Jerry_Atrick

Agree - Labour here are haivng exactly the same problem. What it takes for them to overcome it is not in their war chest. They don't have a strong, charismatic leader than can show the press up for what they are; and of course, social media is incredibly toxic as well, and it breeds. Well, of course. We all pay for our political leaders' follies regardless of who that political leader is. The bigger the folly, the bigger the price. You can argue Australians enjoy high cost of living, unaffordability of rental or owneed housing, reduced qualioty of public services than we could have had or successive pollies not kept up a lot of the folly imposed on us. But, if you look at history, generally, this is what happens (yes, there are plenty of times where it hasn't):L Conservative parties runt he country for a longer period of time, thanks to a not well earned reputation of being the safe pair of hands with the economy. They screw it up. Less conservative parties come in and fix it up - but it takes time They get booted out as they are not the safe pair of hands; it gets handed back tot he conservatives and they stuff it up again.. And the cycle continues. Remeber, Scott Morrison was ELECTED by the Australian population because they were scared Shrorten's changes, that would have benefited most Aussies, would crumble the economy. It wasn't until Morrison really stuiffed things up that Labor was handed back the reins. Despite my misgivings of Albo as a leader, given the cycle, he has done extraordinary well. He learned a very quick and sobering lesson with the Voice, but politically, and economically has been a steadier hand than expected. He is certainly better than anything on offer from the other side - which except for the very wealthiest, will even kill off small and medium sized business poste haste. You will get some very short term gain, but very loing term pain. Over here, Labour is in exactly the same position. But, unlike Albo, they are hated. There are different circumstances. The conservatives here left an amazing black hole - over £40bn, in the end of undeclared but committed spending. These are the ones with the safe pair of hands, alledgedly. There really is little choice for Labour to do anything but raise taxes for a while. Their problkem is that they are politically inept. They only proffered up problems, but no clear path out of the ness. Most people will accept some pain for the probable gain to come out of it. All they pedalled was the pain. They were somewhat hamstrung by their manifesto of no new direct taxes and no increase in VAT. But they had a goden opportunity - £40billion of them - to say, hey, even the OBR has said there may be criminal charges to face because of what amounted to fraudulent national accounts, so we do have to - for a period - break our manifesto to put the country back on its feet (with the plan to do so).. Most people wouldn't have been happy, but they would have accepted it, especially if it more or less hit the target. But instead, they went down a similar path as Albo's pre-election approach - small target. As a government, you can't do that, as there is no message. And if there is no message and massive increases to stealth taxes (as these aren't direct), and they decide to cut welfare for those who really needed it (something they rolled back on), they were (IMHO rightly) accused of not having a vision and just reacting. What it will take from the democrats is to overcome: If you can offer a majority of people a plausible path to a better life, you will probably get the votes. Chump didn't so much as win the election, as the Democrats lost it. Albo learned that lesson early that he didn't win the election as much as Morrison lost it. Starmer and the Democrats don't seem to have learned that lesson yet. All three have small segments of the press that give them a fair shot, but the majority only able not to falsely or misleadingly criticise them in the face of abject evidence that criticism is not warranted. Sadly, democracy is the vast majority of people making the decision that do not have the time/inclination to dive into the details; the politicians have toi presnet it to them in easily digestible ways.

