Because if no one reviews the articles then anyone could publish junk. In highly technical fields the only people qualified to tell if something is BS science are the experts in the field, so they review and make sure the article has some merit.

That’s not to say the reviewing process is perfect, but it does at least help to filter some amount of bs.

You’re assuming that they scouted this and carefully planned it to ensure they wouldn’t cause damage. I doubt that.

Seems like they did:

The canvas of the painting is protected with a glass screen, a factor Just Stop Oil said they had taken into account.

I haven’t quite finished it yet, my feeling is that it slightly overstays it’s welcome.

I’ve also noticed that most of the time I do a thing or two in the game then realise there’s not quite enough time in the loop to do another thing, but just enough time to make me want to not waste the loop, since I find starting a new loop a bit tedious.

From memory it respawns the low level enemies constantly, since they’re just ammo/health/armour pinatas. You needed to kill the big enemies to complete an arena.

Not really a fan of the design choice, but I had a decent amount of fun when I clicked with how the Devs wanted you to play.

I convinced my partner to play it recently and the way I knew she’d finished it was that I could hear sniffling from the desk behind me.

The no campaign is run by pretty seasoned wreckers.

Just now you haven’t answered the queries he had repeatedly made, you’ve shot them down.

The same line used by climate change deniers for ages, while they disingenuously repeated the same arguments that had been debunked or were nonsense.

https://archive.is/20230924091719/https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-a-thousand-messages-how-a-top-public-servant-tried-to-influence-governments-20230919-p5e5ss.html?btis=

$387 billion cost

You could get a whole new fleet of nuclear subs for that!

Maybe they’re fighting climate change one downvote at a time

The government could do many things, but it’s not the question being asked by the constitutional amendment. It’s not hard to find the design principles for the voice, something I suspect people wouldn’t read even if this wasn’t going to referendum.

Wanting to see something for two years first is kind of an excuse to never do anything. It’s also not really a good argument for voting no, because the idea is that the “shape” of the voice can be changed if it isn’t working. What people are voting on is the concept.

I dunno what else to tell you, that’s the proposal and that’s where we are. If people are voting no because lack of details there’s not much to do to convince them. The government is hardly going to release more details now.

The point of there not being an extremely precise definition of the voice in the constitution is that it can be changed if it’s not working. Most parts of the constitution are like this afaik.

What you are being asked is if you support putting a passage in the constitution that would ensure a body with the express purpose of indigenous representation exists.

The conservatives have been getting worse over the past say, 10 years, Trump kind of accelerated things and that style of “who cares what the truth is” was exported from the US.

The right wing in general was always going to end up being like this though.

Cost is often factored in when it comes to optimising fusion power plant design so potentially, plus other benefits of fusion. Either way, barring a breakthrough the closest power barring breakthroughs is probably at best 2040 imo. Even with all the new startups.

I think of it less as a question and more of an admission

They could have avoided a chunk of this by passing Zali stegalls bill on truth in advertising, but I guess abandoning your cornerstone policy on reconciliation is a small price to pay for being able to lie at the next election.

Global warming is a hoax, the real threat is global eucalypting

I guess the greens decided they couldn’t get anything more out of Labor.

Yes but a contained nightmare.

The article doesn’t refer to violent offenders? Is this in the actual report from the truth telling commission?

What’s your point here? The article you linked relates to a murder in Qld and seems to have nothing to do with the report from truth telling commission.