- Date published:
6:00 am, May 27th, 2023 - 69 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Another day another dodgy carbon credit story, easy money attracts grifters like shit attracts flies.
Any and all carbon taxs must be collected by the government and spent in this country on reduction and mitigation .
Who, in Labour, came up with the genius strategy of telling people to reduce their costs by having five minute showers and doing cold clothes washes? A campaign that will apparently cost $2.8 million of tax payers money.
This really is treating voters as if they are stupid, and appearing to be out of touch with the pressures people are under who may have had their mortgage rates triple, or may be facing much higher rent and grocery costs.
As if most of us haven't worked these savings methods already.
This can only backfire as far as I can see, as I don't think many will appreciate being told how to "suck eggs".
The one thing Labour won't do is dismantle neoliberalism.
So they tinker away….
The only silly thing about it is it's given those in constant angry opposition mode something to beat labour over the head with it.
Governments have been running these sort of campaigns for ever.
Yes, remember Helen's light bulb advice?
That was real winner, the electorate loved it, more of that please Labour.
Sound advise, unbelievable that idiots got them selves lathered up about ,but hay right wing voters tend to be angry people.
I presume you are one of the half dozen people still buying those old and inefficient light bulbs – just to "stick it to the Libs"? Like the water efficient shower heads that everybody uses these days – and understands the reasons why, we see National fighting any progress on energy or resource efficiency despite the climate changes all around us.
ah, no, it was being told to suck eggs that pissed people off
I think it's 'how to suck eggs'..
There is a difference..
Nothing inherently wrong with the advice to take five minute showers etc to reduce power costs.
It is just that it is akin to the sort of advice parents would give their five year olds. And the government is spending nearly $3 million of tax payers money to do it.
Didn't Labour want the shower heads and light bulbs changed under Dame Helen Clarke.
But notice that all this has happened and didn't actually require the government giving condescending advice to do it.
People worked out for themselves it was a good idea. Who would have thought.
Don't you believe it TS. Many people are unaware of how to save power.
Helen Clark is not a Dame and that is all one needs to know about your comment.
Maybe you need to get out more, some people get not much more than genes from their parents
Energy efficient light bulbs and shower heads are commonplace now. Labour was right.
Alan. Remember the National Party TV ads in the early 2000s that turned a "save power Electricity Dept "advice to limit the showers/smaller shower heads? Of course Helen Clark had nothing to do with the advice but Nats told the world that it was Nanny State. Remember the TV vision of Te Radar getting into a shower with two others under a huge stream of water from multiple shower heads?
Sure it worked but typically dishonest.
I am not criticising the content of the message. Just the fact that the government is implying people are too stupid not to have worked this out already.
So that means in 2009, the National govt thought that people were too stupid to work it out for themselves, so they spent $4 million on a campaign to educate New Zealanders on energy efficiency.
I don't remember that campaign specifically. But, if it was akin to "now children, if you use less hot water it will cost less in power to heat it", then I would say that was wasted as well.
How can you form any opinion on it if you can't remember National's energy-efficient campaign? I put a link to the article at 2.3.
Look, you could be totally right, and National may have done exactly the same, or even done it worse than Labour is now.
But, whataboutism doesn't change the fact that a lot of kiwis will be pissed off now about being told to do basic things that they are probably doing anyway, as if it is some as if it was deep mystical wisdom.
Again that is just your opinion. You wouldn't know what a lot of the public thinks. It is not about 'whtaboutism'. National may have? National did have a similar campaign in 2009. Instead of wasting time making up pointless assumptions, you could have just read the link provided.
"former Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee in 2009 announced a television campaign to help Kiwis increase energy efficiency. It cost $4 million"
The fourth National government privatized the electricity industry to facilitate competition and deliver lower power prices.
"Power rise leaves Bradford red-faced"
"The Prime Minister says the Government will continue with its programme of partial asset sales, despite a majority voting against the policy in a citizens initiated referendum"
National spent a fortune selling our assets and then "The government raised a lower-than-expected $4.7 billion from the sales of stakes in Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy and Air New Zealand"
"National Party energy spokeswoman Barbara Kuriger said the party was discussing its “Bradford reforms” of the industry and was open to the idea of structural separation"
I reckon the reason why Natz are using ARTIFICIAL intelligence, is they have NO natural intelligence.
Or they are early-adopters of latest technology. Next time around everyone will be doing it.
Or maybe just desperate. National's fast & furious attempt was a bit of a flop.
"AI era: Regulation required"
New Strategy marks next step in NZ’s digital journey
"Or maybe just desperate."
The polls say no.
All of them, some, or just one?
The polls are basically neck and neck. Luxon is still tanking.
Really? Proof of that would be surprising. Oh, you mean like the Hanna Barbera Cartoons of Cossack Dancers? That kind of AI.???
The real Cossacks, had they emigrated to NZ, would most likely have voted National anyway.
Where do you think the line should be drawn, someone like whale oil (you know the guy that was in with the key government) would glady make an ai of Hipkins saying something untrue.
An interesting conversation on RNZ with the author of a book on the current (not future) real-world effects of AI bias when scraping informational content.
