I would blow Dane Cook posted:

we actually need them

duck monster posted:

Monthly Duck checkin;-

So I just tried Oporto last night.

Heres my conclusion: Nandos supremacy.

Amethyst posted:

Yes yes everything is grey and nothing is good or bad. The massive sectarian war consuming the middle east is fine. Groups like Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and Jabhat Al Nusra? Nothing to worry about. Saudi Arabia's sectarian war on Yemen is not remarkable you will find catholics doing the same thing in uhhhhhh

Amethyst posted:

Agreed, experiences exist on a binary good/bad axis and nothing else matters. Anyone who claims to have a varied and textured existence is basically being a snob.

hooman posted:

TheIllestVillain posted:

bell jar posted:

hi im hooman i have never heard of sarcasm

hooman posted:

Hi, I'm belljar and I've entirely missed the point.

Birdstrike posted:

hi belljar im dad

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

It’s ridiculous to force owners to upgrade their properties to meet retrospective energy efficiency standards, the cost would be prohibitive in many of the older paper thin houses in inner Canberra, either further reducing the supply of free standing housing available in the rental market, or, most definitely increase rents. Rental investment is indeed a business, however not a charity, owners would be forced to make tough business decisions to assess the viability of their investment. With skyrocketing land tax and the costs associated with retrofitting an old shonky house without the prospect of increasing rents to offset the expenses most business owners would make the decision that it was no longer a wise investment. Rental stock would dwindle forcing rent up, renters to live in apartments or on the city’s fringes where newer houses have better energy efficiency. We live in one of these paper thin houses, where the temperature inside is the same as it is outside! But it would be inconceivable to waste money trying to improve this house that was so poorly designed from the beginning. But we wanted to live in a house, in this area, and we had to start somewhere. We prioritised saving over holidays, eating out and shopping, and finally got our foot in the door in this delightful house. We can’t afford everything we want at once, we will make do in this house, freeze and boil through another few Canberra seasons until we can afford to do something about it. Why should renters be any different, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Save, buy, or accept some of the negatives that come with renting. The fact is landlords aren’t evil rich corporations and we actually need them to provide houses for people to live in.

quote:

Each year, a staggering $68 billion is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

It’s ridiculous to force owners to upgrade their properties to meet retrospective energy efficiency standards, the cost would be prohibitive in many of the older paper thin houses in inner Canberra, either further reducing the supply of free standing housing available in the rental market, or, most definitely increase rents. Rental investment is indeed a business, however not a charity, owners would be forced to make tough business decisions to assess the viability of their investment. With skyrocketing land tax and the costs associated with retrofitting an old shonky house without the prospect of increasing rents to offset the expenses most business owners would make the decision that it was no longer a wise investment. Rental stock would dwindle forcing rent up, renters to live in apartments or on the city’s fringes where newer houses have better energy efficiency. We live in one of these paper thin houses, where the temperature inside is the same as it is outside! But it would be inconceivable to waste money trying to improve this house that was so poorly designed from the beginning. But we wanted to live in a house, in this area, and we had to start somewhere. We prioritised saving over holidays, eating out and shopping, and finally got our foot in the door in this delightful house. We can’t afford everything we want at once, we will make do in this house, freeze and boil through another few Canberra seasons until we can afford to do something about it. Why should renters be any different, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Save, buy, or accept some of the negatives that come with renting. The fact is landlords aren’t evil rich corporations and we actually need them to provide houses for people to live in.

JBP posted:

I did it this morning:

"Your cultural tastes are most similar to a middle class woman, aged 40-59 with a postgraduate education."

It doesn't work good though because it doesn't ask what indulgences you enjoy ironically and also lists a large number of Australia authors. No one wants to read that boring poo poo.

duck monster posted:

Monthly Duck checkin;-

So I just tried Oporto last night.

Heres my conclusion: Nandos supremacy.

GoldStandardConure posted:

Nandos > Oportos

Most things > Oportos

kirbysuperstar posted:

Hell no

Zenithe posted:

Meat Is Delicious.

duck monster posted:

Monthly Duck checkin;-

So I just tried Oporto last night.

Heres my conclusion: Nandos supremacy.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

It’s ridiculous to force owners to upgrade their properties to meet retrospective energy efficiency standards, the cost would be prohibitive in many of the older paper thin houses in inner Canberra, either further reducing the supply of free standing housing available in the rental market, or, most definitely increase rents. Rental investment is indeed a business, however not a charity, owners would be forced to make tough business decisions to assess the viability of their investment. With skyrocketing land tax and the costs associated with retrofitting an old shonky house without the prospect of increasing rents to offset the expenses most business owners would make the decision that it was no longer a wise investment. Rental stock would dwindle forcing rent up, renters to live in apartments or on the city’s fringes where newer houses have better energy efficiency. We live in one of these paper thin houses, where the temperature inside is the same as it is outside! But it would be inconceivable to waste money trying to improve this house that was so poorly designed from the beginning. But we wanted to live in a house, in this area, and we had to start somewhere. We prioritised saving over holidays, eating out and shopping, and finally got our foot in the door in this delightful house. We can’t afford everything we want at once, we will make do in this house, freeze and boil through another few Canberra seasons until we can afford to do something about it. Why should renters be any different, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Save, buy, or accept some of the negatives that come with renting. The fact is landlords aren’t evil rich corporations and we actually need them to provide houses for people to live in.

