Thats not how law making works though.

If you pass a bill then the job is done. It might be decades before it comes up again.

Poorly drafted legislation can ruin lives.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Anywhere on the fediverse. You just start your question with "windows was much easier than Linux because ..."

XKCD called this geek sniping. Its like a glitch in the minds of Linux dweebs.

Yeah there's loads of reasons not to support a bill which don't mean you don't support the idea.

Suppose a bill said billionaires should be taxed 50% of their wealth but only if their name doesn't start with "E".

My theory on Vietnam, Philippines, and India is that they think of the US as a favourable migration destination, and probably have relatives or contacts living there.

Also their political class is worse than Trump.

Careful there. All over the world people have been disregarding populist candidates like Pauline.

You're right that shes imploded a couple of times in the past, but shes learned a thing or 2, she has some wealthy and powerful supporters, and things are different in 2026.

I actually though her press club performance would've been a roaring success from her perspective. As with Trump, she just can't have negative exposure.

While I doubt she will ever be PM, shes going to wield some power in the Australian political landscape in the coming years.

Isn't the site choosing to use recaptcha?

Antifa! Antifa has been making the pool green.

I think we might be arguing about different things - youre espousing the merits of an alert system, myself and others are concerned that its mandatory and not able to be disabled.

The slippery slope i mentioned is not because im concerned about spam. If we embrace the government's ability to legislate that devices must perform specific functions, then that sets the foundation for all sorts of future encroachments.

I can see what OP is getting at but it's really an argument around semantics, and sentence structure.

For example, we don't say "Some fruits are similar to Apples", because it sounds daft and it's redundant.

On the other hand saying "Pears are similar to Apples" is of course fine, and helpful to someone who's never seen a Pear.

Like most shower thoughts, they're pointing out something obvious, but in an emotive way. "Primates aren't like us, we are like them!"

I personally have definitely encountered the point where I'm just not going to do some things merely because of "the principle".

Sorry chief this is one of those things that's so universally observed and understood it's a bit ridiculous to ask for a source. The first search result says:

Average US tariffs on Chinese exports now stand at 47.5 percent and cover 100 percent of all goods. China's average tariffs on US exports are at 31.9 percent and cover 100 percent of all goods. US tariffs have risen by 26.8 percentage points since the second Trump administration began on January 20, 2025. Chinese tariffs have risen by 10.7 percentage points over the same period.

Average US tariffs on imports from China had increased to 127.2 percent in early May 2025, before later being reduced. The second Trump administration had reached those heights by increasing tariffs on imports from China through a number of different actions, not all of which were China-specific.

https://www.piie.com/...

I assumed it was a generated image.

At the very least, the water is too green.

If it happens to be legit, no they're not scooping algae because they don't have anything to scoop it into.

That said, during algal blooms in estuaries et cetera physically removing it is part of the process. If a healthy estuary is free of whatever variety of algae, but it gets infested somehow for example due to fertiliser run off from farms, then stopping the fertiliser may not be enough to solve the problem because the estuary is clogged up with algae.

Trump has been doing this fraud-in-plain-sight thing forever.

I've read comments that say it works because the defense is that it's so obvious it can't be deceitful. As in: if you wanted to hand $15m to a donor you'd find a secretive way to do it.

I personally believe it's just learned ineptitude. He's just deceitful at every turn and he's never encountered any consequences so why would he change?

Well i guess you'd start by observing what has and hasn't worked for other world leaders.

My wife leaves her sunglasses on the dashboard of her car and they slide to the left or slide to the right when you go around a corner.

A few minutes of that is enough to ruin my day.

Sorry mate 6 months ago there was a parade of leaders handing over unique unobtainable gifts.

Of course theyre also trying to strengthen alternative relationships but most leaders tried to avoid the worst of the tariffs by giving gifts to Trump.

Isn't that strait closed again?

I feel like Trump's humility has been inadequate for the Iranians.

To be fair, getting the best outcome for your citizens is usually achieved by sucking up to Trump with gifts.

It sucks but the reality is that he controls a lot of power and he absolutely will use it to punish millions of people if they don't fellate his ego sufficiently.

It’s literally just a priority alert. The AFP aren’t taking control of your phone, and there is no evidence you’re going to be flooded with alerts either.

There's absolutely a "slippery slope" argument to be made here. Would you also allow a "feature" which allows rescuers to see your location? Generally I despise slippery slope arguments but in the context of government surveillance steady incremental encroachment is an established strategy. Every step should be resisted.

I’ve had f**kwits in my hiking group REFUSE to listen

These people won't be deterred by an alert on their phone.

My response to your general argument is simply that people have been avoiding disasters without these alerts since the dawn of time. I don't really see the harm in allowing users to disable them.