There’s an android app called URLCheck that can strip unwanted bits off the end of urls and then open them as well.

The house might look good in a sort of greeny-teal shade

fishfush

American politics infects Australian politics in many ways sadly.

This changes the effect of negative campaigning (people still show up in Aus vs the US), but the idea is to dissuade people from voting for someone, rather than encourage them to vote for you. This might have a positive effect on votes for the party doing the negative campaigning, but I think it’s a poor definition of convincing someone to vote for you.

I don’t think this is a useful definition of voting for

which implicitly gets them to vote for you.

Seems to only be true if you think of there being only 2 parties, which is why I don’t think the definition is good.

Compulsory voting means any campaign has to be focused on actually getting people to vote for you

I don’t think this is necessarily true, did you miss the massive amounts of negative campaigning that happens every election?

Yeah but how are the cops supposed to access our data without a warrant or any form of notice?

Not from bris but been seeing a psychologist for a while. It may be hard for people to recommed since the way I’ve found it is that I had to see a few before I found one that “clicked” for me.

Have you got a family doctor? They might have a recommendation and they can get you a mental health care plan which will pay for some of your psych appointment for like 10 visits (any doctor can give you the plan afaik).

While its true that there are open-access journals and conferences without such costs

To publish open access normally costs upwards of $3k USD as well. There’s practically no point in the publishing chain where academics aren’t getting screwed.

Let’s also not forget that you have to review other people’s papers for the journal for free.

Well as people worried about victims I’d just be worried it might seem a tad disingenuous quote from a vast minority of cases and not provide any quotes from victims that never see justice you know?

What happens to people who have been raped and weren’t believed or were falsely accused of faking it? Just wondering if they have similar experiences with mental health?

The rate of false accusations of rape is really hard to determine but is generally regarded as being pretty low (Vicpol puts it at ~5% based on studies). It’s also extremely hard to get a good number though, since false does not mean unfounded.

I don’t think it’s justified drawing an equivalence between rape and rape accusations given the evidence we have on the rates, it makes it seem like false accusations are happening way more than they actually are.

Also given who this probably is, this is likely not the only accusation of rape also, which decreases the likelihood the accusations are false I would suggest.

The no campaign is run by pretty seasoned wreckers.

Just now you haven’t answered the queries he had repeatedly made, you’ve shot them down.

The same line used by climate change deniers for ages, while they disingenuously repeated the same arguments that had been debunked or were nonsense.

https://archive.is/20230924091719/https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-a-thousand-messages-how-a-top-public-servant-tried-to-influence-governments-20230919-p5e5ss.html?btis=

$387 billion cost

You could get a whole new fleet of nuclear subs for that!

The government could do many things, but it’s not the question being asked by the constitutional amendment. It’s not hard to find the design principles for the voice, something I suspect people wouldn’t read even if this wasn’t going to referendum.

Wanting to see something for two years first is kind of an excuse to never do anything. It’s also not really a good argument for voting no, because the idea is that the “shape” of the voice can be changed if it isn’t working. What people are voting on is the concept.

I dunno what else to tell you, that’s the proposal and that’s where we are. If people are voting no because lack of details there’s not much to do to convince them. The government is hardly going to release more details now.

The point of there not being an extremely precise definition of the voice in the constitution is that it can be changed if it’s not working. Most parts of the constitution are like this afaik.

What you are being asked is if you support putting a passage in the constitution that would ensure a body with the express purpose of indigenous representation exists.

The conservatives have been getting worse over the past say, 10 years, Trump kind of accelerated things and that style of “who cares what the truth is” was exported from the US.

The right wing in general was always going to end up being like this though.

Cost is often factored in when it comes to optimising fusion power plant design so potentially, plus other benefits of fusion. Either way, barring a breakthrough the closest power barring breakthroughs is probably at best 2040 imo. Even with all the new startups.