null_dot
@null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Why can't countries with vast deserts make solar farms to power the world? 2 hours ago:
Sure but, the critical question in this post is how to get solar energy from the desert to the market. You can’t just string up power lines because too much is lost in transmission.
In the immediate future, Japan is a target market for Australia’s Hydrogen, and that’s many thousands of kilometers from Australia’s production facilities.
Over this distance hydrogen is the least inefficient method of transport.
- Comment on Why can't countries with vast deserts make solar farms to power the world? 1 day ago:
Well ackshually …
As others have mentioned pwoer transmission is a huge problem. You lose lots of power in the wires between here and there. So Australia has vast areas of desert, but if you put up an array of solar panels you can’t really transfer the power to where it needs to be used.
However, there’s a lot of investment presently in hydrogen tech. So instead of transferring power by wire, you use it to crack hydrogen out of sea water, and ship the hydrogen to where it needs to be used… in cars and houses.
There are problems in that hydrogen is difficult to store, but the industry is confident these problems can be solved or reduced. Hydrogen atoms are very small and will leak through most materials. It also makes containers brittle over time, so you need a strategy to manage that.
There’s a number of water cracking facilities in progress in Australia right now. The WGEH is a gargantuan project, although presently just in the planning phase.
I’m sure a number of experts will be along in a moment to tell me all the reasons why this isn’t really a thing that will happen. IDK why Hydrogen tech invokes so much derision. The story is that there’s too many problems with Hydrogen and that these projects are just a way to delay proper action on climate change. We will see I guess.
- Comment on tall tails 1 week ago:
This is straight from the Pseudo Scientist playbook, well established Graham Hancock shtick.
- Comment on tall tails 1 week ago:
The Experts claim to have an answer to every question
That’s not my experience at all. “The Experts” are extraordinarily cautious to make assertions even when they’re well supported. They talk about “models” and are happy to revise and update their positions when contrary evidence emerges.
Pseudo scientists have answers for everything.
- Comment on My friend got this when she tried to view a Reddit post about a dental issue that got marked as NSFW 1 week ago:
I hear you.
I’d never really encountered the nutty parts of progressive politics until coming to Lemmy. Often times you don’t need to say something conservative, but merely say something that challenges a poorly conceived thought bubble and you get piled on.
There’s a really strong sense of idealism here. A lot of users deal in absolutes and don’t seem able to engage with the nuance of life.
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
Everything you’ve said is the very definition of subjective - making up your own definitions for complex concepts without any regard for the meaning of those terms.
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
You’re illustrating my point - that assertions about how Labor is really a conservative party, are subjective and unhelpful.
the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse
Apparently half of voting Americans would disagree with you, as they seem to believe Trump’s changes will make things better.
My original point is, an assertion that Labor is a conservative party is essentially a “both sides” argument, which discourages people from engaging with politics. Admittedly, it’s less egregious in Australia given that we have preferential voting, but it’s still an annoying Americanism.
- Comment on When real life generates the shitpost 1 week ago:
Who cares what this asshole thinks. He’s an actor.
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
So, by that definition Trump is a radical progressive president, probably one of the most progressive in history, given the raft of changes he’s implemented in such a short time and the nation’s rapid progress towards fascism.
- Comment on Has Charlie Kirk ever changed his views on a subject during a debate? 1 week ago:
Yeah, engaging with people in the comments has certainly influenced my opinion, many times. Daily probably.
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
They’re arranged relative to how much change. If the amount of change is close to zero, that’s conservative.
Did you just make that up according to your own thoughts on progressive vs conservative ?
- Comment on Help Me Understand Nampijinpa Price 1 week ago:
Thank you.
- Comment on Help Me Understand Nampijinpa Price 1 week ago:
I’m not expecting Aboriginal people to all vote as a bloc, I’m expecting an Aboriginal member with (I strongly suspect) the highest number of Aboriginal constituents of any member, to represent the interests of her constituents.
So for example, I expected the majority of her constituents to be in favor of the voice to parliament, but she was not.
However, I freely admit that there’s something going on here that I just don’t understand, which is why I have posed the question.
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
I strongly disagree with this relativism
Sure ok but that doesn’t change the reality that items arranged on a spectrum are arranged relative to each other.
If you want to reassure yourself that the items on the spectrum are too far to the right then you may do so, but it’s not a very useful assertion to make.
- Submitted 1 week ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 8 comments
- Comment on If Albanese’s lost his bottle, he should retire 1 week ago:
I dislike this perspective of how our purportedly progressive party is actually conservative. It’s very USA.
