Apologise accepted.

Now, back onto the topic:

We can agree that “make representations” usually means an advisory role, the issue is it introduces ambiguity. The referendum specifically used the word “representations”, which is the same word used to assign seats in parliament. If “make representations” means make recommendations, then why don’t just say “make recommendations” instead? The less ambiguous the wording is more support it will get, i see no reason to use a word that foreseeably stirs up so much controversy.

Also keep in mind that despite what the legal experts says, their interpretations are not legally binding, but words in the constitutions are. If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.

As for the executive branch, the Voice is too vague at its current stage to have it involved. Now, this wouldn’t an issue if we actually reach the treaty stage of the Uluru statement and we have a well-thought out treaty that designates the executive rights of aboriginals. It would be cool if we do that. But with how overarching the executive government is, the Voice should either be more specific (i.e. ditch the “we’ll figure it out once it passed” mentality), or leave it for the next stage of negotiation with aboriginals.

A well-thought out referendum needs to address concerns for everyone across the political aisle before getting pushed forward, especially if a major concern is just the wording. The two issues above should be easily identified at the drafting stage and both have relatively simple fix (i.e. no fundamental disagreement on the underlying purpose), but here we are. I feel bad for the aboriginals, fingers crossed this doesn’t make too much trouble for future referendums.

Feel free to keep hurling racism accusations again randoms that didn’t even mention any identity group. i’m sure that’ll help with your cause.

Mean while, congratulations on securing a no vote.

If something thats getting added to the constitution requires a bracket explanation, its a poorly worded addition.

Using “make representation” and the advisory body’s involvement in the executive government are two hard red lines. The lack of effort and thoughts in this referendum is screaming out from its text.

same reason as nuclear power - high startup, low maintainance. Even if the lifetime cost is lower, the initial cost and its associated risk makes these kinds of investments unattractive.

This problem is even worse for trains, because the last miles has to go onto trucks anyways

I’m one of those guys, IOS phone with windows PC. There really isn’t much out there that is as convenient as IOS, but theres no way I would use a Mac, as compatibility issues and more expensive hardware will ultimately hurt functionality.

Because for the first time in 14 years money is no longer free.

Right now the interest rate sits at 5% and it will remain there for the foreseeable future. Investors no longer have the patients to wait for growth because bonds are actually investable now, so all your “get user first find business later” companies began to panic and tries to squeeze everything out of its users.

Hilariously, the only social media company that will come out of this relatively unharmed is probably Facebook, because their unethical practices actually makes money

I’m having some serious problem with how this is worded:

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Since the First Peoples already have representation as a part of their Australian citizenship, the way this is worded presumably gives them extra representation compare to a non-indigenous citizen. If this “representations” is purely advisory, then I don’t have a problem. Having it explicitly written into the constitution is a huge can of worm I’m not sure if I’m willing to touch.

before anyone starts, I’m a first-gen immigrant with no skin in this game, and I haven’t read any arguement from either sides outside of this post.

Changing even a single letter will completely scramble your password with hash, so for all intents and purpose it is equivalent to a unique password

Though I do admit it can get a bit tedious, I’ll definitly look into self-hosting, thanks for the recommendation

I don’t use them. I see this as a putting all eggs in one basket strategy, if my master password was lost, hacked, hosting company shutdown, or for whatever reason refuse to do business with me, my entire life would be screwed.

Instead I use long passwords made of words, and for each site it will be a few letters off. They’re easy for humans to remember because how similar they are, but due how hash works they are equivalent to unique passwords to hackers.