as long as no one can kick me out
In the 21st century, I can’t imagine anyone gets this guarantee without a stupid amount of wealth. And even then, high wealth levels (and its maintenance) requires far more people than it seems you’re comfortable with.
No matter where you live, even if you own the property outright, pressure to “develop” can unexpectedly come knocking.
and it’s far away from people
I feel this, keenly. I truly hope you find what you need.
via @faab64@freefree.ps:
Brave British police captured another dangerous terrorist today
It takes continual effort to offset the Coriolis effect down under.
if they made their homes more energy efficient
Assertion misses the point: Most Australians whose homes need to be made more energy efficient, are renting and have no agency in doing anything like that to their homes.
Telling those people "you could save on your power bill by modifications to your home”, is just cruel. We know our homes are energy inefficient, we can’t make the changes required.
What’s needed is legislation that mandates the landlord must pay for those improvements, before they take any more money from the renter.
No. That is one question they ask. It is not how they define intimate partner violence.
The definition they use is right there in the report:
What is intimate partner violence? In this research, we adopt the definition of intimate partner violence set out in the National Plan as:
Any behaviour within an intimate relationship (including current or past marriages, domestic partnerships or dates) that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm … Intimate partner violence can occur outside of a domestic setting, such as in public, and between 2 people that do not live together. (DSS, 2022, p 37)
So if the behaviour does not (my emphasis) “cause physical, sexual or psychological harm”, it does not match their definition of intimate partner violence.
So their announcement seems to be saying they’ll follow what the national government officially calls the feature:
In an X post on Monday, Google said its Maps service would reflect the change once it is officially updated in the US Geographic Names System. The change will be visible to Google Maps users in the US, but it will remain listed as Gulf of Mexico for those accessing the platform from Mexico. Outside of the two countries, users will see both names.
And, yeah. What is the alternative policy from Google that we’re proposing? That Google should be sovereign in itself, declare they’ll name it whatever seems right to Google, and not defer to the government appointed names for things? Based on what, exactly?
I want Google subject to official government policy, and not to ignore it. I want Google Maps to follow the official name when, for example, Ayer’s Rock is now officially called Uluru.
This specific government policy (that the Gulf of Mexico be changed to the “Gulf of America”) is stupid and jingoistic. But is the answer to that, we want corporations empowered to ignore government policy?
If the government of the day orders that Uluru is now called “Aussie Stone”, and Google announces they’ll update maps to follow the change of official name? My objection is not that Google follows the official name; it’s that the government of the day is wrong and needs to be ousted.
Here is a Wayback Machine URL for the same post: https://web.archive.org/web/20250912020115/https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-death-fascism-america-united-states-donald-trump-australia-don-farrell/ in case you want to update the post to use that URL.