I mean, that’s pretty similar to how it already operated in Australia. I’ve been prescribed oxycodone only as a post-operative painkiller (dry socket after wisdom tooth removal and sinus surgery) and was given fentanyl immediately post-surgery for my sinus surgery, but since they moved codeine from being behind-the-counter to prescription-only (2018), those are the only times I’ve ever been able to access opiates/opioids in my life, despite presenting with debilitating migraines since I was 11 years old.

At my age, with the knowledge I have now, would I want them for migraines? Hell, no. I don’t want to risk addiction for temporary pain relief. Would I willingly prevent people who experience chronic pain from opiates or opioids? Probably not, but I’m not a doctor.

Very, very few Aussie politicians have ever understood technology to a degree necessary to legislate about it. We’ve had a handful of independent Members and Senators who show real interest and understanding (like former AFL legend David Pocock) but they’re definitely an extremely small minority. We produce some amazing technologies, especially medical tech and quantum computing where we’re world-leading, but our best and brightest very rarely ever end up in government. As an Aussie tech and privacy enthusiast it can be supremely frustrating.

I mean, no country has the ‘right’ to trade with anyone. If I don’t agree with what another country does, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to choose to not trade with them or only agree to trade with them under certain circumstances. It’s not so much extortion as it is a ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’ policy. Extortion is more using the threat of physical consequences to get someone to acquiesce to a position - essentially what the US is doing right now.

I feel like that line kinda started when Ford pardoned Nixon. That began a longstanding tradition of not holding politicians to account for their actions while in office, which has since been emboldened by subsequent presidents and now the Supreme Court’s ruling on official presidential acts.

I’ve always heard (and said) the saying as ‘A thief always locks their doors’.

In Australia, when a minor signs a contract, it’s only legally binding on the other (adult) party. That is, if I were 14 and signed a contract I can force the other party to meet their obligations under the contract but I cannot be forced to meet my own obligations. The contract favours the minor in that way so that they are protected from anything predatory while still able to engage in and benefit from contracts. I think that’s the best approach.

Why water

Because it’s one of the most abundant resources available on earth that is imperative to our understanding of the existence of life and is the commonest solution regularly used by humans in scenarios where temperature is a relevant factor.

why sea level?

Because vast swathes of humanity live at or near sea level, where we already arbitrarily nominate the level of atmospheric pressure to be 1 ATM.

While K has a natural zero-point, the gradation (by your logic) is entirely arbitrary as well because it’s based on C and not some other cosmological constant.

It’s going to be a question of momentum: will those on the left of the party keep pushing back against corporate interests and organising at a grassroots level. I sincerely hope that the momentum grows, but the power of the money being used against them is a pretty terrible beast. It’s definitely an interesting crossroads at the very least.

In a lot of jurisdictions it’s also not illegal to be under the influence of a narcotic unless there are other factors involved - driving a car, being a public nuisance, or otherwise engaging in criminal behaviour. If you’re high in your own home not bothering anyone (and you’ve already taken all the drugs you have so you’re not otherwise in possession of any) you’re not committing a crime. That would apply in this case.

It’s interesting to me that the only people who advocate for Fahrenheit over Celsius in any circumstances are those who grew up using it, whereas those who prefer Celsius over Fahrenheit are from both places where Celsius and Fahrenheit are used. I’m yet to see an example of someone saying “I grew up with Celsius but Fahrenheit is so much better because…”

BRILLAINT

Kinda reminds me of the story of how David X Cohen (Futurama, Disenchantment, The Simpsons) got the middle initial X when his middle name is Samuel: when he went to be registered with The Writers Guild there was already a David S Cohen, and they don’t allow two people with identical names to be registered, so he chose X because it sounds more ‘sci-fi-ish’.

Those who hold treasury bonds don’t tend to spend the interest on their day-to-day living costs. Those who hold treasury bonds use them as an investment vehicle, whose proceeds are usually either reinvested or invested elsewhere where the effects of investment aren’t inflationary. Many treasury bonds are also held by the international community, who by definition don’t spend those proceeds within the country whose bonds they hold. Domestic Australian retail investors make up such a small fraction of total ownership and, those that do own them in this context, tend not to use the proceeds as regular income that would be inflationary.

That’s why I specified in my first sentence that it depends upon how the monies are spent. I outlined a few different ways in which government spending impacts inflation.

Just paying down interest on national debt (as we have been doing) is just as deflationary as paying down principal, given that it’s removing money from the economy.

It entirely depends upon how the government uses that money. Paying down national debt is entirely deflationary; they are literally removing money from the economy. Spending on services can be very mildly inflationary, but usually also increases quality of life for the most marginalised and therefore reduces the impacts of inflation on those who feel it most. It can also be deflationary when spent on services, especially if those monies are spent on the government shouldering costs that have been pushed onto the average citizen (single-payer healthcare, energy costs and the like).

By far the biggest upward effects on inflation are caused by corporate greed and geopolitical instability.

I generally prefer to tight internet in my woman but you do you, I guess.

He can borrow against that asset value for liquid cash at extremely low interest rates, so he essentially has access to at minimum 50-80% of that value. For all intents and purposes, and especially given that it would be essentially impossible for an individual to ever actually spend a trillion dollars, he has that much money.

If I own a house outright that’s worth $2 million but I only have $10 cash in the bank, it would be entirely disingenuous to say that I’m poor. It’s far more accurate to say I’m a millionaire.

No! No, see that’s wrong; it’s being exaggerated again!

Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.

Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.

To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.

I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.

I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.

My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.

Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.

I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.