|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:we actually need them Only under capitalism
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:36 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 20:18 |
|
Monthly Duck checkin;- So I just tried Oporto last night. Heres my conclusion: Nandos supremacy.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:37 |
|
duck monster posted:Monthly Duck checkin;-
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:45 |
|
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.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:49 |
|
hi im hooman i have never heard of sarcasm
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:51 |
|
Nandos > Oportos Most things > Oportos
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:52 |
|
https://twitter.com/LucyXIV/status/984630121012211713
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:54 |
|
bell jar posted:hi im hooman i have never heard of sarcasm Hi, I'm belljar and I've entirely missed the point.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 04:54 |
|
hooman posted:Hi, I'm belljar and I've entirely missed the point. hi belljar im dad
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:04 |
|
Birdstrike posted:hi belljar im dad My favourite joke: I'll never forget the last words I said to my son. "Hi dying, I'm Dad"
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:05 |
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. Retroactive changes to standards for something as difficult to upgrade in place as a house sounds like a terrible idea to me. I'd rather see it handled by requiring ads for rentals to include energy efficiency information (as is already done for house sales in the ACT). That way tenants could include likely energy costs in their budget and landlords could update when it makes sense to do so based on the cost of the upgrade vs the difference in market rents for more energy efficient houses. That said the quoted post uses the worst justification and whiniest tone to argue against a thing that I am also against. Also my idea probably wouldn't work as well as I describe because destitute tenants can't save up for a bigger bond and would be forced to take the crappy low rent places even though their overall expenses will be higher in the long run.
|
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:06 |
|
https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-takes-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich-20180404-p4z7sn.htmlquote:Each year, a staggering $68 billion is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy. nothing to see here
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:15 |
|
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. Source your scrotes
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:19 |
|
JBP posted:I did it this morning: I got that too and it was so dumb. It asks you how many Australian authors you read and then moves straight on. Spoiler alert Australian authors are crap. Also when it asks how many book reviews you read. Uh, none? I read the book? For actual thread content, the Salvation Army have lost funding with Westcare, their service that provides housing for vulnerable teens, being stripped of its contract on account of those teens who got molested and OD'd and died.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:21 |
|
That's pretty big news actually! Glad there's some consequences for their poo poo management
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:23 |
|
duck monster posted:Monthly Duck checkin;- GoldStandardConure posted:Nandos > Oportos Hell no
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:33 |
|
They're both awful.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:34 |
|
kirbysuperstar posted:Hell no fite me irl fucko
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 05:36 |
|
Meat Is Murder.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:11 |
|
Zenithe posted:Meat Is Delicious. oporto and nandos both suck though
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:20 |
|
duck monster posted:Monthly Duck checkin;- Ogalo > *
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:22 |
|
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. Why not just put a minimum standard on rental properties with a grandfather clause. Any new rental properties or rental agreements require the house to meet certain energy standards. Those shittier, older houses will sell for less to flip flop renovators and the government can use it's negative gearing as it was actually intended, to increase housing stock. Those people renting in outdated houses can negotiate to have their rent dropped to pay for their increased utility bills, because if they end the agreement the landlord won't be able to rent the property out anymore. We don't let shops sell bad chicken. We don't let car dealers sell cars with deadly defects. Why should we let slumlords exist? If you're selling/renting out a product, make sure it is up to standard of gently caress off. Why should the Australian public care about how much you suffered to afford a poo poo hole just to rent it out to people?
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:28 |
|
Statement released about the arrests at the commonwealth games protest. https://twitter.com/IndigenousX/status/984642470829965313
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:29 |
|
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:36 |
|
Hang on, isn't this literally illegal?
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:37 |
|
psh, good luck finding anglo-saxons outside of 9th century britain
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:38 |
|
is that even legal?
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:39 |
|
Aesculus posted:Hang on, isn't this literally illegal? Yes
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:39 |
|
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 fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Apr 13, 2018 |
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:44 |
|
JBP posted:It's the same as advertising for Chinese staff at phone shops in Box Hill. I was gonna come here and post this but you can discriminate on whether people speak a certain language, but not what race people are, so its a slight difference (same effect)
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:50 |
|
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. Also this is Optus. How many people would this have to been seen by that none of them thought "yeah nah"
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:56 |
|
I believe the preferred description is "good English skills"
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:56 |
|
Zenithe posted:Also this is Optus. How many people would this have to been seen by that none of them thought "yeah nah" probably not that many. if they are anything like telstra then their retail arm operates more like a franchise than anything
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 06:59 |
|
Zenithe posted:Also this is Optus. How many people would this have to been seen by that none of them thought "yeah nah" Optus shops aren't run by Optus or overseen by Optus in most cases and there is always a one word line of discrimination (no idea what official Optus shops call themselves now). This is a small business running a franchise like 90% of phone retail.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 07:00 |
|
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.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 07:00 |
|
it's shockingly easy to put discriminatory codewords in job ads and pass them off as legitimate requirements
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 07:07 |
|
Anyone post this startling revelation? Richest private schools get payments from $7m government 'slush fund' https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/richest-private-schools-get-payments-from-7m-government-slush-fund-20180412-p4z94f.html 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.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 08:05 |
|
Sydney's light rail extension is going to cost more and finish years later than expected. The company subcontracted for construction says they weren't told how much stuff was under the roads, or where, and they're suing the state. The brand-new rail line between Epping and Chatswood is going to be shut down for a year, replaced by buses, to convert it for "metro" cars. The government is intent on moving the Powerhouse Museum, built for purpose only thirty years ago, to Parramatta despite the (smaller) site being on a flood plain that'll threaten the exhibits, such as the steam engine, spacecraft and locomotives, unless they've placed far above ground level. The business case will be released after a government MP crossed the floor on a Greens motion to make it public The government gave up on knocking down and rebuilding the 2000 Olympic stadium
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 08:39 |
|
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. Gross, dude
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 08:40 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 20:18 |
|
The Peccadillo posted:Gross, dude He was only joking but women statistically sold more personal contracts by miles.
|
# ? Apr 13, 2018 08:41 |