octave

Here is an analysis of the claims made in the Channel Seven story. The relevant part starts at 3:08

Geelong leads nation with first hydrogen fuel station Hydrogen from a 2.5-megawatt electrolizer powered by wind and solar. Just a small trial at the moment, but several buses and trucks are using hydrogen fuel cell tech on the streets of Geelong

Governments have always invested in promising new technologies. Many may turn out to be dead ends but others winners. Early aviation was able to flourish because of government subsides for early air postal services as well as passenger routes. You are pro nuclear right? Would you have any objections to public money helping to kick start nuclear power plants in this country?

Whilst it is true that green hydrogen is still in its infancy, it does not mean that it is a dead technology. Notable (and relatively successful) green hydrogen projects 🇸🇦 NEOM Green Hydrogen Project One of the world’s largest projects (over 2 GW electrolyser capacity) Backed by Air Products and ACWA Power ~90% constructed as of 2025–2026 Designed to produce hydrogen → ammonia for export 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the first projects moving from hype to bankable, near-operational scale. 🇨🇳 Chifeng Net Zero Hydrogen-Ammonia Project Developed by Envision Energy Produces ~320,000 tonnes of green ammonia per year (already operating) Powered by wind + solar 👉 Why it matters: This is one of the few large projects already running, not just planned. 🇩🇪 Bad Lauchstädt Energy Park ~30 MW electrolyser using wind power Supplies hydrogen to chemical industry (e.g. TotalEnergies) 👉 Why it matters: A good example of industrial integration, not just production. 🇮🇳 Kandla Green Hydrogen Plant Small (1–10 MW), but operational and locally used Powers buses and port infrastructure 👉 Why it matters: Shows hydrogen working in real transport and port use, not just theory. 🇨🇳 Large-scale wind-to-hydrogen hubs (Inner Mongolia) Multi-billion-dollar developments combining renewables + hydrogen China already exceeded ~220,000 tonnes/year capacity and scaling fast 👉 Why it matters: China is arguably the only place doing this at real industrial scale today. 🏭 Companies that are actually delivering projects These aren’t single projects but are consistently active (a good proxy for “success”): Fortescue Future Industries Adani Enterprises TotalEnergies Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners They’re leading global capacity build-out and investing across dozens of projects . ⚖️ Reality check (important) Even the “successful” ones share a few traits: 💸 Still expensive (often $3.5–6/kg vs cheaper fossil hydrogen) 🏗️ Heavy subsidies or government backing 📈 Success = scaling + proving viability, not big profits yet ⚡ Economics depend heavily on very cheap renewable electricity Globally, there are 500+ projects and $110B+ committed, but only a fraction are fully operational .

Trump has control of both houses. This means he can and has done pretty much whatever he wants. If the republicans lose control of Congress and the Senate, he will have very little power.

Also, if polling is accurate after November, he will most likely be a lame duck president.

Getting back to the assertion that political leanings are determined by the dominance of one hemisphere over the other. It is not unusual for people to change their political leanings throughout life or as a result of particular life experiences. I came to Australia from England when I was 2. I endured a moderate amount of bullying early on in school for being a Pommy. This no doubt allows me to empathise with victims of bullying. My sister came out as gay when she was 17, and suffered badly due to conservative attitudes back then. This means that I can not abide anti gay behaviour and therefore identify more with the so called left than right. As I said, I have been a musician/music teacher all of my life. This means that I am keenly aware of which side of politics is likely to support the arts. As a teenager, I was heavily involved with the Astronomical Society and had a general love for science I have an awareness of which side of politics is more supportive of science. Our neighbour and friend is a trans F to M. My logical side says, " Do I enjoy this person's company? Anything else is irrelevant. Again, this seems more left than right. Whether or not we have hard-wired tendencies, that is all they are, tendencies. Much more important is the overlay of life experience. For some, a life event may even change someone from right to left or vice versa. It is also not uncommon for people to move across the political spectrum as they age.

