|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Note that the photo on the right isn't actually the source photo that was used for the 'shopped image, her pose is almost exactly the same but her face is turned slightly further away from the camera. As someone who uses Photoshop regularly for work, I could see how generative fill would have resulted in this, but... surely the other longer photo was in the same place and "find a different photo" is several steps above "try an untested feature and use that as an image for a national broadcast" it's hard not to see it as a deliberate decision, though maybe incompetence instead of malice
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Bucky I am kindly asking you to stop posting 1000 paragraph long posts. Sooner or later i am going to injure myself scrolling last them
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
Lube Enthusiast posted:Bucky I am kindly asking you to stop posting 1000 paragraph long posts. Sooner or later i am going to injure myself scrolling last them Seconded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
Well lucky that one was on the bottom of the page. Sorry to the non-Sydney folk. In other news, I just did a two hour podcast learning about the story of Harry Bridges, what an absolute fucken legend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Channel 9 is using the Adobe defence in an attempt to hide the real news story: New Nine boss once defended a man’s sexual relationship with a minor in a columnquote:On November 26, 2004, The Daily Telegraph published a piece by McIlveen titled “Too quick to judge loss and young love”. McIlveen, a Wyoming native who described himself as familiar with the scene of the crash, said: Spoiler because it's going to make you throw up. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
Autisanal Cheese posted:Seconded. Thirded
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
Apologies to everyone else in the thread, please scroll past tedious cycle chat.Bucky Fullminster posted:Third and possibly final draft is looking just about good to go. I'll make one post and one post only, and this is honest, genuine feedback. These are rhetorical questions - I'm not going to debate you, and I'm not going to fight you on the specifics of what goes where or whatever because I honestly don't think it matters. So don't clog up the thread responding to me; take the feedback on board. With that in mind....... - Who are you making this for? What is your audience? Is it MPs? Ministers? Councils? Planning department bureaucrats? Advocacy groups? You need to carefully consider the answer to this before doing literally anything else, and tailor it appropriately. - How are you intending to deliver this? A brochure? Letter? Speech? Slide deck? Again, figure this out, make sure it's appropriate for your audience (as above) and then structure it appropriately. At the moment it's a wall of text with some nice stock images and squiggles on google maps, so it doesn't feel intended for anyone beyond "the internet". - Why are there no sections? How do I find the important points? What are the important points? This is not clear! Break it up, for god's sake. Split by area, by proposal, by short/medium/long-term plans, whatever. But give it some structure, that again, isn't a wall of text with stock images and google maps squiggles. - Write an executive summary, a single page that answers the most basic questions: the who/what/when/where/why. Articulate these clearly, not with waffle. - Get rid of the grandiose rhetorical flushes, they sound like a student padding word count. "Or, we can move our legs up and down a bit. Our feet move pedals, which spin a cog, which moves a chain, which spins another cog, which is what spins the wheel. Depending on the relative sizes of the cogs we choose to put the chain on, we can translate more or less movement of the pedal into more or less revolutions of the wheel, accounting for momentum and gravity with gears, to maximise the efficiency of the conversion of energy from the legs into forward motion." Why is this here - I understand how a bicycle works for gently caress's sake. - If you want to be taken seriously, you need actual citations and evidence. Like this: "Most people love cycling, and want to get around on bikes more, but are held back because there aren’t enough good, solid, continuous routes to get them where they need to go without having to share space with cars.". What's the basis for these claims? How can you support them? Where's the research? I agree with you that sharing the road with cars is a big barrier. But how does that compare with other barriers like helmet laws, fitness levels, end-of-trip facilities, trip duration, cost of bikes, security issues leaving them somewhere. Your gut feeling, or "I reckon..." doesn't count. Don't worry about replying to me, do some actual research, cite some papers or published studies, and put it in your article. - You need to put numbers against things. Again, in that example above you've said "most people". What does that mean - 5%? 25%? 