Do they keep wages low. We often say migrants come in and do the work no locals want to do. I was discussing this position with my son and he disagreed somewhat, or had qualified agreement - whichever way you want to look at it. Locals will be willing to do these jobs; just not for the pay that migrants are willing to do it, and therefore keeping wages artificially low. I am not saying one is right or wrong, just stating a viewpoint. The reality is humans have been migrating for time immemorial. Without it, none of us would be Australian (unless there are First Nations people on the forums). So, when you cut through all the rhetoric, stereotypes, ideological opinion and the like, what has the impact of immigration been on you personally as well as what do you think it has been on the country?

Yes.. that was the first bit about my post; the second was although some are saying he is guilty, it is not necessarily so and I wanted to get across what has to be proved and the hurdles in doing so; and that criminal liability is very differnent to finding they may have just did the action in a civil action. I guess, I should have made that more clear. And you're the authority, because? There was something on mediawatch on the ABC a few years ago, where amazingly, a 60 minutes, or 7 news crew or something happened to be around when police made a high-ish profile arrest. Turns out there was a strong suspicion that someone from the police tipped off that news company so they could get a scoop (I don't recall an accusation there was a brown paper bag). Australia has always had sensationalised press and my guess it would be more to get eyeballs from everyone so they could sell advertising than appeasing a sector of society.. Follow the money, I say. And to add, a whistleblower, who followed all internal protocols to report the iussue, but when it was still not even investigated, decided to go public and now languishes in jail for it. For most of the rest of the western world, and until Chump, even in America they were protected if the whistleblowing was in good faith. She's obviously too good to be true and a spy for the CCP 🙂

1965 was a vry good year!

It doesn't like to play its content to us foreigners.. . Quick question.. What is the shocking stuff it revealed?

<deleted>

Larger companies are starting to build their own renewable power generation. Fortescue is the big one, but others including Alcoa are following suit. AGL is also building its owne 200MW generation plant (and they are typically a retailer). They don't do this if there is a better return elsewhere.

And in @randomx's defence.. he did correct himself and say what we need is an Aussie Carney.. I have come on here and said there are some things that Chump has done (more in the previous admin) that was good. That didn't mean I would vote for the guy..