<pedant mode on> Well, and being totally pedantic, the chances are really remote <pedant mode off> But, he would have to have the biggest brain fart on earth to do so. I think we should be really clear about this; there is a big difference between a civil finding of "guilt" and a criminal finding of "guilt". The civil finding only finds whether or not he is more likely to have committed it than not. That is it. That is not even half way to criminal liability, especially indictable offences, of which this is one. To summarise murder, of which by war crimes will likely be the same elements, if not more because of the fact it is opeating in the theater of war where you are expected to kill people, you require the following: Actus Reus (Physical element - the doing bit) You need to have caused the killing It has to be a voluntary act (or in limited cicumstances, a voluntary omission); i.e. it can't be accidential There is no "novus actus interveniens" - no new intervening act. So, you may have done something to cause harm to someone, but even if it may have normally killed them, but some intervening act comes along which actually causes the death; that would absolve you of liability. So, for example, Roberts-Smith kicking the famer over the rock ledge, and if another soldier came along and "finished him off", unless it could be shown that Roberts-Smith was still a substantial and oeprating cause of that other soldier finishing him off, Roberts-Smith will likely be deemed not to have caused the death of that farmer. There are permutations and combinations to the above, of course. Forf example, setting off a chain of events that leads to the death, even if the act oneself started didn't directly lead to the death, will not avoid liability. Mens Rea (mental or guilt element): In NSW law, this is basically, where the defendent did have (or shown to must have had): Intention to kill or commit grievous bodily harm; reckless indifference to human life (which is higher than negligent) to whether or not it would occur. Reckless is effectively no intention for an outcome, but very foreseeable and went ahead with it anyway. Negligent is more didn't figure in the defendents mind at all. Death occurred in the commission of another offence that is liable to a prison term of 25 years or more (constuctive murder) The aboce has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that were all active at the time of the death. From what we have seen and read on the news - and remember that - it is not the evidence that is tended to a court, it would appear he would fit the bill. In terms of a war crime, which is his charge/s I understand, there may be additional hurdles the prosecution has to prove beyind a reasonable doubt. So, please bear that in mind. So, we move to defences, which only have to be proved to the balance of probaility. However, the burden of proof shifts to the defence. Self defence: The defendent himself believed their actions were necessary to defend themsleves. In the context of a war crime charge, I have no idea what further tests would apply. From the farmer over the ledge killing, I would find it hard to justify self defence by pushing a bound person over a ledge as requiring self defence, especially of that importance. Necessity/Duress: This has been narrowed over the years. Duress requires immediate duress, for example, someone was hoilding a gun to Roberts-Smith head and tellking him to do it. There is an innocent-agent defence avaialble as well, but generally to people dependent on the one requesting them to do the dirty work. Necessity is to avoid immediate and serious danger (there is a European case that defines this - where a ferry from the UK to Holand I think sank, and the only way to a lifewboat was blocked by someone who panicked and foze, flocking the path; someine else literally threw him overboard In the end, no verdict was offered as the could not verify the person was killed as they could not find the body, but obiter was that it would be a necessity anyway - and this convenience was used to avoid applying other legal doctines which would have likely rendered the person doing it but saving many lives as guilty). Given Roberts-Smith senirority and the fact he was reported to be operating under free will, neither necessity nor duress would apply. Partial defences of extreme provocation, partial impairement, and extreme provocation are partial defences that would reduce liability and reduce a conviction to manslaughter. Notice, there is no defence of insanity. That is because, if insanity is proven (temporary or permanent), it negates thet mens rea, and therefore takes the mental element away, and therefore cannot be guilty of the crime. However, the court can, on the basis that the physical element is proved, have him still stay as a guest of his majesty's services - but a secure mental institution. Note, the law has chaned in NSW with respect insanity/impairment, and the above may well be out of date. Note, the criminal law is more about constraining the abuses of the state against individuals accused of crimes than it is about protecting the public - at least asserted by leading jurists and lawyers, including ex NSW and other state and federal attorneys-general. From the news we have seen and the defamation court case: He is likely, but not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did the act/s. No other of the tests have yet meen met - physical or mental. The press doesn't release all the evidence prior to a criminal trial - nor can they. Whether we think he is guilty or not is quite immaterial, I would suggest - as we are part of the court of public opinion. But from what we have seen, I would suggest his defence is going to take a three-pronged approach: Try to assert that there is reasonable doubt he actually did it (unlikely they will take that approach) or the mental element was present at the time. If they can introduce enough doubt that he met the mental elements, he should be acquited. Introduce criminal insanity (although it is not named that in NSW, and the law recently changed, so that may only result in a partial defence). Note criminal insanity is a much higher bar than the equivalent clinincal diagnosis. Assert he cannot be given a fair jury trial given the publicity and coverage; and that finding impartial jurors will less probable than probable. If this is a state charge, he would then be given a judge only trial; but as this is a federal charge and his right to be tried by a jury is constitutional, a successful argument of this will result in no trial (I forget the technical term), and although he will not be acquitted per se, so he can later face the charges under a jury trial, he will walk free. My guess is hhis defence will try and have the press rake up as much as possible to go for this approach as from what we have seen, this would have the best possible chance of him walking free. For the record, I think he should face justice. But I am also a legal positivist - meaning we abide by the rule of law even is sometimes the decisions are perverse. We can then reform the law as we understand its limitations.

The UK have solar schemes, mainly for those on benefits, which allow zero or low up front costs of solar implementation One of the problems that affects me in the UK is that it is hard to get approval for solar panels on Grade 2 listed buildings.. though it is very council dependent. If I planned to stay here past the summer, then I would llook into it. But as far as I can tell all these schemes require you to still hook up to the grid. I can';t see it would take much to install a LifePO4 or similar battery; these days they are not that more expensive. Two neighbours (both unlisted buildings and one about the size and orientation of mine) have solar panels now for some time. They are off grid and the dreary UK provides enough sunlight to power their homes. Like me, they don;t have gas, so oil fires their heating and hot water; electricity everything else - which will mean in addition to the usual, we do our cooking ith electricity (BTW, once you have used induction stoves (here, called hobs), you will never go back to gas, which is somewhat noxious anyway).

