Yeah, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. The whole plastic mess really grinds my gears.
The straw thing is classic "industry reference group consultation" stuff. Regulators asked the companies that manufacture stuff wrapped in plastic what they should do, and they said "no more shopping bags!" and "cardboard straws!", and now consumers feel like they've endured some hardship and solved the plastic problem. Meanwhile the assholes can keep selling everything wrapped in plastic because that's the cheapest way to sell it.
About a year ago I noticed plastic products at the shop like wraps and bin bags with "50% ocean plastic" or some such. They define ocean plastic as plastic collected from communities within 100km of the ocean which have no other plastic reclamation facilities. In Australia 99.99% of the population lives within 100km of the ocean. City Councils pay companies to process waste. If you take the plastic from those companies then it meets their shitty definition of "ocean plastic". So in summary, they're not saving any dolphins, but using the plight of the dolphins to sell more plastic. Assholes.
Regulators need to regulate these cunts. Add a levy to any product that includes plastic. Start at 1% and increase by 1% each year forever. I have absolutely no doubt that within just a few years your local supermarket will be awash with products enclosed in amazing polymers comprised of frog spit and corn starch that were invented 80 years ago.
In common parlance you don't need to qualify generalisations when it's obvious to the audience that they are generalisations.
Consider a statement like "Australians like to eat Vegemite on toast for breakfast".
It's an absurdity to refute that statement on the basis that it's an unqualified generalisation. It's very obvious to everyone that not every Australian enjoys Vegemite, and that some Australian's probably enjoy Vegemite at other times of the day. The whole point of the sentence is to convey that Australians are more likely to enjoy Vegemite than people of other nations.
If you'd like to spend your life refuting every general assertion on the basis that it's not qualified by saying "some" Australians enjoy Vegemite then I guess you're welcome to do so, but it seems like a very odd proclivity to me.
In Australia most retailers discount specific items for "members". Being a member is free but you need to sign up with your contact details. They will give you a card but no one carries a million cards so cashier's just ask for your phone number.
I made a note of one of the numbers in my phone, and provide that when asked. Loads of other people are doing this so the number is always registered at every shop.
The conversation usually goes:
cashier: are you a club member?
me: yes.
cashier: what's your number ?
me:
<ACMA number>
cashier: oh. wow. there seems to be hundreds of people with this number. what's your name?
me: oh really? who's there?
cashier: uh, nigel, john, luke...
me: I'm Luke.
I've been doing this on a weekly basis since reading about it in another thread (on reddit) a few years ago. I've never encountered a problem and I've received thousands of dollars in discounts. I would've gotten those discounts anyway but would've had to sign up with my personal number in order to receive them.
I honestly find it odd that you keep referring to my comments as my scenario as though this is some weirdo conspiracy I've dreamed up. In my opinion, your solution is impracticable. Sure, you should assist those adversely effected by climate change, but paying to rebuild their houses to be flood and fire proof is an absurd notion.
Yes private citizens are going to lose a lot of money and experience a lot of hardship as a result of climate change. It's well established science that many areas will experience more severe weather. There are very likely to be severe water shortages, and extensive famine.
You are right of course that corporations should bear the responsibility and the cost but given the political landscape in 2025 that's just not going to happen. Populations the world over are sliding to the right, electing governments who will reduce regulations and support further concentration of wealth.
This isn't saying something funny by accident though.
When you're on holiday and you ask the barman for nipple juice sure, you can all have a good laugh about languages.
This person is an employee, doing their best to perform a complex task that you were lucky enough to learn as a child. Imagine walking into the shop and having a good old laugh with the signs author about their bad spelling. I don't think they would find it very funny.
Additionally, there's a profound difference between having a light-hearted joke with someone, and posting it on social media where everyone can make lame jokes about people struggling to get by using English as a second language.
Honestly, I'm amazed that you're insensitive enough not to understand that the two situations are completely different.
Sorry mate, a place where mental health patients to just exist sounds to me like a terrible idea.
Notionally, not having to worry about anything and just do some basic chores might sound therapeutic, but I can assure you that residing in such a place would be a harrowing experience.
I think it's a personal decision. As in, you might be cool with a car from that company or using proton's services, but that doesn't mean that everyone else ought to be cool with it too, because they need to make their own decision.
By being a customer of whatever company you are tacitly condoning their behavior.
The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.
This was entirely predictable. It's been well publicised for decades.
Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.
I'm not really sure it's as easy as "building to a new standard". For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there's little that can be done on the residential property itself.
I think the core of this issue is money. It's going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.
In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else's insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. The whole plastic mess really grinds my gears.
The straw thing is classic "industry reference group consultation" stuff. Regulators asked the companies that manufacture stuff wrapped in plastic what they should do, and they said "no more shopping bags!" and "cardboard straws!", and now consumers feel like they've endured some hardship and solved the plastic problem. Meanwhile the assholes can keep selling everything wrapped in plastic because that's the cheapest way to sell it.
About a year ago I noticed plastic products at the shop like wraps and bin bags with "50% ocean plastic" or some such. They define ocean plastic as plastic collected from communities within 100km of the ocean which have no other plastic reclamation facilities. In Australia 99.99% of the population lives within 100km of the ocean. City Councils pay companies to process waste. If you take the plastic from those companies then it meets their shitty definition of "ocean plastic". So in summary, they're not saving any dolphins, but using the plight of the dolphins to sell more plastic. Assholes.
Regulators need to regulate these cunts. Add a levy to any product that includes plastic. Start at 1% and increase by 1% each year forever. I have absolutely no doubt that within just a few years your local supermarket will be awash with products enclosed in amazing polymers comprised of frog spit and corn starch that were invented 80 years ago.