The key part:

They had a question they wanted a court to answer. Is the state government responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal after it is sold and exported overseas?

On Wednesday, the high court found that it is.

In a landmark 3-2 ruling, a majority of judges found the Independent Planning Commission of NSW failed to consider imposing conditions aimed at minimising these emissions – known as scope 3 emissions – to the greatest extent possible when it approved MACH Energy’s coalmine expansion.

Huge outcome in principle.

It would be trivially easy for the government to amend the law to say it is not required to consider scope 3 emissions, or to resubmit this approval by saying “we considered imposing scope 3 emissions restrictions and decided against it”. And if this had happened in Queensland under the openly corrupt Crisafulli government I have no doubt that would happen. But perhaps in NSW there’s some hope that it will hold.

But as a matter of law, this finding is awesome.

Anyone stopping was probably planning to stop anyway

It seems likely to me that people will make the same number of stops in their trip from Brisbane to Sydney or wherever. But where before they might’ve stopped at the Big Banana or elsewhere in Coffs, now they might drive another half hour before they pull off, or stop a bit earlier. So Coffs might lose out, but the Mid North Coast region as a whole probably won’t be negatively affected.

It’s a core tenant

Tenet

No, people paying by card are subsidising the cash users. The cost of handling cash is an order of magnitude greater than the debit card fees.

Just a reminder that the law actually says weekend and holiday surcharges must be clearly stated in the menu at least as prominently as the most prominent item on the menu. So if it’s down the bottom in fine print, or if it’s the same size as normal menu items but they have specials extra large, you can tell them to stuff it.

and we had a law to say that the surcharge must be clearly advertised in advance

Except it never was.

The surcharge was clearly associated with the cost of using that form of payment.

Except that the cost of handling cash is many times greater than the cost of using debit cards.

The point is that in practice, these charges had no purpose other than hiding the true cost of the product from the vast majority of customers whom they know are paying by card. It’s deceptive. The same reason we don’t allow tax to be added at checkout, and that we ban mandatory drop pricing.

Just so you know, you’re wasting your time arguing with a literal Nazi. They literally once justified Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people on the grounds that they need, and I quote, “living space”.

Where do you get those graphs? Does it also compare federation between Lemmy and Piefed/Pylova instances? I’ve noticed at least some of my comments on Quokkau are having federation issues with AZ.

Farrrk. I wrote this 2 days ago on my Quokkau account but it looks like it never federated. Here it is again:

Are you sure that letter is relevant here? They didn’t implement this at the start of the year when the minimum age of 16 for social media came in. And the age limit that just came in seems to be an 18+ one, not 16+. This is related to a different legislative instrument that happens to also fall under the Online Safety Act 2021. From the eSafety website:

For search engine services, internet carriage services, and hosting services, the relevant Age-Restricted Material Codes took effect starting on 27 December 2025.

For designated internet services, relevant electronic services, social media services, app distribution platforms, and equipment providers, the relevant Age-Restricted Material Codes took effect starting on 9 March 2026.

Some requirements under the Age-Restricted Material Codes have a staged commencement. This includes some requirements around appropriate age checks, including for logged-in users of search engine services (must be in place before 27 June 2026), and for users seeking to download apps rated R18+ from app distribution services (must be in place before 9 September 2026).

Note that none of that page is about the social media minimum age law which came into effect on 10 December 2025.

That letter seems pretty narrowly talking about the classification of Steam as an “age‐restricted social media platform”. Whether they were classified as such or not in the end I’m not sure, but this latest round of age verification doesn’t give us a hint either way. I’d guess they were not, since the government was pretty clear about saying gaming wouldn’t be included under the SMMA law and I don’t recall hearing anything about Steam being included in any restrictions until last week.

The requirements around multiple methods do not exist in the Age-Restricted Material Codes, only the Social Media Minimum Age obligation, though eSafety says companies “should take into account the…fairness of the solution” (note: pdf link. Check section 5.1©). Steam’s approach may be challengable legally, but it is not nearly as much of a slam dunk as it would be if the SMMA obligation were the relevant one.

This might be a rare case where I actually don’t mind that.

If Labor’s going to put up someone who is a literal fossil fuel lobbyist as their candidate, they fucking deserve to lose. It’s sickening.

Walk on the left side of the footpath/shared path. The vast majority of people are good at this, but you get enough people who just can’t seem to get it. It’s bloody annoying.

a big ol bendy boy

I do think it’s less common on the bigger buses. You can’t do it on the Metro for example, I’m pretty sure (only been on it a couple of times, but IIRC the driver is in a fully separated cabin).

wtf are you talking about?

You’re conspiracy bullshit doesn’t work on non-cookers.

I completed the form incorrectly.

On purpose? That’s so much worse than just not filling it at all. That’s a total arsehole move.

You’re meant to have received your code, along with other details, in the mail.

It’s tied to your address. Every address with at least one person staying in it on census night has to fill out a form.

I agree that that isn’t a good argument.

A better argument is that this is how the government gets a sense for what the population is. For example, a growing percentage of “non-religious” or (to a lesser extent) non-Christian religious makes it harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies for religious schools and special status for religious organisations. A higher percentage of people saying they travel to work by bike or public transport helps justify increasing funding for those methods over continued motornormativity.

I’d pay the fine if that’s what it came down to.

This isn’t the token fine for not voting. It’s $364 per day.

Unfortunately it still seems off. I just submitted this 20 mins ago but it’s not showing up on AZ.

Are these actually smart glasses, or just glasses with a camera in them? Because that is not the same thing. We’ve had glasses with cameras in them for like 20 years. They can be great for recording a ride or run, for example.