Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

I don’t think The Castle is based on it but the Narita Airport runway is literally built around a house

Same here, cannonballs are small.

Planes coming in above us were at about 1000ft, and there was definitely vibration, but not enough to damage windows. We did have some badly secured pictures fall off the walls, and items on shelves had a tendency to vibrate their way off the edges.

Not 140dB, but to give you an idea of how loud it was, we had to pause the TV or conversation when planes were coming over because we couldn't hear it.

We could absolutely recognize models by sound.

Very rarely did we have anything larger than an A320, Adelaide is not a big airport, but we did have some big military aircraft come through.

It's an international airport. Pre-Covid A380s and 747s were common. Now we don't see many A380s anymore.

Oh I don’t even get access to it lol. I’m just saying that’s the absolute “best” our NBN offers, and it’s shit

It is operated by a private company, but as a former Federal Airports Corporation airport, the land on which the airport is built is owned by the Commonwealth and leased to the private operator on a 99-year lease.

It's in my comment history here already, and is public information.

It's a mildly interesting story too, because it proves, at least back then, that South Australian police can't always run roughshod over your rights to privacy.

They had to drop the charges due to acting illegally, and I got all my cash back. Ha!

It’s not entirely odd. It might count towards expertise/credibility?

Unless you grow it right on the square :-) And use the approach lights to boost the plants. Talk about efficiency!

The Adelaide parklands association is one bunch of NIMBYs who you don't want to tangle with.

Every single maintenance shed is the collapse of the parklands. It's not worth the fight.

The southern and western parts of the CBD are really under-developed. Single storey buildings are the norm.

> CYPHER

*twitch*

Turns out that's not misspelled. Well. It is and it isn't. The misspelling is codified in the spec.

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/security/nss...:

  ER3(SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP, SSL_ERROR_BASE + 2,
      "Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).")

You're on Cloudflare DNS? archive.xx sites never work via 1.1.1.1; switch to another DNS

Interesting. Safari on iOS and Firefox on Linux don’t complain for me.

Well if people would stop voting for the Rupert Murdoch private interest party things in Australia might improve. Seriously it's amazing the amount of damage that person has done to politics and the social fabric.

Malcolm Turnbull advertised that FTTN could handle speeds up to 100Mb down. I thought that sounded alright -- cheaper, faster rollout, and same speeds as FTTP anyway (with faster FTTP speeds than 100Mb allegedly being absurdly expensive anyway).

Of course, that requires keeping distances from nodes to a minimum, and in the end that wasn't done. I can't get higher than about 50Mb down due to distances from the exchange. I recall them saying that their 50Mb plan is most popular -- but I'm only on it because my connection is unstable at faster speeds. So yeah, it sucks.

Salty is such an understatement for how I feel.

I used to have access to a separate fibre network (not NBN, was FTTB with VDSL through the building) because I lived in Fortitude Valley in Brisbane -- not only was it cheaper, it was properly fast and had near symmetrical upload, not quite, but not 5% of the download.

Now I'm stuck on NBN HFC. I get random 15 second dropouts, constant packet loss (but only incoming, not outgoing) when playing online shooters, its just crap all around. And the support for it hasn't helped. Sigh our internet is a mess. And its entirely down to the LNP as to why.

London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport.

Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).

... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.

Housing is more expensive because more people want to live there then the supply provides for.

There's a simple solution. It's not sprawling suburbia, it's to build London at an appropriate density for a global city.

Westminster (with plenty of green space including Hyde and Regents Parks) has a population of 123 per hectare.

If London matched that throughout its area there would be room to double London's population with another 10 million people. If Inner London alone was increased to Manhattan density, that alone would house 5 million more people.

But then things like this happen

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/will-grant-shapps-get-away-with-b...

It’s a radically different scenario. Imagine a square that had one corner in St Pauls and the diagonally opposite corner in Blackfriars in London. Now imagine that surrounded with a parkland belt about the width of the thames at Blackfriars.

It’s not a perfect square belt, in the north it’s quite a bit thicker but there’s the Zoo and University campus etc.

It’s really pleasant and the most expensive real estate lies outside the borders of the parklands.

Yes it's an example of progress vs tradition and your point is one side of that balance. The whole movie is a very clear allegory to Aboriginal land rights. "It's Mabo" to quote the main protagonist defending his families right to their home full of tradition.

You perceive a person being able to fight back through the courts to prevent their home and neighbourhood from being forcibly bought and demolished a bad thing?

That is fine until it is your house in question

The airports are private owned so your argument goes either way with the CEO/investors deciding to demolish whole suburbs and plonk an airport with all its detrimental effects on human health in the middle of a city. Crazy how a single/few individuals can do that.

I'm under a flight path in Brisbane, yeah those freight flights are surprisingly loud compared to the general traffic. For a lot of the dedicated domestic freight flights where I am (I assume it's similar in Tassie), they tend to use old 737-300s and -400s which sound about as loud to me as a much larger 777-300ER flying over, and louder than modern wide-bodies like the 787-9 and A350. Crazy how far engine technology has come!

Oh, those 2am freighter flights! I'm in a super quiet area of Trevallyn, which makes those couple of flights quite loud. Also, Launceston has a similar set of runway lights, that you drive under, and look very close to a house.

I would not have picked there of all places but the quiet nights there would make for a good background of silence to emphasise the flights.

Have you considered Davenport? :D No flights but endless shipping going on.

How can the person you're replying to answer the question about how many people should be able to block it? If we look at the consequences (as I am inclined to do), then it's going to depend on the specifics. If the airport is not going to bring a tangible benefit, then it doesn't matter if it's one person or ten thousand blocking it. On the other hand (putting it very roughly), if it brings great benefit, then we can estimate those benefits and mitigate the harms to those forced to sell by compensating them well for it. If the compensation to those displaced outweighs the benefit, then there's your number regarding how many should be able to block it.

As for the trolley dilemma, it's a great thought experiment precisely because people's answers and their reasons for their answers differ. I'm not sure therefore of its relevance here. Presumably the person you're responding to can just be consistent in their response to both the question about airports and the trolley dilemma.

> "What you're arguing is the classic of the trolley dilemma [1], the individual vs the many. Should you harm 1 person to save 1 million."

Of course if that's genuinely the situation, it's hard to argue that the needs of the many shouldn't be paramount. But in the case of airport expansion, it's rarely that simple!

A bigger airport isn't necessarily a public good. If it's close to urban areas it's often a net detriment to the public good, inflicting more noise and pollution on millions of people. The drive to expand really comes from the airport operator's desire to increase flight numbers and profits.

If property rights were viewed as immutable it would be aboriginal land.