This is very chilling:

In the UK, if, when doing a reno, one finds any artefacts, they have to be reported to some government agency who will stop all work and arrange, at the land owner's expense, an archeological excavation. These are typically many thousands of pounds and take a few weeks. And builders also like to be paid for their enforced downtime . Thanksfully nothing was found for our stuff, but I know someone whose builder found something and his view was it had been laying there for at least a few hundred years and no-one knew about it; so it is no loss, that it waits anouther 100 years ir so before similar work would be done and it can be discovered. He argued that to the magistrate.. The magistrate wasn't amused. And he ended up being referred for a fine of about £20K from memory and an excavation was ordered, which was at his expense. He has no idea how the council became aaware of it; He is sure the builder didn't disclose it so it could have only been by one of his "friends". Thankfully, I didn't knwo anything about it until I read about it in the local rag at the time.

A treaty should work as it has been agreede to; If the treaty has agreed that around any sacreed artefact there is a 10m (I assume metrre) protected ground, then so be it. Of course, that was (intentionally) harsh and not necessarily heart felt by myself. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good - even noble intentions. And often there are unintended consequences - and sometimes they are not. But, one of the problems is people to these negotiations are usually not willing to accept the world changes, and, in the case of Australian first nations, to get to true reconciliation will require compromise - on both sides. And both sides have to undestand they may not culturally comprehend where the other side is coming from. For example, does evey sacred site have to be protected by a 10m radius? Is there a different level of sacredness? How is the object/location/landmark determined to be sacred? Often, these sorts of questions are overlooked on any negotiation about anything. The world changes and with most changes, there are going to be winners and losers - and this is not absolute. In this case, your daughter has presumably lost the right to have different people enter a 10m arc on her land without having the local mob/clan bless it. She has not had a total loss to the land or the right for people to enter it; it just as a condition that is at the moment quite invconvenient. Is that loss disproportionate to the loss of a cultural aspect of the local mob/clan? To your daughter, I woudl suggest it is disproprtionate. To the local clan/tribe - they may have wanted more. Who knows? But, can we say your duaghter is that disadvantaged? Can we say that the mob/clan should have whatever cultrual right to that tree reinstated? It will come down to a judgement call? Would it be reasonable to have a carve out under certain circumstances? And even, what happens to the sacred site if the treee dies or is burnt down (in a bushfire, of course)? If the site is damaged, does the sacredness of that site extinguish, for example? I am all for a treaty, but it has to recognise the past wrongs to be righted, how righting those will affect a way of life established since, and it also has to recognise the changes that will come with the future. The world doesn't stay still, and it should be abot ensuring everyone get's fair treatment going forward. A treaty is an acceptance there has been significant change and accomodates how that change will be mangaged going forward. Of course, where there are dependencies such as obligations to be performed, then both parties have to be held accountable for performing them in reasonable time, after which, where possible, it can be deemed to be done by default. My point with the above rambling is that treaties can be complex to accomodate every possible outcome, but there should be circuit breakers for both sides when things clearly are not working, or there are emergency/urgent imperatives. Things have changed a lot since I left Australia. It is going to be an experience coming back.

Any photos?

Sadly, yes... Our village pub is a community pub, the villagers put their hands in their pocket (thankfully one villager is a very wealthy venture capitalist) and purchased the building for 1/3 it was bought by the previous landlord. And we did it up, and it is not bad, but unf. when these things are done by clique committees, the person making the decision on the decor transformed it from a rustic character country pub to a bland restaurant with a bar. Pubs in the UK are (or were), IMHO, a much nicer place to visit than similar ones at lest in the cities. They semed a lot more community focused and less just watering holes. There are historical reasons for this, but, society has transformed in a few ways. First, pubs were known as extensions of one's front (living) room. Because houses tended to be small, puns were where you and you family gathered with friends and their familiy to get together, or celebrate an occasion, etc. My partner noticed that Aussie pubs (both city and rural) were either gastro pubs or tended to be male centric, with women as an afterthought (she was very surprised to see ladies' lounges, for example). Also, though history, most pubs were inns, an under the Innkeepers Act (latest was 1878 before being superseded by the UK Hotel Proprietors Act in 1956), there was a duty to receive or lodge travellers - reasonable cost, etc. Of course, when they were full, they didn't have to receive more, but they couldn't not receive if they had a room or board. From this, British pubs, when I first arrived in the UK in '96, seemed quite welcoming. It was not unusual to have a conversation with strangers, or be invited to sit with people if you were alone. Beer and driking in general was the thing of younger people and it was a very social place. I am not saying Aussie pubs aren;t, but it seemed one needed more courage to go alone, and it would take some time before you branched beyonf yourself or your group to mingle. But, with higher taxes of pints pulled at a pub compared to buying in the supermarket, bigger houses, younger people moving away from drinking, and let's face it, some very ordinary publicans; the move towards a more refined experience, etc, pubs are under threat. I know a bloke who owns a chain of pubs - he does very well.. but they are all very classic/contemporary decorated, they have one or two beers at most and an extensive wine list, and the focus is on an upper mid-market dining experience. And they are all located in the heart of big city centres where there is money. It attracts yuppies - dinks or those with young kids and still money to spend. Since COVD, and the recent oil prices, he has struggled a bit, but still does OK. Our community pub has yet to turn a profit.. The issue is once food service is done - around 9pm, it virtually empties because most of the patronage are older people; the young ones either don't turn up or if they do, they then head off into town for the nightclubs. Similarly at the pub I stay at in Richmond, the publican, who has been there for 35 years, sees mainly older people - 40+ - and they don't drink as much as the younger set used to .

