Super politicised in Australia in the wake of the Bondi massacre, perpetrated by Muslims.
Nobody wants these women. Their values were incompatible with Australia before they left. I am kinda curious what they would say in a candid interview regarding their thoughts of Australian culture.
Regardless, they are citizens and have rights, and their children shouldn't be punished for having daft parents.
Yeah but imagine trying to explain to your 15yo kid that you're not going to let them interact with their friends on facebook or whatever because reasons.
Sorry chief. Just not convinced of your argument at all.
Not adopting the AI paradigm is going to become increasingly costly
Why do dev machines cost $7k now ? Can someone who works for a large software development company confirm ?
Honestly I'd have thought things are going the other way. My laptop that I purchased for $500 several years ago is a great daily driver. I dabble in development, some is local, but LLM stuff is offloaded to an inference API, or a bare metal server which I rent.
I understand that sophisticated development companies aren't buying second hand laptops, but I don't think there's a sudden imperative to buy everyone $7k dev machines every year.
Bubbles don’t HAVE to burst anymore
You haven't really offered much to support this assertion.
I can assure you that any bubble will burst if there's an interruption in shareholder sentiment.
Things aren't going so well for Tesla lately. It's interesting that their CEO is sinking many millions into conservative political campaigns.
NOBODY who is responsible for enforcing anything like responsible economic activity will EVER allow the bubble to burst
That's not how bubbles are maintained though.
Right now, everyone's pension fund has invested in the "magnificent 7" because frankly, no one can afford not to.
Everyone knows the shares in these companies are overvalued, but no one knows by how much, and no one knows when the correction is going to come.
I think there's plenty of people who participate in churches (of any flavor) without necessarily buying in to the spiritual aspects. The social aspect of churches provides people with all sorts of benefits.
This guy has devoted his life to the church, with an infinitesimally small chance of rising high enough for it to be "an effective way of wrangling the opinions of the idiot masses" so it seems unlikely that he doesn't believe any of it.
The comment I replied to is basically saying that if it's a risky endeavor then if things go wrong you just say "oh well you knew the risks" and leave.
As an aside, I'm Australian, I have a surf life-saving accreditation (very common here), I'm well aware of the dangers of a water rescue.
My point is, it's not a question of whether the person in need of rescue knew the risks, rather a question of the risks to the rescuer. As I said in my comment it's not clear what the risks to the guy really were. It does seem that, had the couple been appropriately provisioned, the risks to him would've been minimal.
Its nice to see we're reaching a point where fossil fuels just dont make sense economically anymore.
You can politicise it all you want but if everyone makes more money by avoiding coal then thats how things are going to go.
Of course in this case Trump just wants to divert money to his friends, and he will probably succeed, but at least its getting harder and harder to do as the wins for renewables just keep stacking up.
My small city just announced theyre going to shut down the gas network in 3 years. Basically their modelling says that with reduced demand due to cheaper electricity from renewables and better electrical tech, no one will want to pay for gas.
Obviously its become a political issue, but its only going to get more difficult to argue against the economics as time goes by.
I think it really depends how dangerous it would have been for him to stay with her.
On Everest, if someone is incapacitated, then there's no point waiting with them because then you'd die too and no rescue is coming.
This situation is different because a rescue could be mounted, and its not certain the guy would've died if he had have waited with her.
Like imagine you're swimming a few hundred metres from the beach and your partner gets a cramp, do you just say "oh well you knew the risks" and leave them?
I agree that the QLD legislation is scary - it's bullshit that their legislation is going to "proscribe" that specific phrase, so if one utters it then that's an offense regardless of intent or context.
The thing is it has very strong im-15-and-this-is-deep energy and it has it's own wikipedia page and it's something that every idiot on lemmy and reddit has heard of and it makes them feel superior to trot it out at every opportunity.
The irony is, as you say, every time someone references the paradox of intolerance they're literally invoking it in order to justify being intolerant.
Yes, it's true that some opinions and behaviors should not be tolerated. However, the things which we as a society choose not to tolerate need to be very carefully considered in each and every instance.
The paradox of intolerance allows one to merely brand a person or group of people you don't like as being "intolerant" and then you're free to exclude them from your circle of tolerance.
Yeah this is pretty much my first relationship.
Holy shit what a mess.