He’s right.
May I suggest contacting your state’s legal aid service. They could certainly point you to the right resource if they don’t already have the answers.
Stop-and-searches are part of a deliberate strategy of “proactive policing” used by NSW Police. … The idea is to reduce crime by increasing police interaction with the community.
That’s fishing.
We don’t want defed because it’s a sledgehammer ‘solution’ that immediately denies us agency and reeks of Reddit-tier pre-emptive sub banning.
The Nazi Bar idea is for the most part a boogeyman.
Thanks for posting, OP.
I hear you, but with traction comes the corporate interest.
It’s naive to think the model will die. In fact it’s merely getting new operators and beneficiaries in the form of Google, Disney, Warner, etc.
The state and commerce will always vie and co-operate for control of the public’s media access and consumption patterns, with an eye to market captivity.
So you’re telling me the model cannot consistently run at a profit, even through it relies on a massive unpaid labour force.
It strikes me as disguising a lack of real hobbies. What an utterly boring person you must be to spend surplus weekday time working for a second boss.
To acknowledge the truth of what you said but offer an explanation. It’s a fly in the ointment, if you like. No one wants to live in a low-trust society.
Public listing of grocery retail is a key cause of these problems. Listed food has the wrong owners, by virtue of being listed in the first place, and they’re pursuing their priorities at the direct expense of shoppers and suppliers.
If you suspect you’re being fucked on a favourite purchase category, direct your custom elsewhere (Aldi, Costco, family run) and review your consumption rate. If I see unreasonable price rises, I know I’m buying less as a rule.
Those traits are pitfalls of being a high trust society.
Grocery shopping is best done at small privately owned businesses. Small supermarkets in particular are and should be treasured by local communities. Something about their ownership structure and their lack of scale makes them more accountable to shoppers. They can’t afford to engage in the data wrangling red and green do to work out the maximum price the market will pay for tuna on Thursdays between 6 to 7pm. The fresh produce is often better quality, the PA music less insipid (or absent totally, hooray for Aldi), the stock actually looks a bit different quarter to quarter. It’s simply a better balance of power between org and individual.
If you’re shopping at large corporate retailers, especially when making vice purchases, you’re best using protection
What I’ve long been curious about is whether the service provider can derive a subscriber identity using the number. I mean of course the mobile network operator knows I’m me, but does Bluesky? Or is it merely a valid mobile number to them?
The only shining light in the housing affordability debate in Australia is when an economist gets the mic on something like Q&A and says the causes are juiced immigration and the tax code. But the other panellists invariably squirm, and the host obligingly steers the conversation back to a place where all the propagandists feel safe.
The videast himself doesn’t think he’ll post his videos to the Fediverse as it lacks monetization.
That’s code for YT can spit in my sharecropping face as much as it wants.
Diversity, equity and inclusivity are not zero-sum games
In the sense of individuals treating each other humanely day-to-day, sure. But when viewed through an employer lens, it’s a collection of strategies whose purpose is to maintain poor conditions for the coalescence of labor solidarity. There’s nothing non-zero-sum about that.
The big news/current affairs instances are characterized by autistic screeching that has only a passing relevance to the article posted. See https://iusearchlinux.fyi/post/5429432
You can take the commenter out of R*ddit…