octave

The Victorian and South Australian Electoral Commissions regularly analyse ballot papers and have determined that around 40% of major party voters complete their ballot paper with their preferred party’s HTV preference sequence. The proportion following HTVs is even lower for minor parties and independents. The difference in follow rate is largely related to the proportion of voters who receive the HTV for a particular party or candidate. Obviously the probability of a voter copying a HTV recommendation is higher if they receive a HTV than if they don’t.

Just jumping back to the first past the post voting systems. Here are the countries that have that system. I can't really see a trend here as to whether these countries are better or worse to live in. First Past the Post (FPTP) is a majoritarian electoral system where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, even without an absolute majority. As of May 2026, roughly 68 countries and territories use this system for their national legislatures, many of which are former British colonies. Electoral Reform Society +2 Countries Using FPTP for National Legislatures This list includes major nations and representative examples across different regions: The Americas & Caribbean United States Canada Belize The Bahamas Barbados Jamaica Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago Europe & Central Asia United Kingdom (for House of Commons only) Belarus (House of Representatives) Azerbaijan Electoral Reform Society +3 Asia India (Lok Sabha) Pakistan Bangladesh Malaysia Nepal (Note: Nepal uses a mixed system, but the plurality component is significant) Laos Africa Botswana Ethiopia Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Zambia Zimbabwe Oceania Cook Island Country Cook Islands Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Tonga Key Characteristics Plurality-Based: A candidate only needs one more vote than their nearest rival to win. Single-Member Districts: Voters typically elect one representative for their local area. Direct Result: It often leads to a "winner-takes-all" outcome, frequently resulting in two-party dominance.

I was referring to interest rates and I got those figure slightly wrong, typed over a boozy lunch. Just referring to inflation we have 3.3 compared to 4.6. this means that a $100 item in the US would be $103.30 after one year whilst in Australia that item would cost $104.60. This is quite a similar inflation rate. It doesn't really scream great financial management compared to atrocious financial management. Different countries have different strengths and weaknesses such as the size of the market.

Why are most Uber drivers ethnic? I don't believe Uber recruits on ethnicity. I am sure they don't give a toss about the ethnicity of the people who make money for them.

I believe Australia is 4.35 percent and the US is 4.35 percent. Not a huge difference.

Is this government responsible for high interest rates? Being a logical rational person I ask if high interest rates are only in this country. The US has quite a right wing government and high interest rates. Inflation and interest rates are high everywhere.

Channel 7? Their recent hatchet job on batteries was disgusting. Sure make your case but don't lie.

Immigrants are also taxpayers. My son's partner (who I guess you wouldn't approve of) is a high flyer and pays loads of tax. The immigrants that some people think are stealing their jobs are also paying tax.

I haven't looked into this however if true does not bother me. At this point I don't own an EV but the the more of these vehicles on the road the better for everyone. As a regular cyclist I can say that I would rather be waiting at the traffic lights behind an EV than a car spewing fumes in my face We know the kids who live near major highways have more respiratory issues. My son recently spent time in Beijing. He was expecting the air to be thick with car fumes however the air was surprisingly clear thanks to the uptake of EVs. Thus benefits all of society.

The thing with preferential voting is that I can send a signal. My seat is a safe seat, it has not changed hands in decades. Whilst I know my vote will flow through to the least worst of the 2 major candidates. If the winning candidate only just scrapes in then post election analysis may pus a party right or left depending on where the preferences are coming from. A strong One Nation vote is a signal for the major parties to the right and a strong flow from the Greens may signal something different. No system is perfect.

I am not sure that more than 50 percent of voters follow how to vote cards I am the go today so I have not thoroughly read this article but here is a link. https://antonygreen.com.au/do-how-to-votes-matter-evidence-from-the-2022-sa-election/ The Victorian and South Australian Electoral Commissions regularly analyse ballot papers and have determined that around 40% of major party voters complete their ballot paper with their preferred party’s HTV preference sequence. The proportion following HTVs is even lower for minor parties and independents. The difference in follow rate is largely related to the proportion of voters who receive the HTV for a particular party or candidate. Obviously the probability of a voter copying a HTV recommendation is higher if they receive a HTV than if they don’t.