‘ “I’m 55 years of age. If I go to a hospital that’s leaning on an algorithm built using what’s called ‘Frankenstein’ data sets, which is data cobbled together from all different sources and not representing the proper spread of the population, I’m likely to be refused a ventilator. It will be given to someone who is 30 because they’re viewed as being more productive to society rather than an older person who’s over 50.” ‘
Medical resource allocation is done all the time, and you know it.
Imagine if the entire corpus of human medical knowledge were able to be applied to every medical decision you need, every second, and in seconds.
Rather than one (usually male) mind giving you allocation decisions based on their training two decades ago in one institution. When you can get an appointment every three months.
I merely extracted a quote from the RNZ blurb, which clearly thought it of interest, so that readers here could see what sort of issues might be involved. The interview discussion is in fact broad-ranging.
And the EU has a draft proposal for ethical limitations on the use of AI in potential garm and control.
" Risk based approach to AI – Prohibited AI practices
The rules follow a risk-based approach and establish obligations for providers and users depending on the level of risk the AI can generate. AI systems with an unacceptable level of risk to people’s safety would be strictly prohibited, including systems that deploy subliminal or purposefully manipulative techniques, exploit people’s vulnerabilities or are used for social scoring (classifying people based on their social behaviour, socio-economic status, personal characteristics). "
The previous article I posted also talked about mandatory watermarking of published AI images [and audio?].
EU draft rules on AI use
"[MEPs] also added AI systems to influence voters in political campaigns and in recommender systems used by social media platforms (with more than 45 million users under the Digital Services Act) to the high-risk list".
This is AI used to implement things like micro-targetting of susceptible sub-populations in the electorate with political advertising. Why bother with big attack ads in the visible media when you can spot-drop a tailored message to the floating voters?
Much cheaper, essentially invisible to the wider public, and highly effective politicking.
How is this particularly different to the highly targeted ads we get through algorithms since at least 2016?
A worthy initiative. Do you imagine the Chinese will pay it attention?
The point of the EU legislation is not malicious State actors, rather transparency of European political parties in their electoral advertising strategies. And the target is algorithmic advertising strategies pushed by ‘social media companies’; twitter, facebook, webo, which act within that polity. The companies become responsible for policing. Don’t forget, Elon Musk turned off parts of twitter in respnse to Ergodan in Turkey’s current election.
Yes you have a point there – the CCP scarcely needs to covertly manipulate their electorate.
It's a dangerous world. I do hope Luxon takes no unnecessary risks with his shadow cabinet.
Yes Stuart. You have given Luxon fair warning. Simeon's teeth are small but sharp.
I know better than to argue with a moderator determined to be right.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
Sad cowardly copout!
Don’t start what you cannot finish.
You are the one with the power here, and given your recent track record in provoking commenters so that you find it convenient to ban them – yeah nah.
Your deep distrust and one-sided view of TS Mods, incl. me, has been noted.
I won’t moderate you this time for your direct attack on my integrity that’s evidence-free.
I will also ignore this time your absurd idea that I would engage with you to trick & trap you into a ban – your comment(s) left much to challenge & critique, which you seem to take some issue with.
I’d suggest that you drop this line here & now.
Your ban on Liberty Belle was in my view a recent evidence point. You raised increasingly obtuse quibbles with that commenter until you have created a plausible scenario to reach for the ban hammer. Whether you were doing this intentionally is beside the point.
This is the reason why it used to be considered bad form to moderate a thread you were also commenting on. It worked well enough when there was a team of others willing to intervene as reasonably disinterested arbiters.
But there have been only two moderators here for quite a few years, effectively a duopoly determining how the site is run, and noted for carefully curating content they do not like. Not healthy.
Actually RedLogix, I find there is a surprising diversity of views on TS site for most topics, from political commentators who often scavenge scuttle-butt crumbs from the NACT's table, to Social Justice Warriors lamenting Labour's lack of workers' revolution. And each of those posters often has interesting ideas on other topics.
The broad political spectrum may reflect the political drift in posters to The Standard since it was first set up, as set out in TS About.
"The Standard newspaper – from where our masthead comes – was founded by labour movement activists in the 1930s. They used it as a vehicle to share their views with a broader audience – a perspective they felt the mainstream media was representing poorly. We think the same is true today." Key phrase LABOUR MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS.
But the drift is OK, because it allows discourse instead of echo-chamber. I guess this place is the equivalent to me of a good verbal thrash down at the pub over the weeks' news with an assortment of odders and sodders.
Which does not excuse the TS equivalent of drunken boors.
Broad political spectrum on the standard
Thank you very much ,,, best laugh I've had all day.
I've spotted evidence for old-school Marxist-Leninists and fervent believers of fascist conspiracies. How much further do you think it needs to stretch?
Yes I think you are mostly on point there. A diversity of views has always been a point of difference here at TS and this is something I have consistently defended for years. I was one of the first handful of commenters here when Lynn started the site in 2007 – literally I was here a week later. I am sure more than a few people wish it were otherwise – but there you go.
