Mountaineer

You could read David Leigh's book, in which he published the full decryption key: https://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Inside-Julian-Assanges-Secrecy/dp/161039061X

That's literally how he leaked it.

The wikipedia article on it has the whole "he said - she said":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assange%27s_War_on_Secrecy

Including the lie that is frequently parroted about Assange not caring about people dying.

That was an editor at The Guardian, David Leigh.

This didn't happen, Wikileaks vetted information before releasing it for exactly this reason.

Name one person.

Its technically US soil, so he could enter his plea there in a US court, but its the closest place to Australia, because he obviously refused to step foot on the American continent.

Yes, the threats worked and the corrupt won.

Now he gets to see his kids.
I'd choose that too.
You can call it cowardice, I'd call it pragmatism.

The US get to show just how tough they are on whistleblowers and their associates.
Assange gets to go home.

If I was him, I'd keep my head down and try to get to know my kids.

For those not aware of the history, the Housing Trust was originally a Liberal policy in SA.
It was designed to keep rents under control and spur the construction industry, providing cheap basic accommodation.
It implemented the revolutionary idea of spreading out the 'poor houses' amongst the 'normies' in the community, so you didn't end up with slums.

Whilst I have never lived in one and hopefully would never have to, I'm glad that it's going to return to it's original mission because we need those things back.

I didn't say they were great.
I'm saying that the current rise in minors is a symptom of voter dissatisfaction.

These changes to WA law related to firearms are sold to the general public as being "tough on crime" or in some nebulous way "making communities safer", when realistically they won't impact criminals in any but the most tangential way.

What is going to happen is that someone who is a law abiding citizen, already subject to all sorts of regulatory compliance, is going to have decide which of their guns they can most easily forgo to get under an arbitrary cap.

If you don't like guns, lets use a metaphor and imagine you're a golfer who is now forced to choose whether they are going to forgo the putter, the sand wedge, the iron or the wood - because people who don't even play golf have decided you can only have 3.

There are very few people, even in a dyed in community like shooting, that are so one eyed as to wholly pivot their vote on a single issue.
But it has lead directly to minor parties and independents gaining traction in regional areas (places where gun owners per capita are higher).
This is why groups like Shooters Fishers and Farmers sprung up.

the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design

Can you share this knowledge, please?

This specific image from the article has me cringing:

So 450 x 1.8 = $810B

(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).

You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96B

These are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.

Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728

CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.

In short: Australia's leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.

8.5 * 7 = $59.5B

So it's within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.

Which don't cost as much to run, have no "scary" nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).

If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we're going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.

Nuclear isn't happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.

Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.

A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/

It's only 2GWh, but it's going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.

Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn't going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it's no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it's repaying loans on new constructions.