According to the AI summary 🧠 The “left brain vs right brain” idea The claim that people are either “left-brained” (logical) or “right-brained” (creative) is not supported by modern neuroscience. The brain does have hemispheric specialization—that part is real. For example, language is often more dominant in the left hemisphere. Some spatial processing leans right. But almost everything you actually do—math, music, drawing, decision-making—uses both hemispheres working together via the corpus callosum. Large brain imaging studies have found no evidence that people consistently favour one hemisphere in a personality-defining way. 🧾 The examples (tax vs art, daydreaming) These are too neat to be accurate: Doing your tax return: Uses logic, yes—but also memory, attention, language, and even visual processing → both hemispheres involved. Painting or playing music: Not just “right brain.” Skilled musicians and artists show strong left-hemisphere involvement (timing, sequencing, structure). Daydreaming: Linked more to the brain’s default mode network, which spans both hemispheres, not just the right. 📚 About Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain This book is popular and helpful for many people learning to draw—but its explanation is not scientifically accurate. Betty Edwards uses the “right brain” idea as a teaching metaphor. What she’s really helping people do is: Stop relying on symbolic shortcuts (“this is what an eye looks like”) Start observing shapes, proportions, and negative space more carefully That improvement is real—but it’s not because you’ve “switched hemispheres.” It’s because you’ve changed how you pay attention and process visual information. 🎨 The Vincent van Gogh example Van Gogh’s improvement is absolutely real—but: It’s explained by practice, training, and perceptual learning, not “activating the right brain.” Adults can improve dramatically at drawing once they learn to see differently, which is what Edwards is tapping into. 🧩 So what is true? ✔ The brain has some lateralization ✔ People can improve artistic skills a lot with the right training ✔ The book’s exercises can genuinely help 🚫 What’s not true (or overstated) ❌ People are “left-brained” or “right-brained” ❌ Logic = left hemisphere, creativity = right hemisphere ❌ You can switch modes by “using the right side of your brain”

I think these things are oversimplified. I can talk specifically about music, having been a musician and music teacher for my entire working life. Music is not only artistic but also analytical and mathematical.

No, it is not. Would you like references?

'Neo-nazis' boo condemned at Melbourne Anzac Day dawn service

If you add up all of the countries that contribute less than 2% it comes to around 35%. The amount of tax I pay is minuscule by itself, so perhaps I shouldn't have to pay it.

The fact that I like my son's Chinese partner does not mean I hate Australia. I judge people by their character and their deeds, not by where they were born.

I am not particularly knowledgeable in the field of economics; however, growth surely is not purely the production of manufactured goods. As an individual economic unit, I made a good living selling a service, not an item. If I sold my services overseas, the profit would be every bit as important as the income for selling wheelbarrows.

You should note that my correction was merely to your numbers, not to your main argument. It is crucial for all sides of any debate to use the available resources to ensure that your argument is supported by accurate data. The resources of the net allow us to present figures that, even if not 100% accurate, are at least somewhat accurate. I am sure there have been times when I have presented statistics that turn out to be less than accurate, which I find highly embarrassing. Australia’s economic model is built around growth, and population growth has been a big part of that. Without migration, our population would age much faster. Like Japan, we would see a shrinking share of working-age people supporting a growing number of retirees. That shift matters because fewer workers means less tax revenue, while demand for healthcare, aged care, and pensions increases. Australia’s system—especially superannuation—helps reduce pressure compared to some countries, but it doesn’t eliminate it. An ageing population still creates a gap that has to be filled somehow. In practice, that leaves a limited set of choices: higher taxes, reduced government support, later retirement, or increased migration to maintain the workforce. Migration isn’t the only solution, but it is one of the most immediate ways to keep the balance between workers and retirees from deteriorating too quickly. Without some combination of these adjustments, maintaining current living standards in retirement becomes more difficult over time. The reality is you can’t have a rapidly ageing population and expect the same level of support in retirement without trade-offs. The numbers simply don’t balance.

This is not an ad hominem attack, just merely reporting facts. If there are alternative sources, then I am more than happy to consider them. This is the best “headline” number (arrivals minus departures). 2022–23: ~536,000 → highest on record 2023–24: ~429,000 → still extremely high 2024–25: ~306,000 → fell significantly 👉 So by this main measure, 2025 was not the highest—it was already coming down from a post-COVID surge.

I have just briefly scanned through the entire thread, and I am not sure I see ad hominem attacks, certainly no more than usual. Perhaps you could highlight them for me. You then talk about lefties, which doesn't personally bother me, but I am sure you don't mean it as a compliment.

