octave

Interesting question. I could just wimp out and say, “I’m retired now.” Music has always evolved alongside technology. The instruments available to composers today are vastly different from those available centuries ago, whether in orchestras, jazz, rock, or electronic music. Of course, AI is a rather different innovation. I think AI in music is inevitable, and like most technological change, it will bring both benefits and drawbacks. On the positive side, AI is a democratiser. It allows almost anyone to experiment with composition, arranging, and production. That could open the door for talented people who may never have had formal training or industry connections. On the downside, it may also lead to an overwhelming amount of average material. Music has often evolved because composers and performers broke the rules of their time. AI, at least in its current form, largely works by analysing existing music and reproducing variations of it. Whether it can truly innovate in the human sense remains an open question. For me, music is deeply human. I would rather hear a second-rate live orchestra or band than a flawless recording of a world-class performer. The imperfections, the spontaneity, and the sense of shared experience matter. In some ways, this tension has existed for decades, as recordings became increasingly engineered and perfected. Technology has always reshaped the music industry. In the 1940s, venues employed large big bands with 20 or 30 musicians. The arrival of the electric guitar and amplified music made it economically attractive to hire four or five performers instead. That was a loss in one sense — the big band era was awesome, but it also helped create rock and pop music as we know it today. I suspect AI will become very useful in commercial areas of music. For example, we may not always need a human composer to create an advertising jingle or background track. My concern is whether this eventually leads to a kind of musical “fast food”, content that is efficient and disposable, but lacks depth, individuality, and genuine human expression. In the end, I don’t think AI will destroy music. But I do think it may change what we value in music, and perhaps make the human element even more important.

Here is one of several options for apartment dweller's Community Solar Programs If rooftop solar isn’t an option, residents can buy into a community solar project, where an external solar farm generates energy for subscribers. This works well when: The building can’t support solar panels. Residents want solar benefits without dealing with strata approvals.

As I posted earlier balcony solar is coming. There are also schemes where residents can buy into an off-site solar facility. I also imagine that in the near future apartment buildings will be built with rooftop solar

I used to take a HTV from every party so as not to signal my intentions. I haven't done this now for many years. My next stage where I used to live was because I knew the local school where the polling booth was, I was able to enter from a direction that avoided the people handing out HTVs Fir the last few years I have mostly voted by mail and therefore have done my research about who to vote for online. I did vote in person at the last election so I researched online, came up with a voting strategy and wrote it down so I wouldn't forget. My area is a very safe seat so I usually vote for a smaller party or independent knowing who will win anyway.

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.