The gender pay gap is not about “equal pay for equal work”

Indeed, it seems to be primarily about making rage bait headlines.

Women work less hours on average, with considerably more working part time and those who work full time working less hours than men overall (so less overtime pay). What are you going to do to fix that gap, force women to work more? Between that and less women choosing to work in various higher paid and more physical/dangerous jobs (e.g. trades, mining) it's no wonder there's a difference.

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.

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.

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.

The train itself isn't really the slow part for the XPT, it's supposed to be able to run up to 160km/h. Knowing that only made it more annoying though when sitting in one chugging along at ~80k (or even slower when hot) up and down the north coast line - like most of our lines that track just wasn't good enough for it to go faster.

If he truly believed it was a good thing he should have just legislated it to start off with. That way you have the benefits of such a body sooner, and if people can see something in action and actually working to close the gap they would be more inclined to allow it into the Constitution in a later referendum (and even if the later referendum fails you still have both the body and the work they have done).

Edit: To be clearer, it is possible to both legislate a voice and have a referendum on it while a party is in government, particularly since it is rare for a government to only get a single term.

ABC just called it as defeated, all over before WA even got to start counting...

It's a real show of how much road safety discussion is fixated on lowering speed limits when you've just talked about how significant numbers of people are now not wearing seatbelts and the topic you move straight into is decreasing speed limits and driving more slowly instead of how to increase the number of people wearing seatbelts...

I'd be happy to reduce the amount of times I have to deal with providing multiple forms of ID, particularly the insanity of having to get copies certified for places that then expect you to email a image of said copies (therefore defeating the whole point of a certified copy).

I am dubious that a digital ID will actually end up making things easier though, I give it pretty good odds that it'll just be an additional hoop to jump through. I also have reservations about what happens when the digital IDs are compromised, because that'll happen at some point no matter how secure the system is claimed to be.

Edit: Relevant XKCD