This presupposes that we are the only country attempting to cut CO2. Yes, our share is small, but all of the countries that contribute under 2% make cuts adds up to 30% (I am happy to back that figure up) How are these actions abhorrent? When you say you don't accept the science, are you saying that CSIRO is incompetent or part of the malicious conspiracy that you alluded to? I approach climate science like any other area. I have had people tell me that vaccination doesn't work or causes autism, etc. I reject this because I can see what CSIRO says. Being extra cautious, I can cross-check this with other respected sources. This seems to me to be a solid method of determining what the likely "truth" is. If you believe this is a flawed method, then suggest a better method. If the outliers in climate science are right, then why not the outliers in medical science or any other field? Vaccine sceptics also tend to cite "grand conspiracies."

Yes, China is not only building wind farms in 2025 and 2026, but it is doing so at a record-shattering pace, comfortably maintaining its position as the world's largest investor and developer of renewable energy. [1, 2] Key Trends for 2025–2026: Record Growth: In 2025 alone, China added 120.5 GW of new wind capacity, fueling a record global year for wind energy additions. Massive Scale: In 2024, China added more wind turbines and solar panels than the rest of the world combined. High-Speed Development: Wind power capacity in China reached 580 GW by August 2025, and industry representatives are aiming to add at least 120 GW annually between 2026 and 2030, which is roughly double the average annual installations from 2020–2024. Offshore Dominance: By 2025, China remained the world leader in offshore wind, with installed capacity exceeding 38 GW and significant projects in coastal provinces like Jiangsu, Guangdong, and Fujian

And you think CSIRO are gullible fools falling for this. Why does NASA or CSIRO? Are they dumb, or are they complicit in this "conspiracy" I do understand that China is a mixed bag, although it is interesting to note that CO2 emissions in China have remained flat for 21 months. "China's CO2 emissions have potentially peaked and remained flat or slightly falling for 21 months as of early 2026, despite producing over 35% of global emissions. This plateau is driven by a massive surge in renewable energy, including record solar and wind installations, despite increased chemical industry output" I would add to that nuclear as well. I am not anti-nuclear, although I am sceptical about the economic on this country. I’m not a climate scientist, so I can’t personally evaluate every dataset or model. The only way I can form a view is by looking at the balance of evidence from institutions and experts who work in the field. That’s the same approach I use for everything else—medicine, engineering standards, even things like aviation safety. For example, I accept the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, because the overwhelming published evidence supports that. So I’m struggling with why climate science should be treated differently. If I’m not meant to rely on the major scientific bodies and the weight of peer-reviewed research in this case, what alternative method should I use to decide what’s true? And how would I know that method is more reliable than the one I use everywhere else?”

I follow this YouTube channel closely. She is highly qualified, and I do like that she is particularly tough on new ideas and willing to point out the flaws in new technologies. There are a lot of EV baggers out at the moment; this is probably due to the surge in sales lately. I think because the algorithm classifies me as pro-EV, I get some absolutely ridiculous posts or links. Nearly one in six new cars sold last month was electric, as demand for battery-powered vehicles continues to grow.

Just getting back to the Centre for Independent Studies, I do wonder exactly how independent it is. I will leave it to others to decide whether this information is relevent or not. "The CIS also keeps almost all of its corporate funders secret. While it receives at least $800,000 from corporations, its policy is only to identify sponsors where they agree. [7] Companies which have been publicly disclosed and confirmed by the CIS as its funders include:" BHP Billiton Shell ICI - now a subsidiary of Orica Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation [8] Some of the individuals who fund the CIS include [9]: Dame Elisabeth Murdoch - Mother of media mogul Rupert Murdoch Neville Kennard Robert Champion de Crespigny In June 2006, the Australian Financial Review reported that a 30th anniversary dinner attended by 600 supporters with the keynote address by Prime Minister John Howard raised $2.5 million. The CIS is aiming to raise $10 million as a capital fund to underpin the centre's operations. Former Funders McDonald's Australia Philip Morris Pratt Foundation WMC (once known as Western Mining Corporation, WMC was taken over by BHP Billiton).