And the same with almost any other technology. Calculators, then computers Emulsion film, now digital B&W TVs, then Colour Landlines and mobile phones (OK, Australia stuffed that one up - ironic given wi-fi is an Australian invention). Should we have stopped with each of the older technology - my dog, think of the cost of rolling out all those mobile towers and satellites. Sadly, aeroplanes seems to be the outllier. 🙂

That is one of the advantages of a communist country - the govenment sets the agenda and people either comply or not, and there are real consequences for not complying. Of course, for it to work, there has to be a benevolent central control, etc, I am not saying it is the best way by any means, but capitalism in its purest form is no better, either. Which is why he have interventions. And one of those interventions is to get the market off its arse and move to more sustainable energy sources, yet leave the incentives of captialism in place to let the private sector take its place. Whether one likes it or not, technological progress will move things forward. Intial investments and costs are high, but the long term benefits are massive. What each country/region has to do is work out the best mix for their circumstances. In some cases, that will be fossil fuel (though I struggle to think of aplace that would not be able to use renewables at least in some of the mix). In other places, nuclear would be a good option for the majority of the power. In other places, renewables between "intermittents" and base load (or moree accurately, "constants") is a good alternative. In Australia's case, the mix of hydro, nuclear, and wind is an achievable. The cost of wind is only marginally more expensive than solar, and much cheaper than nuclear. Existing coal plants cost a touch more than new offshore wind, which still has to amortise. Just google it as I can't be bothered reposting what has already been posted here (I think by Octave). Australia has enough renewable "intermittent" capacity to use with capcitors (aka batteries) to smooth match supply and demand. It will take a while to get there; Rome wasn't built in a day. I haven't looked into it yet, but I am guessing the question will be, grid-wise, how to match what may well be different distribution models. It does not make sense (though resistance alone) to distribute electrons many miles when you have distributed generation and hopefully storage. This will (or should) be the consumer/residential/light commerical model. It owuld make sense to have a lot of micro-grids , interconnected to manage demand and supply should one microgrid have an issue, iuf this is not already in place. But a lot of heavy usage industry is a long way from major centres - mines, smelters (but, not refineries for some reason). These use massive amounts of electrons, so what is the answer? Naturally, there can be local renewables and storage, but they will need some backup/topup. They will have their own microgrid, but will probably rely one feed ins from ither area. Even if these were, say gas fired generators, the result will be a hell of a lot less CO2 and cost than remaining on fossil or going nuclear.

Lots of aluminium smelters running of renewables - mainly hydro. But, here some that are all or part running off solar. Many of those that are currently part solar, are looking to expand solar capacity.. Except for the Alcoa plant in Portland, where they are looking to go offshore wind. Energy is one function of the issues with Bell Bay. They are basically a small smelter with similar operating costs - power being the most variable. They ae suffering economies of scale issues and whilst power proces are one thing - and significant, they are just a small fish in a sea of bigger fish.

Surprised your mate's still alive being that many murders there. 🙂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnaby_French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Magyar Can't find anyone with a surname of Australian, New3 Zealander, Canadian, or Kiwi (but there are a few people with a first name of Kiwi): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Chow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Gardner And there are a few others if you care to look.

I agree. these are dexterity professions at the end of the day, for which robotics isn't there, yet. But, if we look at the medical profession, there are already AI based diagnostic services that can do a better job than very well trained practitioners: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/new-ai-powered-service-launched-transform-cancer-detection-and-care There is AI assited surgery: https://www.brainlab.com/surgery-products/overview-platform-products/robotics/?gad_campaignid=22014774702&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw7vzOBhBxEiwAc7WNr-bTvUhd2xifCHStu-okO4oq5o9MSC5hM48hvZBSMAE9fO_DBJGuXxoCINwQAvD_BwE There is robotic drain/sewerage cleaning systems: https://www.srodrobotics.com/product/category/dredging-and-sewage-suction?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22856888573&gclid=CjwKCAjw7vzOBhBxEiwAc7WNr2fW35dyHvXA8NWv2txpE0rvVH7wI4sUCAIgCWA-ispgrIf3n7nfshoCHWYQAvD_BwE There is AI assited teaching.. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teachers-to-get-more-trustworthy-ai-tech-as-generative-tools-learn-from-new-bank-of-lesson-plans-and-curriculums-helping-them-mark-homework-and-save All designed to improve productivitty and outcomes. If you improve productivity, you require less production - in this case humans. An ex employee of mine who suffers clinical depresseion (thankfully he still works with our company, but has been promoted and moved to an area where he wants to be - far more cerebral than what my team does), when suffering an episode calls for a large scale mass nucelar war to reset humanity. However, there are nefarious and ethical actors; AI represents a huge opportunity to improve everyone's lives and hopefully remove the mass inequities that fuel hatred, wars, and the like. Of course, we are miles from there, but maybe not as far off as people think.