75%? In which areas? To do what? How many trips does that translate to? How many cars will that remove from roads? What is the carbon impact of that? How many trips do you expect on these routes? What corridors are people currently driving where they would be happy to replace with cycling? That's what gets people's attention, not just "I reckon that...". Another example: "the T-Way soars safe and sound above it all, used by about one bus carrying maybe a couple of passengers every few minutes." Are you sure? How many buses? How frequent are they? How full are they? Is the T-Way actually underused? If so - prove it. Don't convince me, do some actual concrete research and put it in your article. - As a corollary to the above, you need to put dollar values on these things. The investment for [project] is estimated at [amount], then start adding those up. Explain what investing $100m in cycling infrastructure is going to get for that money, with more detail than "I reckon people would cycle more". Don't just breeze past it with "a couple of buckets of paint" type comments, or "we just need a 1500m bridge here". Bear in mind the Tibby Cotter footbridge over Anzac Parade is 440 metres long and cost $38 million, or roughly $86,400 per metre. Don't convince me, do some research and put it in your article. - What's your plan for dealing with opposition? Local councils. Community groups. Heritage groups. Indigenous groups. Advocates for other transport types. Environmentalists. Beancounters. All of these groups will want a say - nobody is going to see your magnificent plan and just say "yep, looks good to me". - Very specific thing: use maps view rather than satellite as it's much easier to parse quickly. Put a legend on your maps, a lot of the time it's impossible to tell what you're referring to. Don't put that poo poo in a caption, put it in the image. I'm sure you're going to say something like "it's a discussion paper, it's meant to generate ideas and discussions". Fine, but literally the first thing people are going to ask you, is "how much will it cost" and "what is the specific, tangible benefit". You need to be able to say, "for $x million dollars, we can develop Sydney's cycleways and encourage [number] of people to cycle for [reason]. This gets [number] of cars off the road, and reduces carbon emissions by [number]." If you can't do this, and don't have numbers based on actual solid research backing you up, nobody will listen to you. It smacks of "I'm the ideas guy, you lot can figure out the actual details", like Jim and Rhonda on Utopia swinging into Tony's office saying hey the PM had an idea. I've spent 25 years working on research like this, for big and small companies, govt departments and agencies, NGOs, charities, whatever. The principles are the same: you need to say "this is the opportunity, this is the cost, this is the benefit" and frame literally all of your thinking accordingly. Nobody gets convinced by flowery language and smiling stock photos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
Lube Enthusiast posted:Bucky I am kindly asking you to stop posting
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 14:11
|
|
|
Lube Enthusiast posted:Bucky I am kindly asking you to stop posting 1000 paragraph long posts. Sooner or later i am going to injure myself scrolling last them My mouse wheel is actually kind of hosed, so these long posts are really giving me carpal tunnel. On the other hand, it's actual content, not... insane content. Of course, us here in Perth can cycle from one end of our great metropolitan line to the other with barely a splash of shade to be had, but the paths exist
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
ShoeFly posted:As a former employee, Channel 9 is trash OP I am so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
Webmeister makes really good points Bucky please either take that on board or gently caress off
Recoome fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
The only real way to stop Bucky is that we all chip in and buy him a car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Webmeister makes really good points Bucky please either thanks that on board or gently caress off Yeah I’d encourage others to read webmeisters post because bucky clearly won’t
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Oh for sure man, this is 100% the fifth-dimensional chess Putin is playing behind his irredentist rants, congratulations on reading between the lines from putin's perspective that russians and ukrainians are the same ethnic group (i am not saying this is true, i know it's not) nothing makes more sense at this point in history than taking ukraine. he probably believes that if he doesn't take it, someone else will. an egg fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Putin's a loving nut case who buys into his own cult of personality and right-wing bullshit He wants Ukraine because he wants it (and he's wanted it for over a decade now) climate change has nothing to do with it
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
ffs
an egg fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jan 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
Konomex posted:My mouse wheel is actually kind of hosed, so these long posts are really giving me carpal tunnel. On the other hand, it's actual content, not... insane content. Of course, us here in Perth can cycle from one end of our great metropolitan line to the other with barely a splash of shade to be had, but the paths exist get a logitech g502 or similar such where you can toggle free spin on the scroll wheel, makes it way better
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...htmare-scenarioquote:At 10.30pm the festival organisers cut the music and 21,000 people stopped dancing. On centre stage, an organiser and regular DJ at HTID events told the crowd what they knew. How many loving times does it need to be made clear that pill testing is better than strip searching children
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