Your typo amuses me 😁

I am not necessarily anti-nuclear, in fact, in some maybe it makes sense. Whilst decommissioning may be a small cost, all up the building of the NP in the first place is enormous. Decommissioning can sound straightforward, but at least at this stage, it is not. Common Problems and Challenges Decommissioning is a complex engineering task that often faces technical, financial, and logistical hurdles: Financial Shortfalls: Costs typically range from $500 million to $2 billion per reactor. Some countries, like France, face concerns that set-aside funds may be insufficient to cover the total future costs. Waste Disposal Bottlenecks: No country currently has an operating deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste (spent fuel). This often forces waste to stay on-site in dry casks indefinitely, preventing the site from being fully released. Technical Delays: Projects frequently experience timeline extensions. For example, Japan's Tokai 1 reactor dismantling was delayed by over a decade, with completion now pushed to 2030. Unexpected Hazards: Older plants often lack detailed historical records, leading to the discovery of unexpected contamination or structural issues during dismantling. Workforce Shortages: As a "wave" of plants reaches retirement, there is a growing need for a highly skilled, specialized workforce that the industry currently lacks. World Nuclear Association +4

I guess we need to look at facts and figures rather than perception. When we think of immigrants, let's say from India, we tend to think of Uber or DoorDash rather than an engineer or a doctor. I am not sure what the stats would show. The music studios I have worked at have a high percentage of people who study music in Australia. The reason is that these music schools have a tough time finding qualified, reliable teachers. There is no bias towards employing people from other countries. Having managed one of these places myself, I can tell you that it is a case of "are you qualified? Are you reliable? Are you good at it? I have loads of ex-colleagues who came here as students and became productive members of society, and therefore were able to become permanent residents. It may well be different is some other industries.

Are there immigration figures for feb 2026? Short answer: not yet in a clean “monthly immigration” sense for February 2026—but there are related figures you can use, depending on what you mean. Monthly “arrivals” (closest thing available) The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes monthly Overseas Arrivals and Departures (OAD) data. Latest release goes up to January 2026, not February yet Even when February is released, this dataset counts border crossings, not actual migrants (people can enter/leave multiple times) 👉 So: you can get February 2026 arrivals eventually, but it won’t equal “immigration”.

I think it is crucially important that, whatever our views are, we try hard to present information that is accurate. The problem with a meme is that it can say anything, true, partially true or false, and this somehow becomes fact. Incorrect reporting of ABS data fuelling false claims Australia has a mass migration problem The report’s authors say that public commentators, activists and some media outlets are incorrectly using Permanent and Long-Term (PLT) movement data, which is collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), to claim Australia has a ‘migration problem’ and distort public understanding. This is despite repeated, clear comments from the ABS that PLT does not measure migration but instead records people coming in and out of Australia, and includes tourists, temporary visa holders, returning residents and repeated short absences. ANU Professor Alan Gamlen explains that net overseas migration (NOM) — the number of migrants arriving in Australia minus the number of migrants departing Australia — is in fact falling sharply and has been since June 2023. Approximately 838 people were added to Australia's population each day through net migration during the 2024–25 financial year [5.18, 5.21]. This daily figure is derived from Net Overseas Migration (NOM), which measures the number of people arriving in Australia minus those departing [5.27, 5.33]. It is the most accurate official measure for population growth, as it only counts individuals who stay in the country for at least 12 out of 16 months [5.27, 5.33]. Recent Migration Statistics (Daily Breakdown) Net Overseas Migration (NOM): In the 2024–25 financial year, NOM was 306,000, averaging roughly 838 people per day [5.18, 5.21]. This was a decrease from the record high of 538,000 (approx. 1,474 per day) seen in 2022–23 [5.21]. Gross Migrant Arrivals: About 1,556 people arrived daily (568,000 annually) in 2024–25 [5.18, 5.21]. However, many of these arrivals were offset by the roughly 720 people who departed daily during the same period [5.18, 5.21]. Permanent vs. Temporary: Of the daily arrivals, only about 252 people per day (92,000 annually) arrived on permanent visas, while the majority were on temporary visas, such as international students [5.3]. Distinguishing Different Data Measures Reports often cite different numbers depending on the metric used: Official NOM (Population Growth): Currently averages around 838–933 per day based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) [5.27, 5.33]. Net Permanent and Long-term (NPLT) Arrivals: This is a "raw" measure of border crossings often used as an early indicator [5.13, 5.32]. It is typically higher (sometimes cited as 1,160 to over 3,400 per day in specific record months like February) but can be misleading because it may count the same person multiple times if they travel frequently [5.1, 5.2, 5.11, 5.33].

What is your point? Is this a bad thing?

Yes, No Yes. I wonder why it is important to you that we all share identical knowledge. What is the point of a conversation between 2 people with identical knowledge and culture?

Does that exclude me? I was born in Britain and came here when I was 2. I am not sure if I have shaped Aussie culture and colloquial lingo. Should I go back to where I came from?