You would obviously have exceptions for renovations, subject to reasonable proof that renovations are actually taking place (or planning approval is being sought for said renovations). Ditto for make-safe work if the house is deemed unsafe to live in.

I can’t really think of any other valid reasons.

As long as it’s cheaper to have somebody living in a house than just hoarding as much land as possible

Not necessarily. Some people just can’t be bothered with the hassle of figuring out renting it out. I’ve heard this is especially common with Chinese buyers since housing in China is viewed even more as an asset than it is here.

If someone buys it as an asset just meant to appreciate in value, the dividends from renting it out may be viewed as less important.

It also prevents the use of a house as a rarely-used holiday home. If someone spends a handful of weeks per year in a house, that is pretty much just as wasteful as leaving it empty full-time, as far as the housing market is concerned. Maybe that levy could be decreased proportional to how much time it actually is being used.

I’mma differ slightly and say that yes, they should be “allowed” to. But there should be a levy imposed on them if they do choose that. And the levy should be large enough that it vastly outstrips expected capital gains.

I hope the NSW govt doesn’t do the same limp thing the Qld govt did and allow one of the “grounds” to be “end of fixed lease”. That completely weakens the law to the point it’s nearly entirely useless.

I suspect it probably would. But shouldn’t that be the user’s choice to make?

Damn autocorrect. Imma leave that up, it’s too funny.

Cos wasn’t coined for anything even remotely related to sex or gender. It’s just the Latin opposite of trans. Which honestly just makes whinging about the term from reactionaries like Musty all the more ridiculous.

He’s a soccer player and he disagrees with the ref’s decision. What more context do you need?

Soccer players are infamously fucking divas.

They even brought in Rudd for a second go, which didn’t seem to be within the spirit of the game if I’m honest, but that’s Australia for you.

Oh, that is just brilliant.

Ok fascinating. I just installed this extension to prevent Imgur from redirecting me from i.imgur.com to imgur.com, and now the link does indeed work.

No, that link redirects me to their 404 page.

Or, to be more accurate, it first redirects me to https://imgur.com/9IlC6xy

Which then redirects me to their 404 page https://imgur.com/error/404

Are you really telling me that it works for you?

Looks like you got lucky that your instance cached it before it went down. Try right clicking on it and clicking “open image in new tab” too see the original image.

Two points of failure for us to improve on is better than only one. But I still think it’s poor for the coroner to not mention all of the other factors that could have individually prevented this.

Using the wrong charger should (ideally) be something that any big battery pack can survive – every big battery pack should (ideally) contain protection circuitry that shuts it off when abnormal conditions are detected. But I know this gets omitted (it costs a few dollars) and it’s something we need to change.

Hear, hear. The battery should absolutely not be exploding if you use the wrong charger. It should just switch off and fail to charge. And I think any battery which doesn’t do this should be illegal to sell or import into Australia. It’s basic consumer protections.

I do think that it’s a genuinely difficult and complicated issue, from the perspective of “why are the kids behaving this way”. It’s a problem of parenting; a problem of how the parents were parented (basically: “my parents didn’t oversee my technology use and I turned out fine, so I’ll do the same”); and most significantly (in my opinion) a completely new technology landscape. Parents do need to get better at parenting, but that doesn’t let Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Google (especially YouTube), and ByteDance (TikTok) off the hook for algorithms that feed young impressionable people with abhorrent content solely because that is what makes their platforms the most money. Parents can and should be helping their children learn to avoid harmful content or restrict their access to said content, but they’re fighting against the tide as long as the platforms themselves want to feed that content to them.

One thing that’s less complicated is this: regardless of the underlying causes, teachers should not have to put up with abuse. Abusive students should be removed from the classroom, whether they’re abusing the teacher or other students. Their education is important and I understand why schools and education departments are hesitant to do this, but the physical and mental wellbeing of others should be more important.

🤦‍♂️

Yes. Yes I do.

The parking couldn’t be much worse than that.

To save anyone else the Google: that’s the car the main characters of Supernatural drive.

Your image seems to have been deleted by Imgur.

Could also be that he just doesn’t meet the minimum weight threshold of the digital scales. Mine will read 0 up to 5 kg.

1997–2012 is the definition used by Pew (which also uses the oft-quoted 1981–1996 definition for millennials). Statistics Canada uses 2012 too, while the US census uses 2013.

But anyway, the earliest cutoff I could find was 2010, which is what the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses, and my point still works for 2010 kids. (The ABS’s other boundaries also don’t change the fact that I’m young millennial but my sister old gen Z, or that my parents are young boomers, either. So every point I was making still works.)

Ah shit sorry. I’ll edit that.

Still, it’s 1001 to 2001.