And here is the chat gpt version: I’ve been saying for a while now that hardware has finally caught up to the point where AI is reaching a real inflection point. We’re moving toward something close to large-scale automation of cognitive work—not just coding, but a significant portion of white-collar jobs. Think about roles like: Accountants Psychologists Actuaries / quantitative analysts Traders, risk managers, compliance and settlements staff Sales and customer support Real estate agents Copywriters, editors, and even parts of journalism Engineers and product designers Architects Legal professionals Healthcare professionals Even scammers, hackers, and other bad actors The list goes on. A large portion of the analytical and process-driven work in these fields is increasingly within AI’s capabilities. That said, AI still doesn’t really have “lightbulb moments” in the human sense. It works by identifying patterns in data, not by suddenly inventing ideas from pure intuition. You won’t get the classic “what if this bus were moving at the speed of light?” moment. But what AI can do is automate a huge amount of the groundwork needed to get from idea to theory. If reports about systems like “Anthropic Mythos” are even partially accurate, we may be edging closer to that kind of capability as well. What this could mean for the workforce Mass displacement of many white-collar roles Jobs requiring physical dexterity (trades, hospitality, fine arts, etc.) remain safer for now—robotics isn’t quite there yet Research roles will persist, though increasingly AI-assisted Management may shrink to a smaller, more senior/executive layer A small, highly skilled workforce will oversee and direct AI systems—domain experts who are also technically capable and entrepreneurial A shift from the gig economy to a “side hustle” economy Economic implications Short term: Cost savings (e.g., the hypothetical $40m) will mostly go to company profits Long term: As adoption spreads, competition increases Lower barriers to entry mean more players → margin compression Over time, this could reduce costs across industries However: If large parts of the population lose income, who can afford to buy anything? Governments will likely be forced to respond—possibly through wealth redistribution mechanisms or similar policies In theory, we could end up with better, cheaper products—but controlled by fewer, more powerful organisations. And as we’ve seen before (e.g., with CRM systems), technology often gets used to cut costs rather than improve user experience. Bigger societal questions 1. Psychological impact Work gives people structure, identity, and purpose. What happens when that disappears for millions? We could see major increases in anxiety, depression, and social instability if this isn’t managed carefully. 2. Education The current model won’t hold. Beyond basic literacy and numeracy, we’ll need to prioritise: Critical thinking Creativity Entrepreneurship We’ll still need professionals and trades—but far fewer of them. So what happens to everyone else? 3. Health and lifestyle If traditional work disappears, what motivates people day-to-day? Do governments start encouraging—or even mandating—physical and mental health routines at scale? 4. Living wage / universal income Two broad paths: Economic contraction (if people can’t afford to spend) Some form of income redistribution to sustain demand This raises bigger questions about whether we’re approaching the limits of traditional capitalism and need hybrid or alternative systems. 5. Migration and demographics Birth rates are already falling in developed countries. AI could accelerate that trend. At the same time, economies still need consumers—so migration may increase significantly, bringing major cultural shifts. 6. Military implications This one speaks for itself. It won’t be “robots vs robots”—it’ll be people using advanced systems against other people, with potentially rapid and devastating consequences. Final thoughts This isn’t just another wave of innovation—it’s a genuine societal shift. It creates enormous opportunity, but also serious risk: Greater concentration of wealth and power Increased dependence on governments and large corporations Potential exclusion from economic life if you’re “locked out” of key platforms And critically, this isn’t something any one country can handle alone—it likely requires global coordination, which historically hasn’t been our strong point. There are very few truly forward-thinking or benevolent governments out there, so realistically, we should expect a turbulent transition.