Pretty much by definition, the centre is between our two major parties. One is left of centre and one is right of centre.
It’s fine to think that the left of centre party is not progressive enough for you. It’s even fine to declare that according to whatever metric they’re actually conservative, but it’s kind of irrelevant because … in the only metric that matters they’re left of centre.
In the past I would’ve liked to have a reformist party - keen to kick ass and take names or whatever, but with the global lurch towards fascism and conservatism, and the myriad of problems around climate change, I think there’s a lot to be said for a left of centre party with a steady hand.
I think it’s also true that their campaign policies were fairly vanilla, and people voted for those vanilla policies. You can just dial up the progressive policies when you have a mandate to right a tight game.
I agree that the voice debacle was a real shame. A shame that it didn’t get up but also a shame that it cost so much capital.
- Comment on Too soon? 1 week ago:
Yeah I agree that it wouldn’t have been easy on the kids. However, if dont think seeing a parent get shot, would be much different than having them die of cancer or anything else really.
Certainly, the kids have my sympathy.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Read my other comments, explaining why people with negative equity often default on their mortgage.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Who is more likely to default, a borrower with $100k equity, or a borrower with negative $100k equity?
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
What do you call it in Europe when someone stops making repayments on a loan ?
Obviously, that’s a thing.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
That’s a good question actually.
In Australia, some 60 years ago, banks wouldn’t lend over 80% of the purchase price for a property.
The federal government created a government department to provide lenders mortgage insurance. It wasn’t a free government service, but a good example of the federal government stepping in to do something private enterprise wasn’t able to.
Since then of course that department has been privatised, like everything else, so private institutions provide that service now.
There do remain some differences between LMI and just simply extra interest. Notably LMI is a once off payment, and it can be included in the loan.
More recently, the Australian Federal Government has rolled out a scheme to pretty much abolish LMI. They’re just going to guarantee the loans for free.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Foreclosing is a very expensive process.
If you borrow 100% of the purchase price and the bank has to foreclose they would incur a loss.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
If you were in negative equity, you might choose to suck it up and pay.
Statistically however, borrowers are much more likely to default when they’re in negative equity, because quite obviously, there’s an incentive to declare bankruptcy.
If you owed a million dollars on a property that had been condemned and is only worth $50k, obviously you would declare bankruptcy. If the property was worth $400k you’d probably do the same. If the property was worth $800k you might do that, but you might choose to suck it up.
My point is, negative equity is an incentive to default on the loan.
Obviously, defaulting on mortgages is a thing. Obviously, people are much more likely to do so when they’re in negative equity.
This isn’t something people do as a sophisticated well planned financial strategy. In a context of economic upheaval, declining property losses, usually because of unemployment, which usually causes family breakdowns.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Correct.
Less down payment means more risk and therefore more interest.
Its pretty simple really.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Sorry chief, you’re just not picking up what I’m laying down.
Of course you still owe the money, you’re just much less likely to pay.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
Don’t be daft.
I’m not providing advice regarding what someone ought to do when they find themselves in negative equity.
I’m explaining the requirement for buyers to start with a reasonable amount of equity.
Once an owner falls into negative equity, they have an incentive to default on the loan. Yes there will be consequences, but the fact remains they will he weighing those consequences against the financial incentive to default.
The “better off” in my comment is an impartial objective calculation.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
You’re overthinking it.
The loan history is not relevant. The $50k you paid is gone. Sunk costs fallacy and all that.
A mortgage isn’t a complicated shared equity situation.
You owe the bank $650k and if you don’t pay they will take the house worth $600k.
Obviously if you default there will be legal problems and you’re still on the hook for the last $50k and so on, but there’s no incentive to keep paying. Like if you declare bankruptcy then you don’t have to pay the $50k and you can start saving for a deposit on your next house for when the exclusion period expires.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
So why do they need your deposit in order to lease it to billionaires and crypto exchanges?
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
The financial illiteracy of lemmy users always amazes me.
PMI is not double dipping.
It keeps the risk reasonable so that interest rates can remain reasonable.
With no PMI there’s extra risk that would need to be priced in to interest.
No one likes PMI, but it’s not evil.
- Comment on A conundrum 1 week ago:
They need you deposit that down payment cash ASAP so they can lease it to billionaires and crypto exchanges.
No, this is patently false and borne of a misunderstanding. Idiocy.
When providing a mortgage, how does a bank get money to lease to billionaires and crypto exchanges?