Anidav posted:

Anidav posted:

Anidav posted:

Aesculus posted:

Hang on, isn't this literally illegal?

JBP posted:

It's the same as advertising for Chinese staff at phone shops in Box Hill.

e: imagine being dumb enough to write it on the ad in English and put it online though. You just throw the Indian applications in the bin as you get them.

JBP posted:

e: imagine being dumb enough to write it on the ad in English and put it online though. You just throw the Indian applications in the bin as you get them.

Zenithe posted:

Also this is Optus. How many people would this have to been seen by that none of them thought "yeah nah"

Zenithe posted:

Also this is Optus. How many people would this have to been seen by that none of them thought "yeah nah"

quote:

Many of the country’s wealthiest private schools are receiving bonus payments from a secretive fund the Turnbull government claims is necessary to help schools transition to its Gonski 2.0 funding model.
On Sydney’s north shore alone, Loreto Kirribilli, St Aloysius’ College and St Ignatius' Riverview are among the 102 independent schools – most of them in NSW - receiving top-up payments from the $7.1 million pool in 2018.
From next year, these schools will also be able to claim extra money from the Commonwealth under the so-called National Adjustment Assistance Fund for historically overfunded schools that “may find it unreasonably hard to adjust” to the Gonski 2.0 arrangements.

The payments come on top of the annual per-student funding doled out by Canberra to private schools.
That is despite these schools being overfunded already, receiving up to 192 per cent of their fair share from Canberra when the target for private schools is 80 per cent (with 20 per cent from the states).
The president of the Australian Education Union, Correna Haythorpe, branded the pot of money a “slush fund” and accused Education Minister Simon Birmingham of striking a secret “special deal” to prop up already-wealthy private schools.

Documents obtained by the union under freedom of information laws reveal 64 of the 102 schools to receive additional funding in 2018 are in NSW, including the elite eastern suburbs schools of Ascham, Kambala and Kincoppal Rose Bay. Victorian schools include the overfunded Melbourne Grammar, Haileybury College and Melbourne Girls’ Grammar.
Although the Department of Education provided the names of schools receiving money from the fund in 2018, it would not say how much extra each school received. In answer to an FOI request, the department claimed it “does not currently have this information”.

In total, private schools will enjoy $47.4 million in additional federal payments in 2018. Of that, $7.1 million will flow directly to selected independent schools ($5.9 million in NSW) plus an extra $36.7 million for Catholic schools and $3.6 million for systemic independent schools.

Senator Birmingham has said the $7.1 million in extra assistance was agreed during negotiations with the school sectors over the Gonski 2.0 legislation and helps schools whose normal funding growth is less than 3 per cent in 2018. The Education Department has described them as "low indexation schools".

A handful of the schools - including Loreto, St Aloysius' and Monte Sant' Angelo - are among the 24 schools the government said would have actual reductions to their funding in 2018. But the additional assistance makes it unclear whether their total federal funding will actually fall.

The FOI documents show Loreto Kirribilli - one of the country's most over-funded schools - will receive $6.6 million in Commonwealth recurrent funding in 2018, or 191.9 per cent of its fair share, plus its top-up payment. St Aloysius' and Monte Sant' Angelo will both receive more than $6.15 million, plus top-up funds.

Ms Haythorpe blasted the "special deal" for private schools, referring to Senator Birmingham's oft-repeated declaration that Gonski 2.0 would remove the special deals put in place by Labor.
“It’s ironic that Simon Birmingham talks about not having special deals in place but at the same time he negotiated a range of special deals that have seriously advantaged the independent sector,” she told Fairfax Media.
“The reality is that having a slush fund which advantages the private sector is quite offensive given the great need for the public sector – the vast majority of our schools – 87 per cent of which will not reach the benchmark for funding by 2023.”
While the 2018 payments are a one-off, from 2019 to 2027 the $40 million National Adjustment Assistance Fund will be used to boost payments to private schools which have "low and negative growth" in funding under Gonski 2.0.
The guidelines explain some schools "may find it unreasonably hard to adjust to the change" and estimate that 30 non-systemic independent schools will be deemed eligible for the fund.

School funding will be back on the agenda at a meeting of the country's education ministers in Adelaide on Friday, following weeks of furore from the Catholic sector (particularly in Victoria) over perceived inequities in the funding model.
The Education Council will also hear from Chief Scientist Alan Finkel on improving links with the science, technology, engineering and mathematics industries, and discuss a demand from some states to review the NAPLAN literacy and numeracy exams.
The Independent Schools Council of Australia declined to comment.

JBP posted:

When I used to advertise for staff at the phone shop I worked for during uni I'd ask the boss what to write and he would always reply "blonde, 5'10", big tits" so I made sure the ad would always specify that people with bubbly and outgoing personalities should scramble to apply.

The Peccadillo posted:

Gross, dude