re-route all existing cycle paths into the harbour so cyclists end up in the jaws of waiting sharks, where they belong
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 03:24
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:get a logitech g502 or similar such where you can toggle free spin on the scroll wheel, makes it way better MX Master 5eva  Re: bike chat. As a resident Auspol Bike Crazy (TM) I will say that building stuff for bikes faces unusually steep push(bike)back in comparison to roads or almost anything else. Nobody thinks it's reasonable to only build a bridge once a critical mass of people are swimming across it to get to the other side, yet that's the standard often being applied to bikes. Nobody cycles! So no bike paths are built. Nobody cycles! So no bike paths are built, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Noted and appreciated thanks webmeister, very kind.quote:"Or, we can move our legs up and down a bit." Why is this here To highlight the wild contrast between the vast supply-chain of petroleum and the simplicity of cycling. Because this is, fundamentally, about how we source the energy we need to move. We should be clear and define what it is we're actually talking about. It's been whittled down from previous drafts at least, thanks in part to people in here. quote:
I can't think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me. quote:You need to be able to say, "for $x million dollars, we can develop Sydney's cycleways and encourage [number] of people to cycle for [reason]. This gets [number] of cars off the road, and reduces carbon emissions by [number]." Point taken, but is eyeballing it really not obvious enough for you guys personally? Are you telling me you can't actually see how well the numbers stack up here? Half of it is built already. Name another project that's half done before it's even started. A bit of green paint and a handful of overpasses for the rest is not much of an exaggeration. Aside from bits like the Skyway to the bridge and a wharf at the Pleasure Grounds, the most building we have to do is maybe a couple dozen or so of these type of things:   Don't tell me an industrialised Australian state can't pull that off. Everything else is pretty much literally just this:   Follow the trainlines and creeks as closely as possible, which minimises intersections, and when they do cross a road, give them priority where you can. That's it. Maybe stick a few signs and flashing lights up, fix a few curbs. I haven't got quotes for that yet, but the tens of millions of dollars in design consultancy is sorted cos we have the map already. The Tibbi Cotter bridge is a great example of terrible product of a broken process. $38 million for a one-use bridge that doesn't actually facilitate anything in terms of daily trips. Neither does the Alfred st bridge. They technically do the same job as a few grand's worth of bamboo scaffolding. I bet we could get this done for less than the cost of both of them. The whole loving basin. CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:And here is my Strava map in fact - I’m exhausted just trying to count the number of turns in that, and it's hard to hear anything over the noise of all the traffic. Ok now I’ve gotta go here, cross this road, now I’ve gotta go down here, cross this road, now I’ve gotta go up here, cross this road, wait poo poo I missed it, now I’ve gotta go along here.. You like driving on a motorway, right? Why is that? Cos you don’t have to stop and start with all the crossing roads and traffic lights at intersections? Cos you can get up to a nice cruising speed? Cos you don’t need to worry about making a bunch of turns to get where you're going? That’s what cyclists deserve, and that's what we need to make it truly viable. The M7, but more. And that's what this network gives basically everyone. A "superhighway" doesn't mean miles of gleaming steel and concrete over the whole city, it just means a route you can ride without interruption. I'm just a guy, and it's just an idea, which I'm trying hard to translate from my weird head into the world. It started as a slide deck for fucks sake. I'm not a professional government-presenter, so thanks again for all the help. birdstrike posted:re-route all existing cycle paths into the harbour so cyclists end up in the jaws of waiting sharks, where they belong All Bike Ferry wharves will also have swim facilities and freshwater outdoor showers, how about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I can't think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
Bucky, I love you but you are not serious people
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I can't think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Noted and appreciated thanks webmeister, very kind. I mean this very sincerely Bucky, no one else will care. If you ever want anyone to look at this seriously, you need to massively trim it down, gut all the unnecessary tangents and break it down into numbers. No one with any decision making power is ever going to care about your proposal looking like this. It doesn't matter how great it is, how cheap it is or how easy it would be to accomplish, they will immediately write you off and toss it in the bin. If you actually, truly want people to take this seriously you have to take on board all the advice you've been given and make some major changes to the proposal. Don't make excuses about why it's great as it is. No one cares. It needs to be short, simple and clear with the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:35
