Gen Z Australians are ‘all in’ on generative AI and are embracing tools like ChatGPT in the workplace at speed and without fear, according to new research.
NO! You are not allowed to enjoy things, you must be sad, capitalism bad, communism is solution to all our problems. enshitification. enshitification. enshitification. 😡
this is getting to hawk tuah levels of stupidity
because muslims have a book with instructions from a being that lives in outer space that tells them that sexual deviancy is morally reprehensible and shouldn’t be encouraged or allowe
i’m so glad they may have a statement from an official which may indicate a necessary condition for the legal threshold of genocide to be met
tbh i didn’t need that to see the Rwanda genocide, it was easy to see from all the dead bodies lined along the street as they went house to house killing them all the same way Palestinians did on Oct 7th
i didn’t say the author is 10, i picked a random age
i could have said really 6 years olds stressing over property prices? yeah right
the original article:
Labor’s social media ban will not benefit young people
and you believe the majority of kids are having one meal a day?
ban is for under 16s
i also strongly doubt that social media is doing much to help the kids who are stressing about those things
was this written by ai?
The statistics show that much of young people’s declining mental health is caused by social issues such as the cost-of-living crisis, housing insecurity and fears about the climate emergency, much of which can be sheeted home to government policies.
really 10 year olds worried about cost of living and housing??
Just let people live how they want to live!! I don’t understand why it’s so complicated for Christian fundies to understand that.
What makes you think Christian fundies have ever been about "Just let people live how they want to live!!" which appears to be a 1970's hippie inspired slogan?
Almost the complete opposite of what Christians and Jews and especially Muslims are about.
According to Ed Husic, the Minister for Science, Indigenous Australians were “the nation’s first scientists”, whose insights, obtained “through observation, experimentation and analysis”, rested upon “the bedrock of the scientific method”. Nor is Husic alone in making those claims. Thanks to generous taxpayer funding, a burgeoning industry promotes “Indigenous science” in venues ranging from schools to universities.
But to call Indigenous knowledge “science” grossly misrepresents the nature of the scientific enterprise that emerged from the intellectual revolution of the 17th century. The error is neither innocent nor harmless: it both devalues that revolution’s achievements, which made Western science into an engine room of human progress, and projects a romantic, yet fundamentally condescending, vision of Indigenous culture.
To refer to the changes that occurred in the 17th century as a revolution is not to ignore the solid foundations on which they built. The notion of science as an activity that, in the words of Diogenes Laertius (180AD-240AD), seeks to “understand things as they are” through the “rational explanation of phenomena”, was well known in classical antiquity and persisted into the Middle Ages.
However, the great thinkers of the 17th century radically transformed what Kant later referred to as science’s “regulative principles”: that is, the rules that distinguished science, as an activity and as a body of knowledge, from mere knowhow. At a fundamental level, the transformation involved a dramatic change in the conception of the cosmos.
In effect, the 17th century upended the Aristotelian view of nature, which claimed that the basic properties of matter differed in the various parts of the universe. Nature, the proponents of the new science argued, was homogenous, uniform and symmetrical: matter was the same throughout the universe, governed by the same causes or forces. Moreover, those forces were mechanical: the very essence of science lay in uncovering their laws of motion.
In turn, those presuppositions of regularity and homogeneity underpinned a change that proved momentous: the rejection of Aristotle’s prohibition on metabasis, that is, on the transposition of methods from one discipline to another.
The sciences, said Rene Descartes in 1637, could not progress “in isolation from each other”; they all had to advance, and could only advance, by adopting common methods, centred on developing mathematical representations of the phenomena they were seeking to explain.
And the test of those representations had to be both analytical and empirical: analytical in terms of mathematical correctness; empirical, in that it had to be shown that the representation could be used to recreate the phenomenon.
Truth, in other words, was “fact” in the Latin sense of the word: that which can be done or made. As Giambattista Vico summarised the new thinking in 1710, “verum et factum convertuntur” – the true is that which can be converted into fact, ie, can be done in practice.
That is why Newton, to prove the existence of a centre of gravity, devised the famous experiment of the rotating bucket filled with water. It is also why Francis Bacon resuscitated the Greek term “praxis” – the unity of theory and practice – in the Novum Organum (1620) to describe the “scientia activa” of experimentation, which, far from diverting study from its object, was the sole means of “augmenting” it.
Those contentions, and particularly the emphasis on factual replicability, provoked vociferous objections from the so-called Occasionalists, who feared the implication that we can master the making of the universe in the same way as does the creator. However, the pioneers of the new science were cautious in their claims. Yes, mathematical techniques could accurately model limiting cases, such as motion in a vacuum; but they only approximated actual outcomes. And it was improper to speculate about the underlying causes of phenomena beyond what could be directly observed and experimentally verified.