More.. I have been saying for some time, the hardware technology has now advanced enough that AI has reached a critical point where it is able to stat to acheive its potential. And that is almost absolute automation. It isn't just coding, by the way.. much of the white collar work will be displaced. Think about these professions: Accountancy Psychology Actuary/quantitative analysts (finance, insurance, etc) Traders, risk managers, settlements staff, compliance staff, etc. Sales Customer Support Real Estate Agents Copywriters, editors, even journalists to some extent Engineers, producte designers, etc. Architects Even scammers and hackers and other crimonals.. and of course, lawyers Health professionals The list goes on. A lot of their work will be replaced with AI as it has the analytical capability to do a lot of the work done by these profressions now. Of course, AI at this stage can't generally have those lightbulb moments as it relies on various probability models of observed data, so sitting on a bus looking at a clock and thinking !hmm, if this bus was doing the speed of light.. what would happen!, but what it can probabl do is automate a lot of the grunt work to get from that to the actual theory. If the reports of Anthropic Mythos are true, though, it may well be a step in that direction, too. What it means for the workforce: Mass displacement Anything that requires human dexterity at this point will still be in demand - I am not sure robotics has yet hit the scale necessary to be able to replace humans in these areas. So tradies, fine arts in painting (not printing), sculpture, etc will remain, labourers, hospitality, etc). Research - as AI can support, but still not theorise in the same way as humans, there will still be research. Management - probably executive only, but apparently Meta did some experiment with an AI version if Zuckerberg and employees couldn't tell. Small workforce driving the AI output. For example, in my area, we would need only a handful of senior people who know how to drive AI who would also be business domain experts and techncally savvy. The will need to be entrepreneurial, too, as they will be looking to drive innovation and an edge against their competitors. And with AI, you can do that very quickly. Will move from th gig economy to the side hustle economy. So, the theoretical $40m saving will: Initially, as Marrty states, go to the bottom line (hopefully I will get some of that if I can make it happen). But this is only inertia However, as more and more companies adopt, and as AI reduces the barriers of entry, competition will eventually take hold. Say, all banks use AI and have reduced their cost massively, we will go for market share and customers to grow our business. That will inevitably lead to lower margins until there is a normalisation of prices and returns. In theory, this will happen over time to all indistrues that use it. The cost of living in theory goes down.. but... There will be less money in the bulk of the population to afford a lot of this anyway. Eventually, as the governments see the issues arising (they are generally hopeless at foresight or at least hopeless on acting on it), they will have to address a burgeoning unemployment situation (country specific), lest there be civil war. This will mean even governments that don't like to step in will have to to redistribute the concentration of wealth as a result. In theory, you shoud get a better product, but it will be in the hands of those that control products. And as we saw with customer relationship management solutions, which had the potential to really improve the customer experience and reduce costs, management colelctively decided to use it to cut costs by offshoring and compounnd the shippy customer experience. Depending on where you are and the geopolitics of the time, will depend on how well a particular society handles the onslaught of change for the majority of the people. But there are a few things to think about from a sociological perspective: Psychological impact: With more time on peoples' hands and very large changes to societal structures in a short period of time, what will be the impact on the individuals and the community. We see our worth in our work, we need to be occupied, etc. What impact will there be of being able to sit around and do nothing? How much of th ecommunity will fall into chronic and sever mental illness - anxiety, depresseion, and worse? What will be be doing to avoid this sort of thing on a bigger scale than we already habve today? Education: No longer will our current education system and approach be relevant. Of course, we need to know the three Rs, but a much bigger emphasis will have to be on critical thinking (pollies don't generally like that), entreprenuership, and the like. Naturally, traditional subjects will remain as we will still need the professionals, trades, etc. Just a lot less of them. What to do with the rest of the population - the worker bees or ants, so to speak? Health: Will we have to start mandating some sort of physical and mental health management/exercise. What gets people out of bed today won't exist tomorrow and it is not apparent what will replace it for the vast majority tomorrow. Those old vids of China and I think Germany where people were mandated to attend mass physical exercise classes may well be needed going forward. Living wage: With so many people potentially being displaced, there are two options - one, a virtual collapse of the economy as the crticial mass can't afford anything so all this automation will yield nothing; or as I mentioned earlier, redistirbution of income to keep the economy and poeople going. Does everyone get a living wage - enough to put a roof over their head, food in the stomach, utilities paid, and some left over to spend money and keep the economy going. Econimics is always a law of diminishing returns, so is this the point that heralds the implosion of capitalism and necessity of socialism (which is not communism)? Do we have to rethink the term dole bludgers? Intensified migration and culture change: We are already seeing virtual collapses in birth rates amongst developed countries. Part of it is the cost of upbringing, but my guess is that it is more around the fact that many couples want a blend of preserving living standards and being able to lavish more on fewer kids than having to spread the same across more kids. And, wit mortalisty rates so low, you don't have to have 10 kids in the hope that two or three make it. More families are happy with 1 child than three; I was very happy with just the one for that very reason. With AI, where it is either harder to have kids because you can't afford it, or it is easy noit to have kids because of a living wage to everyone, in order to keep the economy going, you will still have to have people to give the money to, in order to spend it, in order to generate the economy. Third world will be behind the curve and looking for the juicy lifestyle this can bring.. or just free of their oppressive regimes. That can mean only one thing.. There will be no room for anti-immigration. You need someone to wipe your posterior in old age, it ain't gonna be a born and bred person. Wuth intensified migration, expect culture change. Military: I don't need to go into that.. we should all be able to see what will happen there. But let's not pretend it will be robots against robots.. It will be people using robots (drones, etc) against people who try to deploy robots to defend themselves. Once the barriers are broken, there will be carnage far quicker than Iran's protest suppression until a surrendr (if one is even listened to). There are other areas to consider, but the AI revolution (and that is what it is - a revolution) is a great opportunity and a great threat. It frightens me to say it, but we will be far more dependent on our governments' actions and approach than many other waves of change that have come across society. It will further concentrate wealth and power in a smaller number of corporates. If you don't do what they say, they will cut you off their platforms and lock you out of society. I use the term governments in the plural as it will require a global approach. Sadly,m there are few turly benevolent governments, so we are in for a tough ride.