As this was a site that allowed real-time commenting and encouraged the flow of the debate – moderation was originally focussed on protecting this flow from being disrupted by bad behaviour. Pointless abuse, trolling, drop and run, and blatant racism or sexism – generally falling into the 'arsehole' category quickly attracted the wrong attention and was dealt to.
It took more than a few years to evolve an effective team culture on this- and of course nothing was ever perfect. We all fucked up more than once.
At that time usually there was a randomly rotating group of authors who moderated when they felt inspired to do so. It was sometimes messy but it usually focused on moderating the behaviour not the opinion. In my view we've drifted some distance from that ideal in recent times.
Newsroom article on Auckland's flood protection fast-track
Oooh look. A factual article about who produced and suggested accelerating the Auckland flood protection plans. Let's see – engineers rapidly updated their 30-year plan; council approved it, councillors have their opinions on implementation issues; mayor says he thinks it's a great idea, and takes it to central government (that's good, that's his job)…
This describes what happened before Wayne Brown's media splash about 'his' fast-track plans. Classic big-noting, as I thought.
Carmel Sepuloni @ Labour conference:
Today, I announced Labour’s first policy of the 2023 election campaign. A Chris-Hipkins-led Government will keep the Superannuation Age of Eligibility at 65 years and over.
We’re also keeping the Winter Energy Payment in place permanently to support Kiwis and their whānau in the winter months, where household budgets are particularly stretched.
New Zealand has one of the simplest superannuation schemes in the world. It’s universal and generous, and as long as we keep paying into the Super Fund it’s also affordable.
Research tells us there is little appetite amongst Kiwis for a means-testing regime or changing the age of eligibility, which is why we’re committed to keeping Super universal from age 65.
National and ACT superannuation policies are out of touch and put New Zealander’s retirement savings at risk. Their plans to lift the age of eligibility and cut Government contributions to KiwiSaver will reduce New Zealanders' retirement savings. This will have an especially detrimental impact on disadvantaged women, Māori and Pasifika.
We’re drawing a clear distinction between Labour and the Coalition of Cuts – we will not be toying with the age of eligibility. Under Labour, Superannuation will remain accessible, affordable and equitable.
Unlike the Coalition of Cuts, we believe NZ Super, contributions to the Super Fund, and full Government contributions to KiwiSaver, are essential and affordable. We also believe that the Winter Energy Payment is too valuable to lose.
In this election, New Zealanders have a clear choice when it comes to support and security in retirement. The cuts that National and ACT make will have real-life consequences for people.
Head in the sand stuff from labour, every western country knows that the eligibility age for super must go up, otherwise it will be unaffordable and will collapse.
The OECD has made this perfectly clear in numerous reports. Even France, that bastion of progressive politics, has recognized this and has increased the age of eligibility.
Only if it is accompanied by strong workplace legislation that protects older workers. Otherwise you just finish up with a cohort of people in their 50's and 60's relying on state support anyhow. Nothing much changes.
Still given that some people are predicting that generative AI might eliminate 60% of all existing jobs over the next few years – all this might be a moot point at best.
No not really – you might want go have a wee look at a age pyramid of NZ. We are not the same as the rest of the western world – we have children and immigration which promotes having children, as such, we have reasonably healthy looking age pyramid.
Sorry to burst your bubble but it's not apples to apples when it comes to populations, and we are not as bad as the rest of the OECD. Far from it, we are not a Japan.
Really bad reporting by the newsroom, but then again, they are not know for being able to read graphs, nor for their analysis of data.
yes, you are right and the OECD is wrong.
There is a high risk of error in assessing our future demographics – we have a higher rate of emigration and immigration than most. And that might include Kiwis going to Oz when they retire.
Labour's position was that with the Cullen Fund it was affordable. National under Key-English did not contribute to this and so Labour said it was no longer affordable on that course. Labour back in government restored finding into the Fund and have continued with their former age 65 policy (something the coalition with NZF would have required anyhow).
Of course, if National have no intention of contributing to a future cost now, then of course on their course it would become unaffordable more quickly. But that is because they prioritise tax cuts – over both such future expense planning and infrastructure investment.
Given the time of savings sort of expires by c2030 (it gets invested to provide a revenue stream to government for a decade or 2 or 3 and then gets wound down over a decade), it's becoming a moot point.
For mine we have no real idea about the effect of long COVID yet, nor of AI on employment and productivity. We can delay a call to 2030 whether to raise the age after 2040 and with more knowledge of the right course.
Where is Robert these days. ?
This clown could get his knees under the cabinet table.
Tonight’s 1News poll shows we can end Labour’s reign of woke terror, and ACT and National can win and deliver real change.
The comment thread on that tweet is worth exploring…
There is some very funny stuff in there..
A great quote on woke from Kathy burke:
'i'd rather be woke that an ignorant fucken twat'
That Seymourism/oxymoron would be risible…if he was not serious ?. (although it can be hard to tell..the Rimmer effect an all : )
Still, a Nact govt….would absolutely be a Coalition of Chaos for the majority of NZ. Incl most of the sad numbnuts who "support" them……