As a child protection caseworker, I’m right here with you. The amount of children and young people I’m working with who are self-harming and experiencing suicidal ideation over this stuff is quite prevalent. Sadly, it’s almost all girls who are targeted by this and it’s just another way to push misogyny into the next generation. Desensitisation isn’t the way; it will absolutely cause too much harm before it equalises.

Same boat mate - Aussie govt employee myself who has access to flex. Personally I felt it was better when I was working for an NGO and they always gave me the choice between being paid overtime or banking it to flex later. It was nice to get the extra cash when I needed it and extra leave when the time came too. That should be the standard the employee should have the choice between OT or extra leave.

I think a good way of calculating their sentence should be in lost Franc-years. That is, calculate all of the lost wages they didn’t pay and force them to serve as many years as that amount would make in minimum wage. If they paid one staff member 1/12 of the minimum wage for one year, then that’s 11 months of gaol. If they paid 10 staff members 1/12 of the minimum wage for one year, that’s 9 years gaol. Take from them (in time) what was stolen from their workers. That’s the only way they’ll understand what they’ve stolen, because they have no value of a dollar, rupee, euro or franc.

I’m with you here, mate. My workplace went 100% remote during COVID and has only gone back to mandating five days per month back in the office and honestly? I think we’d do better with a mandated two days in the office and three days at home per week, mandating days where our team can all work together. I’m a social worker in an intake/assessment/referral position, and I desperately miss being able to look over my shoulder and debrief my case or gain some peer consultation on how best to manage the case I’m on. The one day I’m in I’m almost alone and gain barely any benefit from being in the office.

We have a fair few physically disabled colleagues, for whom I’d recommend a no-limits flexibility working arrangement that works for them, but for those of us who are physically able I think a 2/3 split would work far better. Our attrition rates have gone right up since COVID despite previously having some of the highest retention rates in our Department, and I can’t help but think that some of that is due to us being isolated while needing to rely on one another from time to time.

It’s really sad these days that “my algorithmic feed didn’t show me an article about this thing” has become equated with “no one is talking about this thing”. So many of us live in our little bubbles but still think that it’s fifty years ago and we all read the same three newspapers. We get fed different content based on what we consume; that’s a fact of modern media. If you want to know what’s out there, you need to search for it.

Mate, I’ll be honest with you here - I grow bananas on my property and I can definitely tell you the last term I’d use to describe their trunks is ‘woody’. They’re so moisture-laden and ultra porous that anyone who’s ever had to cut or cull banana will know for sure that they’re not made of wood. You can easily carve through a 15-20cm trunk of a banana plant with a sharp machete and one strong swing - try that on anything generally considered to be a tree and you’ll be lucky to get a fair chip out of the trunk.

I’ve got no skin in the game as to whether or not they’re trees, or what the fuck a ‘tree’ even is, but anyone who’s dealt with growing bananas is pretty unlikely to consider them in the same group as woody trees. Damn things grow like weeds anyway!

I would love for more of this work to be done in my country too - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have so much lore, history and knowledge that we’ve been losing with each passing generation due to the ongoing effects of colonialism. I agree that video is the most appropriate way to preserve oral traditions and knowledge, and that we should be creating massive publicly-accessible databases to store and view them.

I wouldn’t necessarily say never. Truthfully, I’ve pirated a few games and once I found out I loved them I’ve bought copies. I had the capacity to buy, but didn’t want to sink the money in for a potentially low return. I definitely would never have had the money to buy all of the games I pirated over the years though.

I also don’t consider sharing of ROMs of outdated games that are no longer available for sale in order to use in an emulator as piracy, and I’d say the vast majority of my fee-free game downloads were focussed there. How can I be depriving the creators of anything if I literally have no way to pay them to access the content?

Welp, looks like it’s gonna be yet another Ubisoft cash-grab. Yay.