Re nuclear, We have oodles of solar, wind, and wave... Re cost blowouts.. well, I wouldn't worry - I have never worked on a nuclear plant that didn't have one, and Hinkley Point C, in 2016 prices is going fro an original £18bn to £35bn in 2016 money (about £46bn in today's money). According to Google AI, Australian industry is moving to solar: Again, you can stick to old ways of doing things and hamstring us with high costs. Well done. Making Austalia Competitive Again (MACA).. Maybe that is all we will be able to afford to eat - MACCAs When I first entered the nuclear industry - now 30 years ago, I was all for Australia getting coasstal nuclear power stations. The renewable technology was not really there yet and it made a lot more sense that staying with coal - especially since we bloody well own the resources needed to run the darned thiungs. But we also have abundant sources of renewable energy and the technology has progressed immensly since then. Nuclear is, for Australia, the new fossil fuel. Even in the UK, where the sun is variable at best, wind is being used as is solar. Rooftop solar, before the Iran war, was steadily pickung up and the government ar debatign about whether to make it mandatory for new build properties.

At this early stage that is what will happen I would expect concentration in the AI market and costs to go up a bit, too

Claude.io from Anthropic is considered the bee's knees for coind. They have just released Mythos, it's next gen.. except they haven't released it to the general public. Apparently, without specific training, it identified zero day and other vulnerabilities. It is claimed to exceed the capability of all but the best developers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2026/04/08/what-is-claude-mythos-and-why-anthropic-wont-let-anyone-use-it/ The software development industry is already being turned on its head. I used claude.io to quickly develop a prototype app that is fully industrlalised (i.e. uses all the correct data, application, user iunterface, security, distributed, and scaling techniques, complete with application and server health monitoring and the like). On the free version, it took my about two months because they have much stricter usage limits than ChapGpt. But, it was exceptionally well written code - and I didn't have to tell it what technoogy to use.. I basically said this is what I need, and it did the rest. Many companies are turning to AI.. a lot of Intergrated Development Environments (IDE's), which are th programs where you write code, debug, ibuild, etc, have AI already integrated. However, Claude is next level stuff already. Mythos basically will make the software development industry almost entirely automated. We are currently hiring a lot of software developers for a big new program of work - it is huge. I won't go into numbers, but from about September/October last year, I have increased my analysts fby a factor of 10. We have been hirign developers (we already have a reasonable number) - looking quadruple our developer count. Despite it being a buyers market, we are finding ti tough to find quality candidates and we are paying decent rates for London. So, I will be proposing to our AI team adopting an AI dev tool for our project. We have to deliver a shed load in a year, which is why we are looking to hire an army of people. But, for literally a few hundre dollars per user per month, we can get exceptional throughput. And here's the interesting thing: It can write the code and a separate AI bot will review the code and suggest improvements. If they are accepted, the improvements are fed back intoi the code writing bot as well. So, what does this do to the industry? It doesn't kill it entirely... The first thing I predict will be a virtual removal of programming languages.. Of you think about it, programming was originally writing a bunch of 1's and 0's in a specific way and took an eternity. And then, Assembler/Assembly (depending on which side of the tracks you were born) was developed as a human readable extraction of the CPU instructions. You had to learn Assmbler for each processor family (and sometimes individual chips). That saved a lot of time compared to the binary coding and the instruction set was somewhat standardised for standard operations. This is effectively a second generation language. Then came 3GLs - these were BASIC. fortran, COBOL, C, and these days Java, C#, Python and the like. They are general purpose langiages that are feature rich and provide a programmer all of the control needed, but the difference is that the language applied to any computer (wlell, almost).. as a compiler or interpreter to convert that code to binary code (executable code). So, in theory, if I wrote a COBOL program on an IBM Mainframe, it would compile and run on a PC with a COBOL compiler. The truth is there are extensions and platform specific functions. Although, Java, C# and Python have fixed that by being interpretative, and the use standard library extensions. 4GLs made a relatively brief appearance, in that they were higher level 3GLs - an attempt to make programming more English like and democratise development to the users. Ironically, langiages like Python, which are modern 3GLs have done more for that than the 4GLs. There are 5GLs, but they are largely obscure. But AI - especially such as Claude will, IMHO, replace computer languages as we know it. They will become English (or other human language) builders. At the moment, they are code generators.. I asked Claude to develop my app using Java and specific frameworks (though it suggested some better ones than I requested, so I went with its suggestion). When it did create a bug, a quick prompt fixed it. The article above talks about usign humans for reviewing the code, but I would suggest once there is critical mass of confidence in the technology, code will no longer be required. For example, you have your series of prompts to build an application. Claude (or other AIs) can generate the executable (or interpretive bytcode, a sort of executable) direct - no production of human readable code required. It will be tested and if it works, it can be deployed; if not, adjust the prompt, rebuild and retest. Back to my team; about 1/2 of my analysts are ex developers/software engineers - like myself. We have very good business domain knowledge and reasonably good, if outdated software development knowledge. My idea is that we are given a system architecutre (data lake, data frameworks, service platform, user interface platforms - e.g. desktop, tablet, phone), asd we start crafting the prompts to build the system. The first will be the data model, of which there are industry standards we can tweak. I would suggest we will have the data model done, say, in two days. We can use AI to populate the database and then write tests to ensure it works property. Say 2 - 3 days. Within 5 days I can have something that would take as maybe a month to get what we think is right and would probably take 2 analysts and some database admin support. The I can start building the individual functional services asnd UI, as well as integration to other systems. Let's say 2 months to build, system test, performance test, and have the users acceptance test it. The it is a deploy to the production environment. In fact, we could easily automate the testing, as well as for updates, any regression testing. Say add 2 months, maybe with a lead tester/QA person, an architect part time, a senior dev part time to review stuff, and maybe a database administrator part time. Otyherwise we would use analysts - probably between 3 and 5 because of the number of functions we have to deliver. And the best thing is, even if it produces spaghetti code (which it doesn't), I don't care, because what is important to me is the promtps that build the system. And you don't need to be a linguist or an expert in the coding or the specific language, database, user interface technology to use it. In fact, in my little home experiment, Clause inferred much of what it had to do without me needing to even hont at it. As I said, I can't give you exact numbers, but our non-AI plans are close to 100 people all up, with a minimum viable product at about a year, and then the full enchilada in two years.. and there will still be kinks to iron out, performance issues, regressions in releases, etc. But with maybe 5 analysts and a smattering of other support, I cam have the whole enchilada within 6 months. Now work out the man days. In the UK, there are about 220 working days for professionals.. 100-ish people * 220 days * 2 years = 44,000 working days. And my business has a cost of using manual processes and elevated operational controls from day 1, but reducing as more is delivered over a two year period. Now I have, say all my staff in an AI world on it full time (which I doubt, but let's go with it) = 110 days * 9 (5 analysts, 1 developer, 1 QA, 1 DBA, 1 Architect): 990 days. Assume $1000/Day per person. Without AI, $44m; With AI: $990,000. Assume $500/mo per user (that is what a company a friend of mine is paying Anthropic for Claude): $27,000 gives a total with AI of $1,017,000. Even if I am really, really optimistic, and we quadruple the estimates, that is $4,068,000, noit quite 10% of the costs of doing it the old way. It is going to be a bumpy ride, but in theory, all services should get cheaper once widespread AI adoption kicks in.