Hence Newton’s great outcry, “hypotheses non fingo”, “I feign no hypotheses”, regardless of how much superficial completeness adding unproven hypotheses might give his system.
That intellectual modesty opened the road to a recognition of the uncertainties inherent both in the actual operation of the laws of motion and in their testing. In what ranks among humanity’s great breakthroughs, Blaise Pascal’s work on probability theory, and Thomas Bayes’ formalisation of inductive inference, set the basis for the systematic hypothesis testing that allowed Western science to progress at an unprecedented rate.
But that rate of progress also reflected another crucial feature of the intellectual revolution: its openness. Traditionally, true knowledge had been seen as esoteric, handed down, within closed circles, from one generation to the other and validated by the weight of inherited authority. By the end of the 17th century, that notion had been utterly discredited.
Instead, theories, models and experimental results were widely published, discussed and contested, vastly accelerating their development.
In short, what defined Western science and made it absolutely unique – and uniquely powerful – was the tight integration of formal methods, rigorous verification and public replicability. Additionally and crucially, it was self-aware, devoting ongoing attention to the regulative principles with which scientific practice had to comply.
The contrast even to China could not have been starker, helping to explain why China’s initial advantage in virtually every area of technology stalled and then collapsed. As for the chasm separating science from Indigenous knowhow, with its secrecy, its anthropomorphic explanations and its reliance on the authority of elders, it can only be measured in light years.
However, Husic’s claim is not just absurd. It is, like Bruce Pascoe’s fantasies about settled agriculture, deeply patronising. Husic plainly does not grasp the complex of ideas that comprise the scientific method. But he clearly believes that Indigenous culture, if it is to be respected, must be cast as an anticipation, if not a mirror, of Western culture. If we had science, whatever that may be, they must have had it too – and many centuries before us.
One might have hoped that the decisive refutation of Pascoe’s contentions by Keryn Walshe and Peter Sutton would have laid those views, and the broader attitudes they embody, to rest.
Yet they live on, thanks, in part, to sheer ignorance. Also at work is the conviction that historical accuracy and intellectual honesty matter less than “celebrating” Indigenous culture – a conviction that, far from promoting science, offends the unbending commitment to the truth that is science’s very essence. Significant too is the now ingrained hostility to the Western achievement, and to the scientific spirit, which is among its glittering jewels, with it.
However, spinning fairytales is no way of convincing the community, and young people in particular, of science’s vast potential. Nor will it do anything to reverse the continuing fall in the number of high school students taking core science subjects. Having a minister for science who knows what the term means will certainly not solve those problems. But it would be a sensible place to start.
Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments.
What other words are they gatekeeping? Considering how badly the left has buggered up the word "man" and "woman" gatekeeping looks to be the order of the day to me.
The west gave weapons to kurds and then left then to die like cowards.
If you cannot argue accurately please don't bother arguing at all.
The bulk of CJTF-OIR's combat operations have consisted of airstrikes against Islamic State; various ground forces have been deployed including special forces, artillery, training, and military advisors. The United States accounts for the vast majority of airstrikes (75–80%), with the remainder conducted by Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.[22] Although the task force is not under NATO, all 32 members of the military alliance are contributing to CJTF-OIR.[23]
By the end of 2017, CJTF-OIR stated that its airstrikes had killed over 80,000 ISIL fighters.[24] The coalition also provided $3.5 billion in military equipment to the Iraqi Armed Forces,[25] billions more to the Peshmerga, and trained 189,000 Iraqi soldiers and police.[26] It has also provided significant support to the Syrian Democratic Forces, with which it coordinates various operations.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Operation_Inherent_Resolve
Small difference, ISIS are the most disgusting animals/people on the planet, the most extreme militant muslims in a world full of extremist muslims.
The muslims who left Australia to go join ISIS were looking forward to gang raping children, beheading anyone who doesn't join islam and committing an actual genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_genocide
Over a period of three years, Islamic State militants trafficked thousands of Yazidi women and girls and killed thousands of Yazidi men;[14] the United Nations reported that the Islamic State killed about 5,000 Yazidis[5] and trafficked about 10,800 Yazidi women and girls in a "forced conversion campaign"[15][16] throughout Iraq. By 2015, upwards of 71% of the global Yazidi population was displaced by the genocide, with most Yazidi refugees having fled to Iraq's Kurdistan Region and Syria's Rojava
The IDF are our allies and are fighting the people like this
https://metro.co.uk/2024/10/13/one-tiktok-video-led-rescue-isis-sex-slave-kidnapped-11-21786570/
She was repeatedly raped and traded between different fighters, according to the newspaper.