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:https://www.theguardian.com/austral...htmare-scenario How else are police going to get their jollies off
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I can't think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me. Bucky, choose the smallest, easiest part of this plan and push for only that. Get a run on the board. Otherwise it's Captain Theron posted:I mean this very sincerely Bucky, no one else will care. If you ever want anyone to look at this seriously, you need to massively trim it down, gut all the unnecessary tangents and break it down into numbers. Bolded the really relevant bits
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
b-b-but the tax changes are inflationary albomania stays winning
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
froglet posted:faces unusually steep push(bike)back Just get one with pedal assist
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
Give mortgage rate cut
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
JBP posted:Give mortgage rate cut crank interest rates to 25%
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:09
|
|
|
Crank urself through a sausage maker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
birdstrike posted:re-route all existing cycle paths into the harbour so cyclists end up in the jaws of waiting sharks, where they belong As long as there is a downhill slope into a ramp
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:29
|
|
|
A group tried to get a bike lane added to the park near me. They were actually connecting two bike paths that ran on opposite sides of it, and all they wanted was a strip along one edge of the park to do it. They had a well-organised plan, clear (and modest) costing, and obvious benefits all spelled out. I found out about this proposal because the local parent group decided they didn't like the idea of it and so blanketed every related suburb (and some outside the council's range, like mine) with fliers decrying the plan as 'anti-child' and 'anti-family', supposedly because children would become possessed and be compelled to run under the wheels of every bike they saw, and every adult (parent or not) would be constantly anxious about the imminent death of every child in the park at all times. The insane group of loonies prevailed and the lane didn't get approved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 06:01
|
|
|
Eediot Jedi posted:As long as there is a downhill slope into a ramp Would you accept water-skis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 06:02
|
|
|
lol. https://twitter.com/MrWyattR/status/1752529970709065869
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 06:06
|
|
|
I know I said I wasn’t going to respond, I’m absolutely not going to argue specifics, and I’m definitely going to regret this, but…quote:To highlight the wild contrast between the vast supply-chain of petroleum and the simplicity of cycling. Because this is, fundamentally, about how we source the energy we need to move. We should be clear and define what it is we’re actually talking about. It’s been whittled down from previous drafts at least, thanks in part to people in here. Yeah but who loving cares. Get rid of it. Anyone reading this understands that a bicycle has less environmental impact than a petrol engine. I’m astonished it used to be longer  quote:I can’t think of anyone who would be opposed to this, all of those people would say yep looks good to me. lmao This is a no trolling zone, thanks quote:Point taken, but is eyeballing it really not obvious enough for you guys personally? Are you telling me you can’t actually see how well the numbers stack up here? What numbers? You haven’t given any. I gave more numbers in that post I shat out in 20 minutes last night, and this was the point I was making. And this: is eyeballing it really not obvious enough for you guys personally? No, it’s not obvious. You have literally given zero actual evidence that would make it obvious. quote:I’m just a guy, and it’s just an idea, which I’m trying hard to translate from my weird head into the world. It started as a slide deck for fucks sake. I’m not a professional government-presenter, so thanks again for all the help There is nothing in your deck to say who you are or why you should be listened to. You don’t need a PhD in Tedious Internet Arguing, but you at least need some credentials. So much of this is based on “I reckon…” - if you were a known entity that would be fine, but you aren’t and it isn’t. In conclusion: stop arguing the minute details with people on the internet. Go back to the drawing board, explain what you’re proposing, why, who it will benefit, what are the costs, what are the drawbacks. And in the nicest possible way, show it to someone who actually cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 06:11
|
|
|
Here, I think this might move the disscussion forward: https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/documents/roads/bicycles/bicycles-law-compliance-helmet-use-nsw-1994.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 06:22
|
|
|
an egg posted:ukraine's farmland is going to be resistant to climate change due to the topography of the region - the winds come in off the black sea and catch in the mountains Really rigorous argument here, colour me convinced The greatest conceivable return of Australia's prodigal son
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
birdstrike posted:Would you accept water-skis? I prefer cash but sure
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 08:25
|
|