I'm already fully prepared for all my social media accounts to be deleted (because there's no way in hell I'm giving google my ID).

If they go after Steam or my email then I'd be in trouble, but I think those'll be fine.

Actual zero is impossible. "Actual net zero" is what we should aim for (climate accounting with offsets can get a bit freaky)

This post misses another reason for voting being rusted-on Labor. The alternatives are more interested in virtue signalling than actually forming and keeping government. Labor have delivered meaningful results to Australians, in some areas they've not delivered but they've lost every election where they promised solutions to those issues.

Minor parties have historically blocked forward progress. The ETS, the HAFF, the logging ban in Tasmania, etc. Labor has historically delivered forward progress (Renewables, Superannuation, etc).

That was Abbott, not Gillard.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2828425

It says fluoride levels of 2-4mg/L are correlated in a reduction of IQ. But technically the WHO has long since recommended a maximum of 1.5mg/L due to a risk of fluorosis which is a comparatively minor concern, though it's hard to find information about what levels are considered safe beyond "recommendations". Either way many places have higher than 2mg/L of fluoride in the tap water (due to natural content).

Not just whether they're worth the cost. Not just whether they'll have any tactical value in 25y time.

But will we even ever get them.

I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAFF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.

The suggestion that there's no excuse not to take a gamble and try again really undersells how bad the LNP is for this country. A decade of Labor would do far more good than properly taxing the mining companies.

I know a lot of terminally online people like to say both sides are the same, and on the headline policies a lot of the time they are, but if you pay attention to the fine details you'll see that the coalition are SO much worse.

But by American standards, they're the equivalent of the Democrats ... mostly. We have a party, "One Nation", that's closer to Republicans and some members of the Liberal party are ideologically aligned with One Nation but members of the Liberal party because they need to win elections (similar to Albo, who's on the left-wing of labor but governs as a moderate because the far-left is an election losing position).

And a important thing for Americans to note is that in our ranked-choice voting system, a surprising number of One Nation (Republican) voters tend to rank Labor (Bernie Sanders) over the Liberals (Democrats). This is to say that not only is trying to appeal to swing voters in America a stupid idea because unlike Australia elections there are fought on turnout, but trying to do that by behaving like the Democrats has the exact opposite effect.

This is to say, if you put up a centrist for president in the (alleged) next election America then you will absolutely lose. Same if it's a slimy disingenuous corrupt Californian like Harris or Newsom.

We'd probably better be able to rely on the Chinese ones during WW3 than the American ones.

He probably arranged for this himself. Wouldn't put it past him.

More people should spoil their ballot instead of doing the donkey vote. If they want to express disinterest, the former is better than the latter.