The Aldis in WA have self checkouts. But they've only been introduced over the past couple of years. Maybe it's the same nationally? Worth another visit to see?
They're pretty good ones, too - the bagging area holds four bags - which is sometimes enough for the whole shop. I don't much love their camera right in your face, though.
I also got picked out for a random check a few times when I first started using it. After passing that process a few times, you seem to be trusted. I haven't been picked out in years, now.
Hrm. I would also be annoyed except my store is one of the ones keeping it. I have however used the service at stores that are dropping it. I'm surprised Woolies didn't even give me a courtesy heads-up.
I wonder what the issue with the programme is? Too much shoplifting in some stores? Not enough uptake?
If it's uptake, that's on Woolies. There is almost zero material explaining the system and its advantages. They've done an awful job of marketing it.
Fresh donuts! I have not found a decent fresh jam donut in Perth. The closest I have found didn't have jam and were like $4ea.
I miss the Preston Market.
That's a lot of us on minimum wage. On the surface of it, 2.6 Million sounds like roughly 10% of us. But the reality is even more grim than that. The number of people working is only a sub-set of Australians. According to ABS, there are about 14,620,600 Australians working. So, 2.6 Million is about 18% of workers.
If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify
That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can't trust the users not to lie about their age ("trust me, bro") in a DM, then the users can't trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information ("trust me, bro"). That's a super-flawed verification method.
... I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
I wasn't exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I'm not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don't want it to be a blank "this person is verified on every site", because that'll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.
And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don't take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.
At first I laughed, but in honesty I can’t think of many better verification methods.
My concern with it is the cost and requirement for non-drinkers to acquire alcohol. It’s pretty insensitive to ask a recovering alcoholic or a Muslim for example to go into a pub and buy a beer. Maybe have it as one possible verification method?
You could also get a a piece of paper notarised by a JP.
‘The individual known on Aussie.zone as Gorgritch_Umie_Killa has presented identification to me that demonstrates to my satisfaction that they are over 18’ (signed and stamped).
But neither of these methods are technical solutions.
Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being
I'll send everyone a DM: "Hey, are you over 18? Yep? cool."
I have verified that all our users are over 18. 👍
It is kinda relevant. If you are hired to do a job for five days. And you are paid the agreed amount for those five days, even if you are told you don't need to come to work days 4 & 5, are you actually that hard done by? What damages are you seeking?
I mean - the court answered this question: Justice Rangiah said the "appropriate award of compensation" for non-economic loss was $70,000.
The ABC recognised they did her wrong. My biggest concern with Aunty's response is this "We extend our sincere apologies to Ms Lattouf and wish her well in her future endeavours."
That sounds like a 'we will not be hiring you again' to me. After recognising they shouldn't have taken her off the air. I think they should have her back.
Oh this again. I had forgotten about it. According to the bill's definition of "Social Media", we (aussie.zone) meet it. Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase's ages. Thing is: I can't see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?
I genuinely have no idea from a technical standpoint how you'd enforce this.
Can we have a few more details of what these interactions are, please? Because if Police simply charged in with batons swinging, it's a problem worthy of much wider coverage. The way she's worded this sounds cagey though - like she's painting herself in a positive light and not asking for any sort of investigation into the incident nor calling out for excessive force/assault against the officer(s) involved.