Maybe HN ruined me, but I'd prefer a UI that isn't very pretty but information-dense, especially for a use case like this, and especially when the alternative is whitespace/tabs-galore in order to make data more spread out.
That said, it is ugly, like most Windows utilities tend to be.
There's still a difference between functional, information-dense design and a missing sense of design or care.
An interface displaying a lot of information, and ways to manipulate data can be functional and information-dense if there's thought put into how to do the layout, usage of colors, icons and other factors (Thinking about power user tools like Logic, Video cutting software, internal company tools or POS software that is used by many, all the time). It might not necessarily look "clean" and beautiful to the uninitiated but it gets the work done effectively.
I'm still of the opinion that hacker-built GUI tools have their own kind of beauty in the way a specialized and intricate woodworking tool might. Nobody shies away from showing some impenetrable command-line doodad with bad ASCII art, why not the equivalent for GUI tools who's audience is the equivalent of your average bash-bro?
Our politicians support coal because political "donations" are legal. Fully fund political parties out of general revenue and fully fund ICAC and we'll be in a better position.
Coal is dying faster than the Great Barrier Reef. The fat bastards in charge of coal have more money to fight it.
Digging rock out of the ground, lugging it across the world in massive quantities and then burning it is an expensive activity. There are cheaper alternatives, the most obvious one is natural gas, and that's similar to comparing terminal lung cancer to terminal stomach cancer. Terminal being the key word.
Forget about climate change, health issues (have you been to a country where your eyes hurt?), pro-unionism/anti-unionism and whatever else you like or dislike, coal is not economically viable. Just ask British coal miners. Oh wait, you can't thanks to Margret Thatcher (love her or hate her, she did invent soft-serve ice cream. Seriously). She saw it coming 40 years ago.
Coal is an energy source, absolutely. It works. It's just economically stupid compared to cheaper alternatives.
Just like farriers, blacksmiths, priests and who-knows-what professions are useless, coal miners are too.
Economics 101. And you don't even need to mention climate change. Coal is dead dead dead. Get used to it.
How does burning less coal do "absolutely nothing about climate change"? If you state something like that you have to at least give a convincing argument.
fruityrudy is arguing in other comment replies that the Australian coal is "only 3%" of CO2 emissions so he probably thinks that's so close to zero it's basically zero and negligible..
Climate change is not directly proportional to co2 in the atmosphere. To reverse it requires large reductions. China, India, US. Australia’s production and usage is a rounding error at the moment.
It's not "Australia" opposing the move, it's "Australians who will earn less money if fewer people spend money in locales near the Great Barrier Reef due to negative publicity" who oppose the move.
I would have thought this could be sold as protecting the livelihoods of the people that rely on tourism. It's not as if tourists will come to visit the former Great Barrier Reef when it's dead and gone. No one wants to go on holiday to feel sad and depressed that the world destroyed a natural wonder.
For those who don't remember, one of his arguments for democracy was that it was a lot less likely for democracies to make such huge mistakes that endanger them, unlike autocracies, where the decision making is so concentrated and so swift that massive bad decisions can be made in an instant and there's no coming back from them.
If Australia, fully democratic and an advanced democracy, does this then we're all lost.
https://xanasoft.com/TaskExplorer/ https://github.com/davidxanatos