eureka

Horrible stuff. I'm glad no-one was injured, antisemitism has no place here (and attacking a synagogue and the surrounding community is certainly that).

oh yeah nah course we care about *checks notes* US lawmakers and their thoughts. utmost respect for em.

There is an interesting, complex conversation going on between the many different Australian advocacy groups here in the article, it's clearly got a few interesting angles to it. But if one thing is clear, the US lawmakers are not only ignorant of the discussion but incidentally hypocritical (see the Game Industry Council comment on US deer practices). They seem to mean well, in a surprising way, but that's no excuse for professional lawmakers to be so blatantly ignorant. Although, to be honest, I'd be surprised if any conservationist legislation went through their congress under this regime, so I doubt it will pass.

Linking

You should be aware of your speedometer even if you think you can safely drive at a speed...... Especially in urban areas, where I'd assume it's more likely in urban areas for your car will collide with people at no fault of your own, like a kid carelessly running onto the road. Lower speeds make crashes far less dangerous, I wouldn't be surprised at all if five 30kph crashes a month had a significantly lesser fatality rate than one 50kph crash a month.

edit: very relevant, someone else mentioned this video. Amsterdam set their speed limit down to the same 30kph.

What do you think when two organizations you trust say different things?

To be honest, I would have trusted Cancer Council much more than Choice before this news challenged my trust (not because of any particular thing Choice has done). The ABC article today about the Princeton Consumer Research test and allegations of its results being concerningly homogeneous has just made this a bit more complicated.

That last paragraph. Oh my.

I hope the Cancer Council ones are fine.

Hey OP, I noticed at the bottom of the article it credits that it's a republishing of the original article by ABC. Always good to link upstream if you notice that happening, for example the upstream article might notice a mistake and correct it.

give em a good old nwgffo ^[0]^

On the other hand, I enjoy finally seeing a correct use of the word "antisemitic" by ABC News.

pls check the comm before reposting the same news story that's already been here for hours.

I disagree with the implication that a child should be left to die if the medical centre isn't paid. I know the doctors need to be paid and their work deserves to be compensated, I know medical centres need to have costly supplies to operate, of course, but the commodification of society's critical healthcare needs is an atrocity.

The author suggests it was the doctor's lack of care, but if there's some missing context that somehow justified their decision, it's still a damning insight into paid healthcare systems. Would distributing the cost of that treatment be more or less damaging than the cost of denying it?

one less doctor

On the other hand, if they're replaced with someone who doesn't let patients die like that, that's saving lives.

I hope they heal up alright and keep their sight. A friend who was arrested by NSW Police at Port Botany for similar protests said they saw headshot photos in the police station of people the police were aiming to arrest (union and organisation leaders) so I don't think it's an "unfortunate coincidence" they brutalised someone so famous. [edit: scare quotes, not quoting anyone]