MisterFrog

This is fair, my language is perhaps a little strong. Still a distraction in my opinion.

Teenagers are in school, and many are very knowledgeable and engaged.

But I don't really think there is much need to change the voting age

On social and environmental issues only. Which is nice, but she's as anti-worker as the moderate Liberals are.

I think they need this exactly wording. The swear words in particular would hopefully make it sink in

Daily reminder for what this independent stands for. She is a big L Liberal who just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people exist.

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan

[Edit: I reckon what I wrote below here was probably a bit extreme. I still don't like Monique Ryan, but yeah, she is at least sane when it comes to climate and identity.

I still think it's fair to post this criticism under every single thing she says. But I will concede that her being a wanker doesn't necessarily mean giving 16 year olds the vote is culture war.

I don't take back anything about her being shit. If you're voting against criminalising wage theft, you are a shit person.

This was my knee-jerk reaction:]

To me, this is more culture war bullshit that right-wingers love to distract us with.

The voting age is perfectly fine where it is and is in line with practically all other age restrictions.

She voted against criminalising wage theft. Teals are not not-shit candidates, despite what The Juice Media might be peddling.

☹️ this does not spark joy

As much as we're not the US, it saddens me how much we permit cars to rule over our cities

kill them and kill them now

[Edit: mod removed your comment, which I think is a pity. How am I supposed to debate you?]

I'm hoping you're not saying this in real life. Probably getting a lotta these 👀 after nuggets of wisdom like that.

You think a piece of shit like that will ever reintegrate? They sent tens of texts while driving

Why are you so sure they're incapable of being rehabilitated? Humans are just black and white to you?

Are you ready to have one of your family be killed by a texting driver?

I'm sure as hell that the death penalty would do practically nothing to solve road deaths. Considering the US is far worse than us in road deaths, and they have the death penalty. It's almost like we shouldn't design our cities around everyone being required to drive :O

This obviously doesn't absolve this arsehole of blame here. He's clearly done the wrong thing, and deserves punishment and years (more than he received) in prison. But it's just not the Australian way to kill criminals. Even for murder.

Anyway. I would strongly suggest you keep your pro-death penalty stance online only (your opinion, while I disagree with you, very strongly, is welcomed here. Online).

This all assumes you live in Australia, or basically anywhere in the developed world other than the US.

People will judge you, rightly, in my opinion.

I quite like the idea as long as it doesn't mean consumers are incentivised to get rewards cards. Rewards cards are a scourge and should attract a mandatory surcharge to the customer over which the business has no control.

Why? Rewards cards shouldn't be a thing. They just increase the cost of doing business and all consumers are subsidising the card provider and their customers in the form of higher prices.

"No Amex" is a beautiful sign to see at businesses who refuse to play ball.

But the same should go for frequent flyer miles and the like.

All businesses ought to prefer EFTPOS because it's cheap as chips in comparison to visa and MasterCard, but the payment providers are making them artificially more expensive in some cases.

I don't like this because it doesn't incentivise low cost cards. If you don't then regulate the fees cards can charge, and how payment providers are allowed to pass on those costs to the retailer, it'll become a race to the bottom on rewards cards, and how much they then turn around to charge the retailer.

We'll all bear the cost then.

And frankly, I don't want to pay for others frequent flyer miles.

I'd go one step further and just outright ban rewards cards. That shit is just perverse incentives all the way down.

I'm only for this if card providers can't charge the retailer stupid rates because some people want to use rewards cards, and this would mean all customers, cash or card, would have to cover this cost. Which is a subsidy for the people who can be approved for rewards cards.

I'm actually in favour of the opposite approach. I want it to be mandatory to pay the card fee (but not the payment provider fee). The retailer should be required to pass on the card fee.

This would stop things like Square charging a flat rate for every single type of card, despite EFTPOS being vastly cheaper in most cases.

So, the merchant passes on the cost of their payment provider fee equally to everyone (included in the price), and depending what type of card you use determines how much you pay in transaction fees.

This would incentivise card fees to be low, making EFTPOS much more attractive. And incentivise payment providers to be competitive in their fees (and ban them from charging the same rate for all cards)

I am not in favour of getting rid of card fees unless we bring in a government controlled payment platform that is run at cost, and all these other cards still have to pay fees.

Getting rid of transaction fees entirely just wraps them all into the cost, and means there is no incentive for consumers and retailers to prefer low cost options. It actually creates a perverse incentive for consumers to choose the cards with rewards points, which is terrible for everyone accept the card provider (and to a lesser extent the user of those cards)

Luckily for us, most of society (in Australia, at least) disagrees with you.

The death penalty is barbaric, and has had many, many, many cases of being committed on innocent people in the US.

The justice system isn't omnipotent, it's just humans, afterall. Why yes, let's make the consequence for getting it wrong death, that seems logical /s

This guy is a piece of shit, and in my opinion deserves more than 6 years of prison and a lifetime ban on operating any motor vehicle (or any heavy machinery full stop), but killing him?

This isn't Gilead, and eye for an eye is not most Australians values.

Part of living in a society is paying taxes, and some of those taxes will go to things you don't personally like, but society does (corruption, lobbying and inefficient notwithstanding).

And society has decided we're living in 2025, not the middle ages. We don't kill people. We aspire to giving people a second chance. In the grand scheme of things, prisons represent a tiny fraction of Australia's budget.

I'd say it's totally worth it if it means people's family members aren't being killed for doing something illegal.

There are some cases where the person is question is irredeemable, but I see this as the "cost of doing business" so to speak.

It's the same reason we have innocent until proven guilty, better to let some guilty people walk free than lock up innocent people. And better to let some awful people live, rather than accidentally kill someone who doesn't deserve it.

There's a reason most civilised countries don't have the death penalty anymore.

Based !fuckcars@lemmy.world enjoyer?

May I also interest you in: https://www.standards.org.au/news/revised-standard-recommends-larger-parking-bays-across-the-country

Luckily, they got massive backlash, and haven't yet actually updated the standard after almost 2 years since.

I'm gonna be really angry if they do increase parking bay sizes.

Gotta love urban sprawl

Indeed we say "the bill", this is of course a joke, a play on words.

Etymology of using "cheque" (American spelling "check") is a bit murky from my very surface level searching: https://www.etymonline.com/word/cheque

Seems logical is gained it's meaning from 1812: "a counter-register as a token of ownership used to check against, and prevent, loss or theft" from "coat check". Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch for the meaning to then mean a token of how much you owe for the food.

'The meaning "restaurant bill" is from 1869.' according to this website.