So I’ve volunteered to spend the night overseeing an unknown number of kids on music camp.

*Numbers may change dependent on enrollment

Overnight stay in dorm room with year 5/6 boys from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx primary

Now that I’m staring at the email and imaging what this is going to entail, I can see why they struggle to find parents willing to do it. I think I need to accept that I’m going to get five hours sleep that night if I’m lucky. Set aside time on the Sunday for a good nap.

I clicked the article, expecting my jimmies to be rustled.

Offences covered by the legislation will include assaults, stealing and robbery, property damage, dangerous and reckless driving, racial harassment, inciting racial hatred and depictions of Nazi symbols and salutes.

I … have no issues with that. Morons filming themselves driving 200km/h down the road are one of my pet peeves. You’re not cool idiot, you’re risking the lives of dozens of people in an attempt to seek approval.

Why the hell would you do that? Who’s going to risk dealing with police and spending a day in court over some $5 item?

Even if you play the “whoops must have forgotten that” card and they believe you, you’ll be put onto the “Check this shopper every time” list and negate the entire advantage of the scheme.

Hard disagree. It’s awesome with a full shop. Scan item, put in trolley. Repeat 40-50 times. Then, tap a couple of buttons on my phone, scan a QR code at the gate and just leave. No hassle with checkouts - even self checkouts. The only bit that slows me down is putting fruit & vegies on the scale, but I get most of those elsewhere, so it isn’t too terrible.

“I’m five foot one. I weigh about 45 kilos. I was engaged in peaceful protest, and my interactions with NSW Police have left me potentially without vision in my right eye, permanently,”

Can we have a few more details of what these interactions are, please? Because if Police simply charged in with batons swinging, it’s a problem worthy of much wider coverage. The way she’s worded this sounds cagey though - like she’s painting herself in a positive light and not asking for any sort of investigation into the incident nor calling out for excessive force/assault against the officer(s) involved.

The Aldis in WA have self checkouts. But they’ve only been introduced over the past couple of years. Maybe it’s the same nationally? Worth another visit to see?

They’re pretty good ones, too - the bagging area holds four bags - which is sometimes enough for the whole shop. I don’t much love their camera right in your face, though.

I also got picked out for a random check a few times when I first started using it. After passing that process a few times, you seem to be trusted. I haven’t been picked out in years, now.

Hrm. I would also be annoyed except my store is one of the ones keeping it. I have however used the service at stores that are dropping it. I’m surprised Woolies didn’t even give me a courtesy heads-up.

I wonder what the issue with the programme is? Too much shoplifting in some stores? Not enough uptake?
If it’s uptake, that’s on Woolies. There is almost zero material explaining the system and its advantages. They’ve done an awful job of marketing it.

Fresh donuts! I have not found a decent fresh jam donut in Perth. The closest I have found didn’t have jam and were like $4ea.

I miss the Preston Market.

I don’t use a signature. I type that out every email.

That’s a lot of us on minimum wage. On the surface of it, 2.6 Million sounds like roughly 10% of us. But the reality is even more grim than that. The number of people working is only a sub-set of Australians. According to ABS, there are about 14,620,600 Australians working. So, 2.6 Million is about 18% of workers.

Well, you did downvote the post, so it’s a fair question in your specific case, @[email protected]. In case you are unaware, mods and admins can see votes.

If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify

That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can’t trust the users not to lie about their age (“trust me, bro”) in a DM, then the users can’t trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information (“trust me, bro”). That’s a super-flawed verification method.

… I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.

I wasn’t exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I’m not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don’t want it to be a blank “this person is verified on every site”, because that’ll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.

And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don’t take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.

At first I laughed, but in honesty I can’t think of many better verification methods.

My concern with it is the cost and requirement for non-drinkers to acquire alcohol. It’s pretty insensitive to ask a recovering alcoholic or a Muslim for example to go into a pub and buy a beer. Maybe have it as one possible verification method?

You could also get a a piece of paper notarised by a JP.
‘The individual known on Aussie.zone as Gorgritch_Umie_Killa has presented identification to me that demonstrates to my satisfaction that they are over 18’ (signed and stamped).

But neither of these methods are technical solutions.

Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being

I’ll send everyone a DM: “Hey, are you over 18? Yep? cool.”

I have verified that all our users are over 18. 👍

It is kinda relevant. If you are hired to do a job for five days. And you are paid the agreed amount for those five days, even if you are told you don’t need to come to work days 4 & 5, are you actually that hard done by? What damages are you seeking?

I mean - the court answered this question: Justice Rangiah said the “appropriate award of compensation” for non-economic loss was $70,000.
The ABC recognised they did her wrong. My biggest concern with Aunty’s response is this “We extend our sincere apologies to Ms Lattouf and wish her well in her future endeavours.”

That sounds like a ‘we will not be hiring you again’ to me. After recognising they shouldn’t have taken her off the air. I think they should have her back.

Oh this again. I had forgotten about it. According to the bill’s definition of “Social Media”, we (aussie.zone) meet it. Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase’s ages. Thing is: I can’t see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?

I genuinely have no idea from a technical standpoint how you’d enforce this.

This is a really interesting case. I’m a little surprised at the result, to be honest. While I agree with it (she was absolutely taken off the air for her political opinions), I also concede that the ABC did in fact pay her to the end of her 5-day contract.

Hopefully the next time a bunch of special interest people put pressure on the ABC, they’ll have more of a spine about it. Honestly, what possible power did 100-150 or so people have over the ABC that the’d fold so easily? It boggles the brain. Oh no! 0.0008% of Australians really don’t like an employee! Let’s get rid of her!

It’s taken all day, but I’ve managed to listen to this in the background at work in between stuff.
I finally got to the end, and realise there’s a part 2! Oh man. I’m not entirely positive I can take another hour of talking about these loonies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIrcWtuLkdA

So far, the tl;dw is “These people are wrong. None of their bullshit actually works, and some have lost homes or ended up in prison over their idiot ideas”.

Which brings us full-circle to this article of two guys being imprisoned over their mistaken belief of being outside the law.