Yeah I’ve never really bought into the whole ‘but they’re the only stable choice’ argument as that’s the exact thinking that leads you to a two-party system. Multiparty rule is far better than majority rule in my opinion as it represents far more discrete circumstances simultaneously. Personally I’m in favour of scrapping parties altogether, but that’s a far deeper rabbit hole.

Wow. That’s a bunch of great ideas right there!

I really like using federal government to set direction but pushing for local changes ASAP. Honestly that seems like the most logical way to cater to individual needs while moving as quickly as possible.

Obviously we also have to invest heavily in public transport, right? Not only do we need to beef up what existing but we’ll need to create new linkages in order to prevent transportation deserts. Part of the issue with that is it might require some compulsory acquisition of land. That’s always a super tetchy area because I don’t always ascribe to a utilitarian “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” view.

I think another area that needs to be looked at is mandating some level of working from home in roles where that’s possible. Travelling to and from work causes the most congestion both on roads and in public transport, and it’s just silly to be forcing people to travel when they don’t need to all the time. That’s something that will need another top-down approach - probably set down either at State or Federal level and mandated legislatively.

Can I just say thank you so much for your considered and good-faith reply. This is what I come to Lemmy for - the ideas and the opinions that really spark debate and discussion!

That sounds like a good place to start to me!

A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?

You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.

I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.

I see the confusion - my semicolon usage was to denote items in a list. Physical disabilities, Autism and obesity were three separate conditions that I was suggesting may be impacted by removing all cars from the road. My apologies if that was not clear. I included Autism in there specifically because my cousin recently got his licence and has been over the moon about how he no longer has to deal with the sensory overload shit he puts up with on public transport. It was an example close to my heart, and clearly it was close to yours as well.

I’m sorry that it seems as though I’ve presented concepts as absolute truths - that was not my intention. My intention was to list some circumstances where some people may be negatively affected as a starting point for discussion around disability accommodations in a car-free world.

Just to state - I personally do believe we need to reduce car usage as much as possible and seriously ramp up accessibility while removing all costs for high-quality public transport. I think cars are a blight on our society and we rely far too heavily on them. I just don’t know how to get rid of them without any negative unintended consequences. I was seeking a debate, or to be informed on how this could be done well. Instead it seems as though I’ve offended you, which was not my intention.

I know that understanding tone from text can be difficult at the best of times but I’ve honestly tried to be as genuine and non-combative as possible. I’m sorry there’s not more I can do to convey that I agree with your sentiment and am asking for help in how that can be put into place without accidentally harming anyone.

That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.

My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.

Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?

That’s interesting, because “the apple doesn’t/didn’t fall far from the tree” is a known Anglophonic saying that basically means that a child turned out a lot like a parent (gender not necessarily specified). I wonder if one is a calque of the other.

…does the chicken’s power level need to be over 9000 in order to be safe to eat?

There are differing schools of thought regarding the vast amount of deities in Hinduism. One school, which is what most outsiders are aware of, is that each god is individual from one another and they have varying domains, powers and relationships, much like the ancient Roman and Greek gods. Another school suggests that all of the different gods are expressions of a singular God, much as how Christianity has the Holy Trinity who are three separate beings (Lord, Jesus, Holy Spirit) that are also simultaneously one being.

You’ll find that oftentimes outside of the context of a puja or a religious holiday Hindu people will often just refer to ‘God’ rather than a specific deity e.g. “Thank God” rather than “Thank Durga” or “God is watching over you” and not “Ganesh is watching over you”. I’m not sure if this reflects their school of thought on mono/polytheism or is just language simplification, but from what I’ve gathered from Indian communities here in Australia the ‘many gods; one God’ idea seems to be pretty prevalent.

donated blood for a few dollars

If they were paid for it then it’s not a donation - it’s a sale. They sold their blood. I get that that sounds weird, but it’s accurate. That’s why in Australia it’s illegal to give any financial or other incentives for blood, so it truly makes it a donation.