cuavas

It’s more like steamed potato – microwave ovens just heat the water inside the food.

Yeah, I think general arson is most likely. An insurance job doesn’t add up, and I don’t think they were storing hazardous material there that would randomly catch on fire.

Why pay for demolition when the insurance company will after a fire?

That isn’t generally how building insurance works. The insurer pays out the agreed value and the owner still has to clean up the mess. Well, they have to clean up the mess if they want to do anything useful with the site. It’s very hard for a council to actually obtain an order to force an owner to demolish a structure. But in this case, they want to build apartments there, so they’re going to need to pay for demolition and remediation of the site at some point.

I don’t think the owners would want anything recycled from there.

The old public housing buildings in Flemington that were demolished (Victoria St, Hill St, Holland Ct) had as much recyclable material stripped for sale before they even started demolition. Gas meters, plumbing, wiring – it all got removed. Even the scrap value for recycling the metal is significant.

Potentially asbestos in there too which adds to the disposal costs.

I don’t see how burning it down helps with that. There was a small amount of asbestos-containing material in the demolished Flemington flats, which was dealt with in the usual way, but several times during the construction of the new apartment buildings, they’ve found asbestos contamination in the soil. Every time that happens, they pause construction, and call in a decontamination crew who filter the soil to remove the contamination. They had to do this on the site of the old Flemington Community Centre as well, and not so long ago Maribyrnong City Council had to remove asbestos contamination from soil in Footscray Park.

Burning the buildings down is just going to make decontamination and remediation more difficult and expensive.

But seriously, how much would they have insured the current buildings on the site for when they’re going to demolish them anyway? I can’t see the cost of cleaning up the burned out buildings being lower than the cost of demolishing intact buildings, and it’ll be harder to recover anything for recycling.

Can any registered user post to the community, like you can on most subreddits, or are there more restrictions?

It was already approved for development of an apartment tower. Not sure if they’d actually be able to claim anything from insurance when they existing buildings on the site were going to be demolished anyway. You can recover some material to sell as scrap during demolition, but the price of cleaning up the mess after the fire is surely worse than what you’d stand to gain from insurance on buildings you were going to demolish all along.

RIP Coco Lee. Depression’s a bitch.

Mate, it’s the most populous country in the world, it doesn’t border many other countries, and the ones it does border are all very well-known. It was really easy to score a perfect round.

The Republic of China’s government (which controls the island Taiwan) officially claims to be the legitimate government of all of China. The mainland is a rebel province from their point of view. Until 2002, their definition of “all of China” included Mongolia, and they included it in their territory on official maps. By comparison, the People’s Republic of China government (which controls mainland China) recognised Mongolia and established official diplomatic relations in 1949. Until recently, the RoC officially claimed more territory than the PRC.

That’s my point: there is no country called “Taiwan”, it’s the name of an island. There are two governments that claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, one of which (the RoC) controls Taiwan and a few other islands, and the other of which (the PRC) controls the rest of the current territorial extent.

Now a significant proportion of the population of the island Taiwan would prefer if the island Taiwan was recognised as a separate country. I’d guess the majority of Taiwanese residents under 40 feel that way.

There are two major political parties in Taiwan: the Kuomintang (KMT), or “blue party”, and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or “green party”. The KMT leans heavily towards the view that there is only one “China” and we’re just still arguing over who’s the legitimate government, while the DPP leans more towards the view that the island of Taiwan will eventually be recognised as an independent sovereign state. The current president of the RoC, Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), has said unofficially that Taiwan is an independent country and the PRC has to deal with this. However, making this official would require rewriting the RoC’s constitution.

There’s no country called Taiwan. The Republic of China and People’s Republic of China both claim all of China in their constitutions. The RoC actually claimed more territory than the PRC until quite recently. The RoC claimed Mongolia, showing it as part of their territory on official maps, until 2002.

#Worldle #532 1/6 (100%) 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉 ⭐⭐⭐🏙️🪙 https://worldle.teuteuf.fr

It was a particularly easy one today.

find me another place that serves good asam laska?

Geez, so it's, "I don't care how they treat people if it tastes good," is it?

I actually don't know of any other great laksa places in the area. KL Bunga Raya in North Melbourne is fairly good value, but not all the dishes they serve are great. Laksa and curries are OK, claypot stew is disappointing.

If you're in Sydney by any chance, Mamak on Goulburn St is great for Malaysian.