You ate glue as a child didn’t you?

Like a lot of glue.

The performers time is not infinitely reproducible so your argument is apples to oranges.

Culturally they are a shit hole despite their enormous wealth.

Or are you going to defend the way they legally mistreat women, homosexuals, atheists and use slaves?

Your high school started at what time?

Legislating the Voice is of course an option and something the government has committed to doing if the referendum is successful.

You should contact the ABC and provide them with a correction.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/you-ask-we-answer-why-cant-voice-to-parliament-be-legislated/102879806

The government would prefer to take the concept of a Voice and constitutional recognition for First Nations people to a referendum and have the actual machinery of the body put forward in legislation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-10/how-voice-to-parliament-could-work/101749746

If the referendum passes:

4. Consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the Parliament and the broader public to design the Voice

5. Introduce a Voice establishment bill into the Parliament

6. Once Parliament approves the legislation to establish the Voice, the legislation comes into effect and the work to set up the Voice begins.

https://voice.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet-referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment

You claimed the legislation had been shown, it has not.

Your misinformation helps no one.

Design principles are not legislation, it seems you are unfamiliar with Parliamentary process.

Additionally he (Anthony Albanese) stated that if the referendum is successful, another process would be established to work on the final design, with a subsequent government produced information pamphlet stating that this process would involve Indigenous Australian communities, the Parliament and the broader community, with any legislation going through normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

The final design being the legislation.

I hope that clears things up for you.

The exact wording of the Constitutional amendment was released 6-7 months ago.

The Legislation has not been, and likely won’t be seen.

If you have seen the legislation somewhere please share a link.

For progressive no voters, that is correct.

There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.

A few of the arguments or concerns voiced by Australian’s included:

-A Voice with no power is pointless

-Lack of detail in the proposal

-Separating Australian’s by race is divisive (note there’s already constitutional race powers, which I disagree with and hope will be scrapped)

-ATSI people would have more representation than others (they actually have proportionally higher representation in Parliament today than their percentage of population)

-Leaving the exact details of the Voice to legislation means any future government could gut it without violating the constitutional amendment

-concerns this is the first push on a path to treaty and reparations as a percentage of GDP (which WAS discussed as a possibility by the people who worked on the Uluru statement)

I’ve left out the outright lies, though I guarantee someone will take issue with me simply mentioning the talking points to give you context.

There were many ATSI people who voted no because they want treaty, not an advisory committee with no veto powers.

Not everyone who voted no is racist and proclaiming they are is far more reminiscent of US divisive politics than how Australian politics works.

The only Territory to vote yes, out of all our States and Territories, was the Australian Capital Territory which is the most educated and most involved with governance.

There are essentially two parts to what was proposed, the first is that having mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (ATSI) peoples in the constitution is recognition.

The second part, which is actually the exact mechanism which was proposed, was a permanent advisory body made up of ATSI representatives with constitutional power to give advice to the Government on issues related to or impacting ATSI people.

The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.

There’s a lot to break down about your post with half truths but it’s a perfect microcosm of the Yes campaign and why it failed.

Generally the solution is to do something that looks like malware, or use a third party feature that side steps the problem, as happens with javascript.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230911-00/?p=108749

Pseudo-malware is pretty much the way to go as a developer in my experience.

I believe his suggestion of a javascript file that deletes itself works only works because javascript gets sandboxed and doesn’t suffer from Windows “flaw” with file locks.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230911-00/?p=108749

While Raymond does offer a solution he’s also completely side stepping any responsibility on Microsoft’s part in creating and perpetuating this problem without offering their own native solution.

The reason you expect this is because Windows has a file lock behaviour that won’t let you delete a file when it’s in use, in Linux this limitation doesn’t exist.

Raymond Chan, arguably one of the best software engineers in the world, and a Microsoft employee, has repeatedly lamented the near malware like work arounds developers have had to invent to overcome this limitation with uninstallers.

Think about uninstalling a game. You need to run “uninstall.exe” but you don’t want uninstall.exe to exist after you’ve run it… but you can’t delete a file that’s in use. Uninstall.exe will always be in use when you run it….so how do you make it remove itself?

Schedule a task? Side load a process? Inject a process? Many ways…. But most look like malware.

Linux has never suffered this flaw.

Historical genocide and racism that has lead to intense trauma, substance abuse and poverty? Absolutely.

Racism from the people issuing protection orders to try and keep children safe? Ehhh maybe a little but my gut says the majority of protection orders are issued with valid reason.

It does not help at all that Aboriginal Australian children have one of the highest rates of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder of any demographic in the world.

FASD makes kids near impossible to control, they’re often violent and this of course results in even more domestic violence…. Which leads to the next generation being abused… and the cycle repeats.

So what can we do to stop this cycle?

You can’t throw money at people deep into substance abuse. You can’t cure FASD. Telling an abuser that beating their wife and kids is bad… doesn’t really work. They know it’s bad and they don’t care, believe me I know from personal experience. You can’t magic genuine economic opportunities out of thin air and into remote communities.

If it were an easy problem to fix it probably would’ve been fixed by now.

I did the same thing when I last had covid, ate a salad which was expired by 10 days…

They’re loud enough to kill you if you’re swimming to close