431–437 of 437 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed she did make a difference in 1975 when her representative fired no other than the Prime Minister. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...
Yes, every once in a while. Hence my qualification with 'much of a difference'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, the government is a true monopoly (for good reason) so you can't just stop being their "customer" whenever you like. You may end up spending your entire life oppressed by your fellow citizens who may be indifferent towards your needs. So I think there is a good reason for not having the government directly run everything. It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean burea…
> It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean bureaucratic control, very indirectly influenced by a democratic choice between a handful of parties once every 4 or 5 years. Even direct democratic control would be a nightmare. In practice the bureaucratic layer probably tempers the worst excesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of examples of where personalization results in a worse experience for users but better metrics for the tech company. Somehow the Instagram ads algorithm has figured out exactly what I’m self conscious about with my own body; all I see are ads for invisible braces, skin cleansers, and hair treatments. I don’t actually want to buy any of these things, and they make me feel bad to look at. A de-personali…
You can click the ... menu, then "hide ad". It will show you fewer similar ads in the future. An unpersonalized IG ad experience would be teenage women's clothing and Netflix branding (assuming you're in the US). You probably don't want that either.
Australian here. Fuck News Corp, one of the most corrupt entities in Australia that directly collude and interfere with our elections for the benefit of themselves and Big Coal. I hope Google don’t fuck around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? Democracy isn’t a sacrament, it doesn’t sanctify the government. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy does not have moral valence as such.
Hitler wasn't elected, in fact the Weimar Republic was mostly incapable of forming a working government during the time it existed. Like many before him Hitler was assigned his position in the hope that his failure to uphold his promises would also cripple his support in the population. His biggest grab for power was underlined by armed SA troops in the Reichstag, a lot of imprisoned or outright missing politicians a…
A similar thing could easily happen today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hitler wasn't elected, in fact the Weimar Republic was mostly incapable of forming a working government during the time it existed. Like many before him Hitler was assigned his position in the hope that his failure to uphold his promises would also cripple his support in the population. His biggest grab for power was underlined by armed SA troops in the Reichstag, a lot of imprisoned or outright missing politicians a…
The Nazi faction, led by Hitler actually 'won' the election because their party got the most votes, but not enough to have an absolute majority so they were going to have to make some kind of coalition. A similar thing could easily happen today.
The coalition Hitler lead had around 240 of 580 seats. They didn't have an absolute majority because they weren't even near having any kind of majority. Of course a hundred of the other seats were held by communists and those went up in flames after the Reichstag fire and the subsequent ban on left leaning political organisations.
> A similar thing could easily happen today.
The last time a German government tried to outlaw an opposition party it ended up with the courts throwing the case out for involving too many law enforcement moles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To hell with "them"? Are you saying Australians should cut off their nose to spite their face? I think you missed the whole point of this letter. Let me clarify: "Oi mate, the government wants to force us to fuck you royally. We don't want to. Please help stop yourself getting fucked. Cheers, cunt."
I think you missed the /whole/ point of the comment. You are starting from the premise that google care about australians. This is a demonstrably false assumption. They don't pay their tax. They would destroy australians in a heartbeat for more money. It's not opinion, they've shown that themseleves. That is just a sad fact. Now re-read your comment and tell me if there is any good reason anyone should care about wha…
I'm absolutely not. Complete misunderstanding of everything I'm saying.
"Hey that guy is about to stab you!" -"fuck you you're a .. aaaaaargh I'm being stabbed!"
> They would destroy australians in a heartbeat for more money. It's not opinion, they've shown that themseleves. That is just a sad fact.
Also 100% irrelevant.
> Now re-read your comment and tell me if there is any good reason anyone should care about what google says
Only if they are right.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. A fact (if indeed it is) said by the stupidest evilest entity, is true even if they said it.
Feynman has a great bit about that. No matter who says it, if it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
But go ahead, be fucked by both google and the gov, if you prefer being doubly fucked.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.