After being married to a 24-year-old Palestinian from Gaza. who was allegedly a member of Hamas, she was taken to the Isis stronghold of Raqqa.
they could not have put out a more insecure sounding statement
everything is perfectly fine, please do not look over here, there is no reason to look over here, why are you looking over here!?
awww they no longer get sex workers which is basically like sending them down a coal mine, i can see how that would be comparable to you
likewise, since you’re so certain it’s penny pinching feel free to post your numbers
i support all attempts to reduce the cost of this massively overbloated free money train
to quote the greens
Senator Jordon Steele-John, the Australian Greens spokesperson for Disability Rights and Services, has claimed that the reforms will result in the removal of crucial disability services, stating that ‘the Labor government is choosing to remove $14.4 billion in funding from the NDIS that will lead to disabled people not getting the support they need when they need it’.
Im not sure how $14.4 billion of tax payer money is penny pinching
a pointless penny pinching law
Really?
At an annual running cost of $35.8 billion in 2022-23, the federal government will spend more on the NDIS this financial year than Medicare ($30.8 billion), aged care ($27.7 billion), and support for state government hospitals ($27.3 billion).
Penny pinching on one of the least productive, most expensive government expenses! Crazy! I have no idea why they are so focused on it.
Fossil fuel billionaires do not contribute to the economy
this will be news to the majority of Australians*
Company taxes paid reached a new record high of $26.5 billion and royalties also reached a high of $16.7 billion in 2020-21, contributing significantly to federal, state and territory governments at a time when they needed it most during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The record company and royalties payments are highlighted in an Ernst & Young report commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, which also shows that in the last decade (between 2011-12 and 2020-21), the mining industry contributed $254 billion in company taxes and royalties ($142 billion and $112 billion respectively).
The industry in Australia continues to pay the highest average wages, the most company taxes, delivers the most export revenue and is critical to supporting regions and communities – supporting 1.1 million jobs in the mining industry and its supply chains.
https://miningmagazine.com.au/mining-industry-records-43-billion-paid-in-company-tax-and-royalties/
I cannot believe you would be silly enough to say mining doesn't contribute to the Australian economy
https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australias-goods-services-by-top-25-exports-2022-23.pdf
It's our number 1,2 and 3 highest exports lmao
A single executive flight negates all of that.
You're right however there are some mitigating factors here, I don't know if you're in America but lets use that country as an example
The United States takes the lead in the number of departures – with 3.5 million in 2023
In 2023, some 4.4 million homes were equipped with solar panels in the United States. This figure is projected to increase significantly in the next years, reaching some 16.8 million houses by 2032.
So already last year you are eliminating the co2 of jet flights entirely and in 2022:
Today, nearly 4% of single-family homes in the US generate electricity from solar panels
Just 4%!
Quite simply the number of houses that can have solar dwarfs the number of private flights taking place, literally every little bit helps.
No raindrop thinks it's part of a flood and look at how small aviation is in the big picture:
It's coal and gas power that are a far bigger contributor to the pain than private jets.
On top of that you're assuming that these private jet flights are the norm and will remain the norm forever despite the fact solar has massively disrupted the global energy supply in just 10 short years and battery prices continue to come down substantially
There are thousands of companies working towards co2 free flights
https://www.airbus.com/en/sustainability/respecting-the-planet/decarbonisation
https://www.amslaero.com/news/landmark-free-flight
But even today there is work being done on sustainable fuels:
Airbus’ most popular aircraft takes to the skies with 100% sustainable aviation fuel This A321neo is the first Airbus single-aisle aircraft to test 100% SAF on both engines
Currently, all Airbus commercial and military aircraft, as well as helicopters are capable of flying with an up to a 50% blend of SAF. The goal is to ensure 100% SAF capability by 2030 of these products. The potential to cut emissions by up to 80% compared to traditional jet fuel highlights the immense possibilities for SAF usage in the aviation sector.
and
Qantas is currently in negotiations with a number of offshore suppliers to source additional supplies of SAF, which is in high demand globally and which the national carrier would prefer to source domestically.
Together with Airbus, Qantas committed to invest up to US$200 million to get a local SAF industry off the ground, including equity funding for new feedstock and refining projects.
Finally we know that there are substantial drops in the price and increase in size of solar batteries coming through over the next few years, and if the price drops to a point where they pay themselves off over a few years, why wouldn't you? This is not just about the planet anymore, it's just good economic sense
My last electricity bill (AUD):
Decrease from an average of $200
How much my car/EV costs to run per month charging from solar:
$5 (AUD) decrease from an average of $100 worth of petrol every month
Saving money and the planet? Can't complain about that surely :P
