I'm hoping that labour can see the writing on the wall for this one and implement it properly. They will lose seats if they don't. I get the impression that a particular ACT senator is quite concerned about this danger.

There are also MOSFET based bypass panels that can achieve a similar effect at a far cheaper price point. Quite common here in Aus.

The high voltage DC strings are dangerous, but very price + power efficient and our install and wiring rules have made it quite safe.

To me the words "independent public inquiry" typically means something that is started/funded by government and then run by an independent agency or board to investigate the thing they are set up to do.

The fact that they call it different things on the same page doesn't exactly help with clarity.

If they weren't asking for people's money, I wouldn't care at all. But I suggest anyone that donates figures out what their $$$ will be actually spent on before they send any (let's hope it's not to pay Peter Garrett).

Why is there a donate button for a public inquiry?

Ok, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the site.

"A non-partisan, civil society inquiry into Australia's nuclear submarine partnership. Auspiced by the Australian Peace and Security Forum. Funded by Australia's civil society."

So not government backed in any way. I bet this confuses a lot of people. I dislike how it is named and presented, seems deliberately misleading.

Oh it's still an issue formaure. But falling on someone is usually considered safer than flying into them with props powered on.

It's possibly cheaper to just buy new drones instead of making software that only has a chance of them returning home without rtk GPS.

The general rule with drones is it's safer for them to fall out of the sky when something goes wrong.

NSW government investigation required to discover how it manages to keep shooting own foot for the past 20 years.

As someone who had an application in for the AEA innovate scheme. I can attest to being pretty pissed about them just binning the 100+ page application that took weeks to write and organise with an industry partner who put aside over $200k for the project.

8 months of waiting for this outcome has not helped that colab.

It's not clear to me from the ABC article that it will be grandfathered in for any purchases pre July 2027.

Cutting the "green" hydrogen funding is sensible in my opinion. Put that into batteries instead.

That will stop people wasting so much money on checks notes fuel and food. In the RBA's defence, they are damned either way, and they have no other influence mechanism.

I have no doubt that that code is over complicated and inaccessible and probably needs a full rewrite that actually makes it accessible and effective.

That said, I'm sure there are far too many builders that are looking for the cheap and easy loopholes that certainly contributed to its current state.

Literally yesterday I found a beam in a 2007 apartment build that has been secured to the slab above with framing nails. This should have been done with a proper concrete bolt or anchor. The nails were failing and the whole ceiling was starting to fall.

Honestly. I think the government should design a cookie cutter 3 bed house that is standardised and easy to build, easy to check and certify the build. Buy or hell even make the framing and materials locally in bulk and start pumping out the same house over and over again.