That is unfortunately true, for example I find it sadly impressive that one has a decent chance of getting classified info simply by starting an argument on the War Thunder forums…

I’m not familiar with them, though I did just have a quick browse of wikipedia and their privacy page. From that minimal impression I’d rate their online service as better than DeepSeek (they do claim your data is not used for training, stored in Sweden, encrypted, and deleted after 30 days) but ultimately it’s still got the same problem as other providers in that you have to just believe they’ll actually follow what they say they do. For use with your own personal info this might be an acceptable risk if the company seems reputable otherwise, on the other end of the scale for anything security classified it’d be way too much risk.

You’d have to be mad to put important information into any AI model unless you’re hosting it locally and know it isn’t sending info anywhere (the latter being the hard part to verify). All of the online AI services really should be blocked if departments/companies are taking security seriously.

We don’t do them anywhere near as much as America apparently does but since I believe you’re around Brisbane I can pretty much guarantee you’ve driven on concrete roads (it’d be a lot less likely if you lived in Woop Woop). Look for it on primary routes that get a lot of heavy vehicle traffic - for example head south on the Pacific Highway and you’ll find large sections of concrete.

My point was that if you’re writing an article talking about how much Australians spend on cycling/walking infrastructure you should at least mention that federal numbers are not the whole picture and that federal is not the level of government that is going to cover most of said infrastructure. Omitting this smacks of the author just looking for a low number to draw attention/outrage.

Why are they focussing on federal funding only? I would expect federal funding to go largely to the sorts of roads which are important on a broad scale but less desirable for cycling or walking - freeways, highways, major arterial roads, and so forth. State and local government are the levels I would expect to find the majority of cycling and walking investment, it seems odd that these are omitted.

It really shouldn’t be, but there has been a lot of money and effort expended over the years here to make people believe speed is the root of all evil. Combine that with the fediverse attracting a larger proportion of who are ideologically against any form of personal motorised transport and anything involving cars or bikes can become surprisingly contentious even before you bring speed into the mix.

I mean I won’t disagree with this, I am definitely of the opinion that people should be taught more driving skills.

I do doubt though that we’d end up with a useful course even if further training was mandated, so I am dubious as to the outcome of such a scheme. I say this as someone who’s been through a few licencing courses with a motorbike licence, MR licence, and forklift licence (and various other high risk or work related training courses). The truck licence didn’t really teach me anything new and was just a case of driving around making it look like you’re checking blind spots etc, the forklift licence practical was incredibly basic, and the theory part of stuff like the forklift and goods hoist license was basically served up to us on a silver platter rather than requiring learning. The motorbike courses at least tried to explain a bunch of basic concepts and handling but was stymied in practice by only being allowed to go 20km/h max in a carpark (after which feel free to head out out and do 90km/h on busy roads…).

About the only thing on that front that’s changed since the 70s have been improved breaks

Actually the biggest difference there is modern tyres. These are considerably better than those in the 70s - for an easy visualisation compare MotoGP lean angles and cornering speed from that era to what even consumer sport touring motorcycle tyres can handle these days (they weren’t cornering so comparatively slow for no reason, the tyres were the main limiting factor).

You also have modern suspension making a marked improvement on road handling, ABS making it so a chimpanzee can get the best braking without skidding, and in the last decade or so ESC has been making a notable difference to stability under braking and swerving. All together the average modern car will outbrake and outhandle an average 70s car by a long shot, particularly when not driven by an expert.

The claim that vehicles are newer and safer because they have new technologies is also pretty shaky

A significant proportion of cars do have the mentioned features though, blind spot monitoring is a nice easy one to notice and you’ll see a lot of cars do have it when you’re driving around.

Even without these specific features though modern cars are much safer than cars were when our speed limits were set. This even applies to cars now considered old - my own car for example now qualifies for historic rego and can drive quite safely at 130km/h (and is both less likely to get into a crash and much more survivable in the event of one than any 70s car).

Back when the 100km/h limit was set this was actually a fast speed for the cars and roads of the era. Now it is not - speed limits have become a recommended speed rather than anywhere near the limits of safety (assuming average car and normal conditions). Highway/freeway limits in particular are well due for an increase rather than the decreases (literally and effectively) they keep receiving.

do you even know about your own history, and the history of this so-called country? Invasion Day celebrates the anniversary of Cook’s invasion of these lands.

My irony meter just overloaded…

but also knocking off Rudds head? That doesn’t make much sense.

We are talking about the sort of people who both think vandalism like this will reflect well upon their cause and continue to attack a statue of Cook around Australia Day when there’s a much more relevant statue of Arthur Phillip just a bit further down the road. I think you’re giving them too much credit to expect they’d differentiate Rudd for doing the National Apology.

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.

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.

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.

British white people have never

As long as you forget about the Irish, the Welsh, and (to a lesser extent IIRC) the Scots - all of whom are white and British.

Changing to a motor which wasn’t originally offered in that model of vehicle definitely needs certification, at least in NSW (other states might be more lenient).