This is the first result from Google. It’s I guess ancient history now being it was the labor rights push to (probably) unintentionally discredit kevin07, but internal politics aside Conroy (famous for his opposition to adult rating for videogames) was for aong time a candidate for ‘biggest piece of shit in Australian politics’. Stephen Conroy was the face of it, so search for him and firewall to your hearts content. The Alana and Madeline foundation were involved in some of the testing that damned the project, if I remember right (as if common sense hadn’t already damned it with seconds of the sales pitch).

Theres a scale of influence, with a big difference between foolproof and entirely unenforceable.

In this case, it’s effectively unenforceable, so what’s the point in wasting time and effort drafting something that won’t actually make any difference?

A few years ago the Australian government spent an enormous amount of money on a proposed firewall to protect the children. After years of development they were ready to pilot test their white elephant, and discovered that, on average, the Australian 12 year old could bypass it in ten minutes.

It’s unlikely that the government could even enforce an obstacle as robust as the “are you 18+” checkbox that porn sites opt in to. This new law will not have any influence on under 16s online presence.

Ergo he exploited the poophole loophole, thus our brother in Christ was (is?) an ass man.

You mean that what appeared to be a meticulously planned and masterfully executed assassination, such that there was little to no usable camera footage wasn’t likely to be undone the perp wandering around with a written confession and the murder weapon days later?

I’m shocked there haven’t been more conspiracy theories on this.

No need to be a dumb cunt mate. -18C to 38C is the closest you’d get to the 0-100F range I mentioned earlier. It’s a stupid-ass interval. Just as stupid as 5280 feet in a mile

Yeah, and people in metric round the exact same as they do in f. You think the hot parts of the US don’t hit 122 or something equally arbitrary? When talking range, anyone who isn’t unhinged approximates to the nearest whole number.

Why use negatives at all? There’s a perfectly good temperature scale that largely doesn’t need negatives, is conceptually similar to the base 10 construction of other SI units, and is more precise than Celsius.

Why the fuck not? It makes literally no difference. Some people like freezing to be at a focal point of a scale, and some based on this thread have some bizarre fear of negatives. Either preference is equally arbitrary and neither is objectively right.

Negative C is absolutely common what the fuck are you talking about. Canada, Russia, the US, some deserts. Several countries experience regular highs in the 0Cs during winter months and therefore negative lows. Someone should get out more.

A few degrees is common. Most populous county in the world is India, how common do you think it is there? Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico etc etc etc. it’s a minority of countries that experience anything substantially below zero c. You know, I’ve been to literal mt Everest base camp, lived in western pa and been to the winter Olympics in South Korea and still have never seen -20C. Does it exist? Obviously, but for day to day ease of use for like 80% of the worlds population it’s irrelevant.

Why do yanks insist picking such idiotic numbers when they speak in metric, seriously wtf is -18 to 38? If those were realistic temperatures, surely you realize it would be -20 to 40, no?

-20, or any negative c, is rare to most ff the worlds population so your comment is dumb on two fronts.

Mate I have to reply to that, because it’s such an insane claim - the US, the only country that doesn’t use °C, has this huge reliance on a monstrously complex credit system (obviously the entire concept of credit is reliant on the concept of debt and negatives). It’s flat out insane to suggest that the same people who live and function with such a credit system conceptually struggle with the fundamentals negative numbers. It’s a mind boggling claim.

Anyway, have a good one.

as if that logic can’t be applied to every unit system on earth.

Mate that’s my whole point. I grew up Celsius in Australia and use Farenheit day to day now. They are literally interchangable once you learn. It takes a month or two to get used of using them and beyond that, the literal only difference in difficulty of use is that it takes about ten seconds longer to calculate a green tea brew in f, which has no bearing on the weather anyway. All of the arguments above are garbage, as they are garbage when the exact same, inverted arguments are made by metric proponents.

What doesn’t make sense about it? You can tell another person it’s in the 30s outside, and you have efficiently communicated more information than is possible when using Celsius. You’d have to say it’s between 4 and negative 1, which is just lame. And this remains true across every temperature, because of a variety of factors which I explained above.

It doesn’t tell you anything that Celsius can’t with a 5 degree swing. This the absolute peak of arbitrary, both 5s and 10s are easy scales to work with. Your example of between 4 and negative one is deranged. I’m in houston right, it’s 90°f - if I want to comunnicate that to my yankee girlfriend I’d say “babe it’s 90° outside, might get up to one hundred” and so far, you’re right this is easy to articulate. If I want to communicate that same information to my mum, I’d say “hey it’s 30° outside, might get up to 35°”. Both cases convey information with the same accuracy, both cases I haven’t mentioned humidity, which for actual temperature feel has a way higher influence then 5 degrees, the extra information I’d gain by strictly converting 31-37.8°C is junk data, the farenheit measure is approximated to begin with and because of a humidity swing carries a huge variability in actual “feel” anyway. I tried to explain this above and clearly failed, as your response doesn’t touch on this at all and just insists that people who think in metric don’t default to easy to work with numbers.

In every climate which you mentioned above, it’s easier to communicate how hot or cold it is outside using Fahrenheit. This is because all of the numbers being used are non-negative integers (aka natural numbers). Even the triple digit ones are one-ten or one-twenty.