Correct, it is a well-known right-wing think tank. I would also be sceptical of a left-wing think tank. The video poses the question, "if renewables are cheaper, why do they require subsidies?" The assumption here is that building new coal or nuclear plants would not rely on any subsidies. It very much would. If low renewables meant cheaper power, countries like Italy or Poland should have low prices—but they don’t. The biggest driver in Europe has been gas dependence, not renewables. Italy (lower renewables than Germany, high gas reliance) → consistently very high electricity prices Ireland (significant gas dependence) → also high prices Poland (coal-heavy, relatively less wind/solar historically) → not cheap, often still high due to coal + carbon costs In terms of being directly attributable to renewable, yes, there is truth there. In 2020, I had rooftop solar installed. I had an upfront cost of $3500 plus a 4-year low-interest loan with payments of around $40 a month for 4 years. If they added to my reduced bills, then it looks like solar would have vastly increased the cost of my electricity. My philosophy here was that in order to save money, I had to spend money up front. My system has definitely paid for itself, and I am now unbothered by the price of electricity. We are in a phase of great change (just like when I got rooftop solar). I regularly go for a bike ride past Geelong docks and also the oil refinery. On one side of the road, there are enormous stacks of wind turbine parts, blades and tower components as well as the nacelle structures that are awaiting delivery to the site. On the other side of the road, it is the refinery that is noisy and stinks (and recently caught fire). This is quite a contrast. It is quite exciting to live in this time of change. Sure, there will be hiccups and missteps along the way. I suppose going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age had its challenges. As solar and battery technology improve in efficiency and cost, it is undoubtedly doing fewer people will need to be connected to the grid, giving people economic benefits as well as autonomy.

You’re right that once you add storage, transmission and upgrades, the system gets more complex and costs go up. But that’s exactly what the modelling already includes. The CSIRO GenCost report looks at the whole system—firming, transmission, everything—and still finds wind and solar backed by storage are cheaper than building new coal. On EV charging specifically, high-power sites do create local demand spikes, but that’s not unique to renewables—it’s a grid planning issue. In practice, most charging is spread out (home, work, off-peak), and fast chargers often include batteries or smart load management to avoid huge grid upgrades. So yes, there are costs—but they’re manageable and already being factored in, not a dealbreaker for renewables

By the way, I just learned that emergency charging from RACV is from a battery pack, not a petrol generator.

I wonder how often an EV driver runs out of charge. I imagine it is no more common than running out of fuel, and probably less given the warnings the car provides. In 48 years of driving, I have never run out of fuel. If an EV does run out of electrons, there are several methods. The RAVC will give you an emergency charge or tow you to the nearest charging facility as part of road service. A granny lead and an extension cord, plus a friendly homeowner. Most clever, though, is V2V or vehicle-to-vehicle charging. As EVs become more ubiquitous, it will be easy to phone a friend or perhaps a friendly fellow motorist.

