It’s a legitimate societal issue. The mental health and social damage it’s doing to children should not be an accepted as a social media functionality. I don’t know what the answer is, but surely there is a way to achieve both privacy for adult users and age identification for children.

Of course it doesn’t generate extra time, there’s still 24 hours a day. What is does is adjust for the earths orbit and tilt, which means that seasonally we can have daylight during the regular working hours. The nice consequence is that there is more daylight hours in the evening. You must have a very generous employer who lets you change your working hours based on the seasons when you want to do evenings activities!

Slip slop slap if you need to. But also, I’m in Melbourne so it’s good to have evening daylight. I think because Australia is so huge the effect of DLS is very different across the latitude. It’s good in the southern states.

I think you misunderstand daylight savings? Setting the clock back means daylight happens earlier in winter. For example, in Melbourne tomorrow sunrise will be at 6:40am. If we were still on daylight savings time, it would be at 7:40am, so still dark when a lot of people are getting up to go to work and commuting. And due to the way the earths orbit works, sunrise will get progressively later until the winter solstice. I definitely prefer having the winter sunrise earlier, so am happy the clocks go back to regular time. And in Summer, it’s nice to have the extra daylight in the evening instead of crazy early.

I enjoy the longer evenings in Summer and having the sun up at and earlier clock in winter. I’m not sure why some people hate it so much. Most people have smart phones and electronic calendars that update automatically and everything just works, no input needed. A genuine question for people who don’t like it, why not? What specifically is bothersome?

Ridiculous. I can only think of 2 scenarios which would have led to this. One, there was a conflict between some employees and they are want to avoid further conflicts. But there are already laws against discrimination and workplace bullying. Banning the topic outright is lazy. Or two, someone in management has strong opinions and can’t handle hearing an opposing view. Either way, management are being toddlers.

Also I’m no lawyer, but would this even be legally enforceable? Can an employer really ban topics of conversation at work?

With all the rapidly developing technology for sound and image manipulation, I imagine it would be difficult if not impossible for media to forensically unpick every video. I don’t know what the solution is, and I’m worried it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Inciting social unrest or political support just got a whole lot more sophisticated.

Maybe they are thinking if it’s not a direct head squash, the animals body would be significantly injured and they would be in pain and die a slow death? But I agree, an instant precise head squash would in theory be quicker than putting them in a cold dark fridge for hours?

Are you from the US? Think of Melbourne and Sydney like any huge populous city there. Closer to the centre costs more, even if it’s smaller. Location not size is the main driver of cost. A 2 bedroom apartment in Fitzroy (inner city) can cost more than a 4 bedroom house in Mernda (new development at city outskirts).

No. These houses are normally bought by recent migrants looking for a place to settle and raise a family. At least that’s the demographic most commonly buying them in Melbourne. It’s way more affordable and attainable than buying in the trendy in-demand inner and middle suburbs. People are often mortgaged to the absolute maximum of their abilities to get a foot in the door. The style of house is often sold as a pre-designed package by the developers, with little scope to change the design. And if you do want to change it, that’s extra cost that the buyers often cannot afford. Don’t blame the people living here, they are just trying to find a place to live. The blame needs to be with the government and councils for not setting better regulations for developers to allow for more green space, transport and amenities. Better yet, clearing the way for more family friendly mid and high density infill in the inner and middle suburbs, so the sprawl can be slowed.

Was this meant to be a get-off-my-turf micro aggression that could later be denied if needed by saying it was an accident? But also, if the sonar can injure people, what does it to to whales or fish?

The constitution has special legal status in Australia. Parliament cannot alter it the way they can normal laws. The constitution can only be changed by a referendum - which is vote by the whole nation. What parliament is allowed to do (not Albo individually, but by majority vote in parliament), is make laws under the constitution. So yes, parliament could pass a law that creates a voice. But the next government could then pass a law that cancels the voice. And so on. The idea of putting in the constitution was so that it would have more staying power. If it was in the constitution it could still be removed, but only by another referendum, because as per point A, constitution can only be changed by a referendum.