vaguerant

joined 7 months ago
[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Same, Pirate Party used to get top preferences from me, but then Fusion was sort of just a micro-party Greens, which is fine but not really adding to the landscape. It's bizarre to see what they've become as of 2025. I don't know where this sudden rightward lurch came from.

 

Hey auspol. It's about that time again: you know, the one where you have to sit around researching about 15 minor parties that sound distantly familiar to figure out what to put as your bottom preferences.

This year I found my way to a couple of blogs which offer brief and unabashedly biased reviews of the minor parties in the federal landscape. These are not new, I'm just late.

Both blogs are written from a relatively progressive-left perspective, at least by Australian standards. Inside the spoiler below is what they say about themselves:

Summaries of bloggersBlatantly Partisan Party Reviews

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a political party. I review from the perspective of a small-g green democratic socialist. I am trained and work as a political historian of Australia and New Zealand. This background guides my reviews, which originated as—and remain—notes to inform my own vote. I do not aim for any false neutrality or objectivity, and I share these remarks in the hope they are useful to others trying to navigate Australia’s plethora of micro-parties. It should be obvious but these are my personal opinions, which should not be construed as representing the views of my employer nor of any other organisation with which I am affiliated.

Something for Cate

I’m Maz. In no particular order I’m left of centre, a grandparent, a writer, trans, pansexual, a mental health lived experience worker, agnostic, supportive of unions, and supporter of the Arts. I’m committed to holding governments and media accountable and, while I can’t promise complete objectivity, I can promise to deliver the same treatment to every party and independent in this election.

I’m Loki. I’ve been in several political parties and never found one left enough for my liking. I’m a bisexual cis male, and likewise agnostic, pro-Union and pro-arts. I try not to approach anything uncritically, whether I agree with it or not. I firmly believe that objectivity is a goal that can be striven for but never actually reached. That said, in that quest I will seek, strive and not yield.

While I obviously recommend you come to your own conclusions about the parties, it can be nice to hear what other voters think of them, especially when it's some shit you never heard of before.

Something for Cate especially includes coverage of unregistered groupings, which are a deep black box of nothing to me most of the time.

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 111 points 6 days ago (46 children)

Is it not obvious that this is the first half of a sentence and has been selectively edited to mislead?

I don't have video of the Montana rally, but Sanders has talked about this issue repeatedly at the Fight Oligarchy rallies, and here is what he said in LA:

“Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, but it does not have a right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people… to kill 50,000 people, injure over 100,000 and destroy the entire infrastructure.”

“And as bad as that is, Trump wants to expel the 2.2 million people in Gaza in order to create a playground for his billionaire friends,” Sanders added, referring to Trump’s proposal to “take ownership” of the Gaza strip. “That is beyond insane, and we will never, never let that happen.”

Certainly, there are many who disagree with this half of the sentence, and that's fine, but it should at least be presented with context.

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 33 points 1 week ago

I can't see a way for this to be anything but a Producers situation. Calling it literally anything but Fyre Festival 2 would increase the odds of success, if the event succeeding was ever the plan.

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 68 points 1 week ago

Surely this means Lemmy has finally reached critical mass and we're slashdotting other sites now. /s

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).

How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn't think they needed to go in the article? You'd basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn't there, but how many people that aren't getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?

There's absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it's also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In 1999, Craig became sharply critical of U.S. President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Craig told Tim Russert: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy – a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Mate, wtf is an old carburator?

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

This article is paywalled on my end, here's an archive link if anybody else needs it: https://archive.md/KoTcD

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago

Reddit probably closed down their existing community.

[–] vaguerant@fedia.io 79 points 1 month ago (16 children)

The big headline is understandably that it crashes into a fake painted wall like a cartoon, but that's not something that most drivers are likely to encounter on the road. The other two comparisons where lidar succeeded and cameras failed were the fog and rain tests, where the Tesla ran over a mannequin that was concealed from standard optical cameras by extreme weather conditions. Human eyes are obviously susceptible to the same conditions, but if the option is there, why not do better than human eyes?