[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

fwiw, personal privacy isn't the reason I close the door, it's consideration of others.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

Zedda is a new one to me, but I reckon it will stick.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

But Was He Really the First to Fly in Australia?

This kind of question clearly depends on the definition of flight, but it would have been nice for the article to give an honourable mention to Lawrence Hargrave, who lived in Australia since age 15.

Of great significance to those pioneers working toward powered flight, Hargrave successfully lifted himself off the ground under a train of four of his box kites at Stanwell Park Beach on 12 November 1894.

Obviously very different to a piloted and controlled flight like the Wright Brothers and these examples, but certainly notable.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, dismal job from the ABC this time. If you want a better account with quotes, there was one shared here.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Did you verify that, or did you just copy paste a machine-generated comment?

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

As the one calling the shots, he’s entitled to run the business that way.

Legally, sure. But I don't care whether someone is legally allowed to be abusive, it's still abuse, and their abusive attitude towards workers earns outrage.

And sure, employees can probably leave legally, but if we allow this abuse to be normalized then there won't be another place to go in the industry. There is economic asymmetry at play, it's not viable to just leave a job whenever it treats someone badly. There are only so many jobs available and the market is increasingly moving towards monopolization in many industries.

People don't just work in shit jobs because they haven't considered leaving. They have legal freedom, but they are not empowered to leave without ending up somewhere just as bad or risking unemployment. So even if no-one is forced, they're inherently pressured, and that pressure is enough for them to accept abuse in order to keep themselves and their families off the dole. We need to create a society with an economy where people aren't subject to the whims of their employers.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Seriously, shame on the opportunistic people who bothered giving her a platform.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I wasn't surprised at it being shit, but I wasn't expecting suicidal.

For those who don't have easy access to ABC iview (e.g. not Aus internet connection) they've now uploaded it to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2y5VbC4WCo (hopefully bot gives Invidious mirrors, otherwise here)

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 3 months ago

Yep, I was going to point out that a decent amount of tech roles had an expectation of WFH long before 2020.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Eh, while that hypocrisy is real, your post didn't really describe the situation. When it comes to 'terrorism', in the past few years and much of that article, ASIO have consistently been talking about neo-Nazism (particularly the NSN). Neo-Nazis are not anti-capitalist nor a minority group defending themselves (they are a clear aggressor). And of course they're bad for liberal democracy/capitalism and too foolish/idealistic to work alongside capital like 1920s fascists, instead desperately resorting to lone-wolf terror acts (to try and incite a nonsense 'race war'), so yes, they're being readily branded as terrorists, and correctly - they are explicitly aiming to promote terror.

As for the other cases being discussed like the Wakeley stabbing, I don't see how that's in the self-defense of a minority group. As far as I've seen, they're not attacking fascists or CEOs, or trying to enact systematic change. There's right ways to do political violence or self-defense, and these cases don't seem to be them them.

"This is the new thing, people will go to violence with little or no warning, and they [have] little or no planning in some of these that I've talked about," he said.

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

(has been answered in https://aussie.zone/post/12260517/10873558 , posted a minute after yours)

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago

As some other mentioned, the monuments were often built soon after the war by people who had recently lost their relatives. When there were massacres of Aboriginal peoples, they obviously didn't have the authority and resources to build similar memorials in towns, and to be blunt, the towns probably had few people who cared enough to build anything on their behalf, even now there are few public memorials (and often small ones) of massacres and Aboriginal loss. And that difference you pointed out reveals a lot about we see the historical effects of who has power and who writes history.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

eureka

joined 4 months ago