The only place with negative integers was Pittsburg, so that point doesn’t make sense for the rest and even if it was, your argument is insane. Saying negative 5 is no harder than saying 25, plus having negatives where snow and ice come into play makes it obvious when to be careful outside. I mean your argument here just makes no sense, if there is some added complexity to saying “negative” then it is surely comparable to having to remember a random number of 32. Literal kindergardeners understand negative numbers. Neither this or remembering the 32 number add any meaningful complexity and certainly have 0 impact on anyone’s actual use of either scale.

You certainly didn’t win any arguments with those claims.

0-100f is not anywhere close to the scale people see in the weather anywhere most people live. Taking where I’ve ever lived as an example:

• Melbourne ~ 30-120 f vs 0-45c,
• Gladstone QLD ~40-120f vs 5-45c,
• Pilbara ~65-130f vs 15c-50c,
• Dubai ~55-120f vs 20c-45c,
• Houston TX ~ 30-120f vs 0-45c,
• Pittsburg PA ~10-90 vs -15-30c.

The most iimportant number with respect to the weather is freezing, it’s handy knowing if you’re dealing with ice. The standard range for where people live is not -40 degrees, something like 2/3 of the world live between the tropics and will never see freezing or below. The -40 number makes sense if you live in Alaska or Siberia and maybe even somewhere like Minnesota, but certainly not to someone in India or Indonesia…

Neither scale is relative to cooking (which isequally arbitrary for both), though metric is easier for things like brewing 80°C tea since you need 4/5th a cup boiling water and 1/5 a cup and no thermometer.

The “feel” of the weather is hugely impacted by humidity which is why every forecast has a “feels like” measure and why 90°f in Dubai is lovely but 90°f in Houston is miserable. The increments of 10f doesn’t make sense at all, though seems to be a common perception among people who prefer fahrenheit

The comment about farenheit being more granular would be true in an alternative universe where decimals don’t exist, but not in this one.

Americans literally like farenheit more because it’s familiar, any other rationalisation is nonsense. Both measures make perfect sense after you’ve taken the time to learn them and use them daily (I know this firsthand).

Sure you can get a cheap 4k TV way less, but without a good refresh rate and response time it’s not suitable for gaming. $2k may be high, I’ve not been in the market super recently but it’s certainly wrong to say an entry level 4k Samsung from Costco is suitable for gaming, the response time isn’t close to give the right experience. Same logic as setting graphics to 4k and playing at like 15 fps on a computer on a dog of a GPU.

A computer does need a monitor, and honestly a decent one does cost often upwards of $300, but smaller size without any of the bundled processors etc make it way cheaper than a TV that can do the same.

I think this is completely misguided. An equivalent GPU as in the ps5 is reportedly an RTX 5700 XT ~$200.

The RTX 4060 Ti ~$400 or RTX 3080 ~$450 is comparable if you want 4k gaming, but since most people don’t have TV hardware suitable for 4k gaming it’s a dumb comparison unless you include the $2000 TV in addition to the cost of the console. The TV alone compares the cost of a competent 4k PC rig before you consider the $500 console, multiplayer subscription cost and higher price of games so unless you’re part of the niche that has a very high quality TV already, the claim that console gaming being cheaper seems mistaken.

*words hahaha

Only the first 7 letters words of this headline are needed.

It’s claiming that pushing men out of civilized communities, spaces and conversations ultimately leads to them embracing more accepting alt-right ideologies and movements.

XP sp1 and 2 were more or less the same as me with an updated UI and non existent 64 bit. However flawed vista was, it added an actual tangible benefit for 7 to further improve on.

I’d argue 7 was the last windows os that could be described as “better” in some way than what came before (which most, even the ones we remember as “bad” at the time, did offer some real step forward which isn’t true for 8/10/11).

If people wanted them, they’d sell them here.

Yeah depending on where “here” is different things are available. If people don’t buy them or if dealers make more money off SUVs, then they will be gone.

Also seems they have bigger engines and clearly a larger physical footprint than my wife’s CUV, so that argument is gone as well.

Size and fuel economy weren’t things I mentioned above, but yeah I agree with you. Usually station wagons, like SUVs, have different engine configurations which dictates fuel economy more than ride height. The fuel efficiency argument against SUVs is a little out of date, the smaller ones are shared chassis with passenger cars often with the same engine, so fuel economy is more or less unchanged (the aero is worse on an SUV, but the kind we are discussing it’s not really significant). By footprint I guess you mean length, which in the example I have is right, obviously height goes the other way. Smaller SUVs are more comparable to hatchbacks (eg Mazda 3 is the same as CX-30), I don’t think the mid sized car platform is as directly comparable to the mid sized CUV/SUV.

Ok so we could’ve saved time if you just said you’re the least cool person imaginable with negative sense of style. Claiming that this is somehow cooler than this is entirely indefensible, SUVs are the literal antithesis of cool, the “soccer mum” moniker is not a term of endearment and your insinuation that wagons are uncool or old fashioned is, at best, misinformed.

Aside from just being criminally uncool and unsexy, there are objective ways that SUVs/CUV are worse as well, most notably safety for other road users but also higher cost and of course the one people like me care about: that they also that they universally drive worse than a comparable passenger car.

Google pedestrian deaths by SUVs compared to conventional sedans. To say there is no rational argument against the SUV trend is laughably ignorant.

It also confuses me why yanks keep pretending small SUVs have more space than conventional station wagons. Unless you’re going full Yankee and think a 7 seater is “small”… despite the size they often have worse visibility and less passenger space, it’s a genuinely impressive how bad something like a Nissan kicks or toyota C-HR manage to be.