fishfush

I wonder if the new excuse any time a media company does something dodgy is “oh it was the AI sorry!”

If they still have nothing in a few months I guess their main value will be as a protest vote.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

What’s the point of contesting if you have no policy positions? All they’ve said afaik is pretty much identical to lib talking points “labur/greens is failing the act”, “no one is listening to the people”

So far seems pretty cynical imo.

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.

It really is shocking how talentless you can be to be a successful right wing talking head.

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.

American politics infects Australian politics in many ways sadly.

This changes the effect of negative campaigning (people still show up in Aus vs the US), but the idea is to dissuade people from voting for someone, rather than encourage them to vote for you. This might have a positive effect on votes for the party doing the negative campaigning, but I think it’s a poor definition of convincing someone to vote for you.

I don’t think this is a useful definition of voting for

which implicitly gets them to vote for you.

Seems to only be true if you think of there being only 2 parties, which is why I don’t think the definition is good.

It’s hard to cuff someone doing a nazi salute when your right hand is up in the air.

Compulsory voting means any campaign has to be focused on actually getting people to vote for you

I don’t think this is necessarily true, did you miss the massive amounts of negative campaigning that happens every election?

He fucking loves playing this card.

“if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” was always BS.

Yeah but how are the cops supposed to access our data without a warrant or any form of notice?

None of this is surprising but it’s good to get the names of these people. This sort of shit rambling about elites works in the US and UK, so of course it works here too.

I don’t even understand much of the basics of how the Australian government works

It’s a meme but if you don’t know how the government works maybe start with Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system

There’s also boring arse government info: here

Most of this still will probably be pretty dry, but that’s politics for you.

I am completely uninformed and have to vote based off of the miniscule amount of information I have which may not even be correct

To be honest this is probably most people. Even people who think their well informed can be way off the mark also (look at the cookers for instance). The only thing you can do is try get news from a range of sources, be careful to note what is opinion and what is not and try to analyse the source itself. All sources are biased, but some are more well researched or more truthful. Remember also that if you doubt something said in an article you can always cross check with another article, or even do a quick google scholar search (look at a few articles or try and find a review paper - most will tell you what they conclude in the abstract, which you can read for free).

While its true that there are open-access journals and conferences without such costs

To publish open access normally costs upwards of $3k USD as well. There’s practically no point in the publishing chain where academics aren’t getting screwed.

Let’s also not forget that you have to review other people’s papers for the journal for free.

Well as people worried about victims I’d just be worried it might seem a tad disingenuous quote from a vast minority of cases and not provide any quotes from victims that never see justice you know?