Classic backtrack by a wholesale narcissist, Marie Antoinette wannabe, whose voicing of their unfiltered thoughts have damaged their profit outlook.
Minerals Council of Australia chairman Andrew Michelmore - had defended him. “Employees have got used to earning the same amount of money but not putting in the same hours”
I expect no less from the oligarchy, especially a fossil fuel oligarch. Remember, these are the sociopaths who own our lives, from corporations to regulators and governments, and are accelerating the destruction of our planet.
They are telling you what they think of the 99+%. You are not a person. You are cattle to fuel their wealth until you can be replaced or discarded for profit. You only exist to generate their wealth and fuel their excess to greater heights. Their only god is greed. They will not think twice about letting you die if it means more resources and power for themselves; many of them would choose to pull the trigger on mass murder than ever redistributing their wealth.
Marie Antoinette was way more of a sympathetic character than this asshole. At least in her case you could explain it away with her being young and sheltered.
I think the news story is not that Tm Gurner apologized, it’s that Tim Gurner encountered enough backlash that he felt it necessary to pretend to apologize.
We all know that his apology isn’t a sincere recognition of a wrong attitude, or a commitment to change. But it IS noteworthy that he apparently misjudged the public sentiment. What does this tell us? We can say that he probably doesn’t give a shit if a bunch of nobodies on Twitter call him a piece of shit. He knew and expected that when he said those things. What changed?
It’s not really clear from the article, but my guess is that something almost inconvenienced him. Perhaps he was told that he would be uninvited to some summit where he’s on a panel. Whatever got to him, I’d like to know so we can do more of it. It warms my heart to imagine how seething mad he was when he grit his teeth and yielded to the reality that this power dynamic is not exclusively one sided as he so badly believes it should be.
This has been my takeaway with a lot of news the last year or two. As depressing as the headlines have been, I’m starting to see an underline shift in public perception. There’s a growing fear in the politicians, celebrities, and billionaires at the top that once thought they were untouchable. They’re not the idols they used to be.
“Sorry all you poors don’t like what I said about how you’re getting a little uppity, and you deserve to be homeless if you don’t like the pittance I offer you.” Sure bud, I totally believe you’re super duper sorry about being a complete piece of shit. After all, a couple of days is surely enough time to totally reevaluate your worldview and grow the part of the brain that creates empathy.
Fuck this guy. I hope he gets eaten by a dropbear.
Got one better… take this choad and Money Monster Jim Cramer, shove them in a industrial washing machine with a few dozen bowling balls and put it on ‘gentle cycle’. A few hours kissing Bakelite might give these two what they surely lack, empathy for the suffering of others
One of Australia’s richest men has sparked a global backlash after saying unemployment should double to remind arrogant workers of their place.
Speaking during a property summit this week, the 41-year-old said the Covid-19 pandemic had changed employees’ attitudes and work ethics for the worse - singling out builders as an example.
He claimed that shift is impacting productivity in the sector, which - combined with tougher regulations - is fuelling Australia’s housing shortage.
Shifting attitudes toward employment are also a matter of widespread discussion on social media, giving rise to hashtags like “quiet quitting”, a term meant to capture the decision to stop going above and beyond for bosses; and “lazy-girl jobs”, which refers to well paying, flexible positions that offer greater work-life balance.
Mr Gurner’s comments, which were shared by the Australian Financial Review (AFR) which hosted the summit, have drawn criticism on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and LinkedIn.
It sees people on the streets and dependent upon food banks," Mr Wolahan told the AFR.
The original article contains 469 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I guess someone got uncomfortably close to him and told him in no uncertain words what would/could happen to him and no amount of €€€ would protect him if he didn’t cut it out
I have not heard about SAR in a long time, I’m just glad the days of alleged baseball-sized tumors associated with cell phones and facing the phone towards one’s body are over.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summaryOn Tuesday, the French watchdog which governs radio frequencies also told the tech giant to fix existing phones. The ANFR has advised Apple that if it cannot resolve the issue via a software update, it must recall every iPhone 12 ever sold in the country. But the World Health Organization has previously sought to allay fears about radiation emitted by mobile phones. Apple told the BBC it was contesting the ANFR’s review, and said it had provided the regulator with lab results from the tech giant itself and third parties which show the device is compliant with all the relevant rules. France’s digital minister Jean-Noel Barrot told French newspaper Le Parisien the decision was due to radiation levels above the acceptable threshold, according to Reuters. It comes as the Chinese foreign ministry issued a rebuttal against media reports which claimed government agencies had told staff to stop using iPhones. — Saved 69% of original text.
A Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 5.2 W/kg technically does exceed limits and device manufacturers agree to meet regulations. However, SAR values are not constant and can vary with real-world usage. Phones often operate at lower power levels, reducing actual SAR exposure.
A weak microwave, for theoretical comparison, would likely put out hundreds of Watts per kg.
People are way more likely to get heat damage from the battery than the radio waves from a cellphone
This is literally like if France said, “your flashlight is too bright; it’s causing cancer and must be stopped”. The use of the term, “radiation” in this context is disingenuous because they’re basically saying, “the wifi is too strong”. Technically visible light is the same kind of radiation as microwaves, radiowaves, wifi and x-rays. The reason why x-rays are considered harmful and wifi/microwaves/radio/visible light isn’t is because x-rays are much higher energy than the others, and are able to ionize materials they come into contact with. This can cause cancer. You know what doesn’t cause cancer? Wifi. Unless you’re shitting out enough microwave radiation (also not cancer-causing) to cook an egg, it’s pretty harmless. This is the kinda shit anti-vax Facebook moms get upset about. They hear “radiation” and their knee jerks so hard it shatters their jaw.
I feel like the limit itself COULD be reasonable (there’s more to the potential harms than ionizing radiation /cancer), but popscience news sites are going to make misleading headlines anyways
Can you provide me with articles about that? Afaik the general scientific consensus is that as long as it’s not shoving out >100watts or is releasing EM radiation on an ionizing band (UV and higher), then it’s pretty harmless.
Can you warm up a chicken with wifi? Yeah, but afaik a signal that strong would probably already violate various international treaties regarding radio communications long before it got strong enough to have a noticable affect on the chicken.
Think about how many watts your microwave needs to cook food. That’s the amount of power it takes to heat up food using EM radiation that’s been roughly tuned with the intention of penetrating and heating physical matter by generating friction between water molecules. If I understand the article, the iPhone is putting out less than 6 watts. That’s almost nothing. Should there be a limit? Yeah, but to my knowledge, you’d start accidentally jamming communication frequencies around you long before it became a threat to personal health.
It’s perhaps helpful to realize that the difference between visible light and radio isn’t really that much, they’re both on the EM spectrum. You can generally think about non-ionizing EM radiation like you would light and not be too far off in terms of intuition on danger. How dangerous would you consider a 5W lightbulb? 60W? 100W? 500W? You probably wouldn’t want to press your face up to a 60W bulb, but you wouldn’t worry about having one sitting in your ceiling, or even a couple feet away from you. For reference FCC rules limit wifi access points to under 5W of power in most cases (there’s exceptions for point-to-point radios, but those are VERY uncommon except in some specific commercial settings). Likewise a phone sitting in your pocket, or even held up to your face that’s putting out even 10W while over double the power limit really isn’t anything to worry about.
The current limits for RF devices are VERY conservative, in part due to the massive fear mongering caused by article titles like the above one. The limits are set in such a way that there is absolutely no risk whatsoever, even for devices that massively exceed the limits. In fact I’d argue the limits have far more to do with interference than any actual health concerns. Nobody wants to have to battle their neighbors for wifi signal and a big way to accomplish that is to mandate very low power limits. Many lower power devices are far easier to manage in terms of interference than a few high power devices.
Title is irresponsible. It produces no ionizing radiation which is what the layman understands by the word radiation.
It produces 1.75 watts per kg over the standard. There is no reason to believe this has any effect whatsoever. it’s not clear that the standard is based on anything meaningful whatsoever
bbc.co.uk
Hot