If they promoted nuclear while they were in government they would have been expected to actually build it, though.
Now that they're in opposition they're free to run a fact-free pro-nuclear campaign to undermine solar and wind without the obligation of building anything.
That's one of the big advantages solar has - anyone can put up half a dozen solar panels.
You can't build 0.001% of a nuclear power station in your backyard. Or a coal power plant, for that matter. So those are under the control of government and industry in a way that solar isn't.
So while the coalition government was talking up coal power, Australians were ignoring them and installing solar themselves, a few panels at a time.
If Dutton is against it, it's probably the right thing to do.
"I especially hope my enemies will remain under my platform's control."
Historically, 'authentic' food was probably half rotten anyway.
*removed externally hosted image*
IIRC the prices of stuff rich people spend money on aren't going up much, because those are optional purchases and sales will drop if prices go up.
It's things like housing and food that are skyrocketing which are hitting poor people the hardest. What are you going to do, stop eating?
Old news, it's been superseded by RFC6214.
"Interest rates mostly hurt people who have big loans" is news now?
Bunch of whiners, the benzene adds flavour.
I'm sure there was a rollback process, it just didn't work.
Unlike coal fired power stations, solar projects reckon its cheaper to switch off than to pay someone else to take the output.
Well, yes, that's because they can actually just switch off and on. Solar doesn't need to spend time and energy heating up before it's able to resume producing power.
If it just puts out normal voltage it'll be fine.
my laptop charger which is rated for 19v to 24V
Well, feeding voltage in that range to 24V fans would be fine, but "19 to 24V" makes it sound like a USB type-C charger or something which communicates with the device to set its output voltage. A power supply should have a single voltage.
Unless it's one of those generic power supplies with a switch to set the voltage?
We tell the victims to stop being victims all the time. That's why you get fined for crossing the road near a crossing, or speeding when there are no other cars on the road. It's not about who has the moral high ground, it's about saving lives.
Intellectual dishonesty is actually what I'm accusing the bike group of. Instead of making the point that the road isn't safe for trucks and backing that up with reasoning and evidence, they're acting like it should be obvious that this government designed road is unsafe for government approved vehicles and trying to require others to prove that it is safe, because it's easier to make someone else do all the work while you sit back and nitpick.
That question is proposing banning legal traffic from a normal street but dishonestly challenging others to justify not doing it, instead of making an argument in favour of their own proposal. You see that a lot from religious people who challenge you to prove their particular flavour of nonsense isn't true.
Let me turn it back on you: should we ban bicycles from roads? Someone died from it! Why are bicycles still allowed on roads?!
"Should traffic be allowed on roads" is an incredibly broad, vague question that a coroner isn't going to decide to take up when investigating the specifics of one particular incident.
Of every 10 people who need help, only three are actually being aided.
No, three are being answered. A percentage of those actually receive help.
Your airplane mode keeps running the Bluetooth radio?
Did the Liberals ever get any sort of punishment for that?
It's not like their real policy of "rich people should get richer" is going to get them a lot of votes from 90% of the population, so they need something to pretend to stand for to bring in the votes.