It is difficult to ascertain how old this picture is. Whilst it is true that traditionally some old turbine blades have gone to landfill, this is changing. Quote "Wind turbine blades can be recycled, but it is challenging and not yet universal. While 85-90% of a turbine (steel, copper, gearboxes) is easily recycled, blades are made of durable fibreglass/carbon fibre composites, often resulting in landfill disposal. However, new recycling technologies and repurposing methods are rapidly developing, with goals for 100% recyclability by 2030. [1, 2, 3] Current Recycling and Disposal Methods Cement Co-processing: The most common method, where shredded blades replace raw materials and fuel in cement production. Mechanical Crushing: Blades are ground into materials for filler, panels, or industrial products. Thermal/Chemical Recycling: Technologies like pyrolysis or chemical baths are emerging to separate resins from fibers for reuse, though many are still in pilot stages. Repurposing: Blades are increasingly used in civil engineering, such as bridges, playground equipment, and noise barriers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Future Outlook and Innovation Recyclable Blades: Manufacturers are developing new resin technologies—such as Siemens Gamesa's RecyclableBlade and NREL's Pecan FRC—that allow materials to be easily separated and reused at end-of-life. Industry Commitment: Major firms aim for zero-waste turbines by 2030–2040. [1, 2, 3, 4] While landfilling is still a common, cost-effective method for older blades, the increasing number of decommissioned turbines is driving the economic viability of recycling. [1] What happens to wind farms in Victoria when turbines ... - ABC News In short: The Clean Energy Council says there are options for old wind farms as the originals approach the end of their life expec... Australian Broadcasting Corporation Recycling Wind Turbines, Solar Panels and Batteries: Fact Sheet Can wind turbine blades be recycled? Wind turbine blades are made of materials such as fibreglass or carbon fibre, as they are des... Clean Energy Council" End Quote Any newer technology creates problems that at first are challenging. We do tend to give a free pass to existing technologies. Consider the size of the pile of coal that would be required to generate the electricity that those blades generate in their operational life. Coal has end-of-life problems, also. Quote "Coal ash is managed through a combination of recycling and landfilling/storage. [1, 2, 3] 1. Recycling and Beneficial Use A significant portion of fly ash is reused, rather than disposed of. [1, 2, 3] Concrete Production: Fly ash is a high-performance substitute for Portland cement. It improves concrete durability and reduces the carbon footprint of construction. Structural Fill and Roads: Bottom ash and fly ash are used for road base, structural fill, embankments, and stabilizing soft soils. Brick and Block Making: Ash is used to make bricks, construction blocks, and lightweight aggregate. Other Uses: Boiler slag is used for roofing granules and blasting grit. [1, 2, 3, 4] 2. Disposal Methods Unused ash must be disposed of, often using "wet" or "dry" methods. [1] Ash Ponds/Dams (Wet Method): The ash is mixed with water to create a slurry and pumped into large holding ponds. This was traditionally the cheapest method, but it poses high risks for leaching toxic heavy metals into groundwater, particularly if the ponds are unlined. Dry Landfills (Dry Method): The ash is stored dry in landfills, which is considered safer as it reduces the potential for leaching, provided the landfill is properly lined. Mine Backfilling: Dry ash is sometimes placed back into old, abandoned coal mines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Environmental and Safety Issues Leaching: Contaminants in ash ponds can seep into groundwater and surface water, creating toxic cocktail, according to reports in Australia. Dust Management: Dry ash, if not covered, can be blown from storage sites into surrounding communities, posing respiratory health risks. Spills: Large-scale failures of ash dams, such as the 2008 Kingston disaster in the US, have caused massive environmental damage. [1, 2, 3, 4] As coal-fired power plants age and close, the rehabilitation of these ash dams is a significant environmental concern. [1, 2]"

I actually agree with part of that—climate models aren’t perfect and we can’t predict everything precisely. But I don’t think ‘not perfect’ means ‘not useful’. We rely on models all the time that aren’t perfect—weather forecasts, engineering safety margins, even things like flood risk or insurance. Also, climate models aren’t just time-series extrapolations like stock prices. They’re based on physical processes—things like how greenhouse gases trap heat, fluid dynamics in the atmosphere, etc. So it’s not just projecting a line forward. For me it comes back to the question: I’m not in a position to evaluate the models myself, so I look at how well they’ve performed and what the broader scientific community thinks of them. If those models were fundamentally unreliable, I’d expect to see that reflected in the consensus of the people working in the field. .

Ice cores are important in tracking the increase in PPM of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. It is absolutely mind-blowing that they can analyse the composition of the atmosphere at any time between last year and 800,000 years ago. Predicting the future climate relies on understanding the past climate. Core questions: An introduction to ice cores

I thought you didn't bother voting You seem to want to live in some kind of monoculture. Don't you enjoy talking to people who are not identical to you?