I was taught to earth to the body of the car - e.g. via a bolt (not of lightning), mount or similar.

Isn't that the basis of my post about the intention? I have no doubt about this. But that doen't, IMHO, change the fact that oil is the primary interest of the US, and Israel in this case is a smokescreen. I am not suggesting Chump is even driving it.. he may well be a puppet. The empire is in decline alright; the fall of Rome comes to mind. They won't go bankrupt for some time; and it is doubtful they ever will. The UK would have defaulted on its debt in 1976 but got an IMF or similar loan to keep it afloat. This was because of a sharp drop in teh £, but that was caused because of a banana republic type economy at the time. I think it is fair to say the UK never really recoverd and the EU gave it a bit of a lifeline. The US is likely to go the same way. From a credit risk perspective, a country can never go broke. It can continue to print its way out of problems, which will compound its internal economic woes; if they have debt denoted in a foreign currency they ahve to print more and accept hyperflation; if it is in their currency, their creditors get less. In credit risk, we treat each sovereign country as a going concern. We attache a CLR - Country Legal Rating; this means that we determine a ranking of how much they conform to the law. The US (even under Chump), the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, most of western Europe and some of the central/eastern European countries all rank 1 (highest). Whilst their credit ratings will move, they are generally considered almost risk free (techncally the US is risk free, but that may change) in the sense that even if they default in their payments, you do eventually get it back with the back interest paid; it costs you to fnd the difference of the duration, though.

Don't blame me.. You assumed I meant pollies.. I would say this guy (if he is still there, and no doubt, his successor will do just as well, if not slightly better) gets paid pretty handsomely: https://www.themandarin.com.au/281154-david-fredericks-climate-change-energy-the-environment-and-water/ Given it's his boss that cops the flack.

The current mid rate (between buy and sell) on the wholesale markets is $1.91 (rounded to nearest cent) to £1 Normally I would take the sell rate as, if I was converting, that's what I would pay. But since I am earning £ anbd paying £ and you fellas are earning (or have) $ and paying $, it seems better to use the mid rate.

The senior ones, when including fringe benefits and then the lobbying, er, consulting gigs afterwards don't seem to do too badly

Diesel is £1.92 where I am. At the mid rates, it is $3.65 at time of writing. Petrol is £1.52, which is $2.89.