surreptitiouswalk

No it's not. People don't generally lose consciousness, so even if they regain it, they should still be escalated to advanced care to be clinically assessed.

On a completely unrelated note, I was scrolling down the article and saw a big X and clicked it thinking it was a popup or ad and hit it out of habit, but it was actually the embedded tweet.

Another reason why the X rebrand is dumb.

There was a podcast episode, I think from Democracy Sausage, that talked about how historically referendum no campaigning parties actually do poorly in the subsequent general election since they lean in to absolutely insane arguments during the campaign, which gets them the referendum win, but the loss in the general election. I hope that happens here.

I thought voting no was supposed to end the division?

Well looks like we know what Price has got for selling out her people. Now we just gotta find out what Warren Mundine's pay day is.

So you want to help people who are born into disadvantage but you don't want to hear from those very same people?

Oooooookay?

Literally pulled a Mark McGowen. But to be fair, probably the best way to go rather than have it drag on for ages.

I actually find state politics to be very different than federal or even local politics. Here in NSW, Labor have massively ramped up development, even more than the Coalition did (their head of the department of planning suggested some corruption is acceptable for accelerated development). However they put the brakes on public transport projects started by the Coalition.

Local council level Greens and Labor are all anti-development NIMBYs though.

Probably goes to show that "left" and "right" aren't really monolithic terms.

I don't think the left and right divide on this issue has ever been that clean. The left are generally anti-development (to maintain local characteristics and heritage) but pro high density developer (but always in someone else's suburb). The right have been pro-development but mostly in poor or outlining suburbs.

There's so much self interest at play it's hard to actually implement a good sensible centre policy.

It is, but unfortunately it's the smallest increase in representation that we could offer to our First Australians that could actually get up. I don't need to comment on how even that little increase in influence that I'd bring proposed is going down.

This smells like the owners left the car for an extended period of time for a trip and decided unplugging the battery would be a way to maintain its charge during the time, like a normal AAA battery.

Except that's not how an EV's lithium battery works at all, and by manually disconnecting it, they've either damaged it, or disconnected it from any active monitoring that's needed to keep it stable.

Wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that the owner is some tech enthusiast or amateur mechanic/electrician.

I think your first paragraph nails it. Developers are holding off development not to introduce artificial scarcity, but to maximise development. So they keep the land empty until either they can convince the council to approve a higher density, or a change in state government gives them an avenue to bulldoze through the council roadblocks.

At least in NSW a single graph is needed to show this relationship: https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/housing-supply-insights/quarterly-insights-monitor-q1/trends-in-housing-supply the correlation between number of approvals and number of constructions is basically exact. Which means, the roadblock to construction is council approval, not corporate greed or developers gaming the system to generate artificial scarcity or any other conspiracy you can think of.

I do agree that removing infrastructure charges is not a solution. From my perspective, this won't do anything since developers aren't blocked because of costs, but either materials supply or council blockades. Removing infrastructure charges solves neither of these issues.