Maybe it murdered its sibling.

So it could eat more KFC from the local bins itself !

LOL sounds like Delivery Unlimited certainly has its limits!

Time to stock up on Zooper Doopers !

Guardian article here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/31/jewish-community-security-group-csg-right-carry-guns-after-bondi-attack-ntwnfb

The NSW CSG, which describes itself as a mixture of security professionals and trained volunteers, records antisemitic incidents and assesses the level of threat to the community, which its website says is currently at the highest level – critical.

It is run through the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and funded by Jewish community organisations. It has received grants from federal and state governments.

Under NSW’s Security Industry Act, CSG also holds a “master licence”, meaning it can provide licensed security staff in the state. Its ME class licence allows it to provide the maximum number of more personnel, 50 or more.

Peter Dutton was advocating nuclear about a year ago but I haven’t heard much since then.

Why we haven’t pivoted more towards solar, I don’t know.

I guess because it threatens the profits of coal, oil and gas?

Who to believe?

"Wood-lover’s Paralysis (WLP) is an extremely rare, but potentially fatal, toxidrome causing unpredictable muscle weakness.

Dr Simon Beck, an MD in his final year of psychiatry training, and Mr Caine Barlow MSc, a mycologist and education officer for Ethnogenesis Australis, along with Dr Monica Barratt and Dr Liam Engel, have been the first to describe Wood-lover’s Paralysis in a study published in Toxicon.

According to the Victorian Coroner’s report, released this month, WLP was potentially associated with the death of Rachael Lee Dixon, who ingested magic mushrooms at a wellness retreat last year."

https://insightplus.mja.com.au/2025/37/australian-experts-first-to-describe-potentially-fatal-magic-mushroom-toxidrome/

LOL sharing is exactly why I am on Lemmy !

Ban Ford Rangers at least. The drivers tend to be inconsiderate psychos.

They can ride eBikes instead.

Discounted CGT and negative gearing come to mind…

Of course it is.

Corporations offshore profits to tax havens to avoid paying too much tax.

Wealthy individuals mostly make money from investments rather than salary and pay discounted CGT instead of income tax on most of their money

The middle class and poor get to pay more to make up for this nonsense.

Very true

Yes gambling gets a pass every time in this country. The only state where Greyhound racing is banned is ACT. Tas plans to phase it out by 2029

I assume the ACCC but nothing is really spelled out in this article. Whether that is the article’s fault or the loose way the regulations seem to be written I do not know.

Excessive really does need to be quantified or else terms like price gouging are still undefined and it’s more of a vibe.

That once again politicians just don’t know what they are doing but need to at least pretend they are doing something good. This is probably fairly close to the truth.

Turdburglar has the right idea too, that it’s about selling age verification as another service. Sounds about right. Corporations would charge us to breathe if they could.

There have been some really creepy mods and admins over the years, that is for sure.

Depends what you believe. The more cynical believe it is about connecting real identities with online comments.

The more generous believe it’s about safety.

I think this is absolutely the wrong way to go about things though.

Sounds like the ban didn’t work very well !

Here are some other comments from parents who contacted the ABC as part of an audience call-out looking at the immediate impacts of the social media ban:

“My son opened TikTok this morning and received this message: ‘The social media ban has come into effect. Your age is estimated to be 18 years old.’ He is 11.” — David, Vic

“My 13-year-old son has passed the age verification face scan by hiding his teeth and scrunching up his face. It guessed his age as 30+. In real life he passes for a 10-year-old.” — Matt, Qld

“My son is almost 16 and has been kicked off Snapchat already on the 9th December but my daughter who is 14 still hasn’t been asked to verify her age on the app. We know multiple children who are 13 who passed the Face ID scan.” — Melissa, WA

“My 13-year-old daughter still has access to all her social media accounts this morning, and she verified her age via facial scanning. I am hoping that they are still working their way through and she will be booted off soon. If not then it’s a fail for us.” — Alison, NSW

“I am under the age of 16 and have not been banned on any platform. Many of my friends in my grade are also under 16 and not one of them has been banned yet.” — Julius, Qld

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-10/social-media-ban-day-one-teen-access/106126706

Yep looks like many sites haven’t actually implemented the age verification at all.

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/we-tried-to-break-australia-s-social-media-ban-it-wasn-t-hard-20251210-p5nmcx

Social media platforms are still allowing users who declare themselves to be under 16 to sign up for new accounts, despite Australia’s world-first social media ban coming into effect today.

…

testing by The Australian Financial Review found Meta platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads, as well as Snapchat, TikTok and X were the only platforms to prohibit users signing up if they listed their age as under 16. As of 6am AEDT, the Financial Review created accounts on video streaming platforms Kick and Twitch despite listing the user age as below 16. Several hours after establishing the account, Kick prompted the user to verify their age, but the app remains fully accessible at this stage without verification.

Likewise, online forum Reddit – which said it would comply with law but is preparing a potential legal challenge to the new regulations – did not require users to input their age at all while setting up an account, with adult “18+ content” on the platform filtered using a toggle in the app’s settings without any age verification. On YouTube, owned by Google parent Alphabet, users can set up an account while listing their age as under 16 and comment and watch videos. Viewers can watch YouTube and TikTok without logging on, but even the under-16 account created by the Financial Review was able to easily access explicit content. While Facebook, Instagram and Threads, Snapchat, TikTok and X prevented people under 16 from signing up, all 10 social platforms let the Financial Review create accounts that listed an age of 18 without any further age verification.

Please explain the antitrust part?