Type 2 productivity is what Australia needs. Sadly, there is too much effort direct at type 1 productivity.
Type 2 productivity are innovations in business practice that are designed to give rise to a productivity gain to both the designer; which is typically an organisation, and the party that is transacting with that organisation. Type 2 productivity makes processes easier for all parties in the process. An example of Type 2 productivity is eBay that comprehensively simplifies both the purchaser and seller experience, allowing, for instance, a seller to print a prepaid mailing label.
Type 1 productivity are innovations in business practice that are designed to give rise to a productivity gain to the designer without any significant productivity gain to the party that is transacting with that designer organisation. Type 1 is seen where users are required to input data into poorly designed online forms. Such forms may be capturing data for the organisation, and making their own processes efficient, but poor design of the form has a cost upon the user.
Type 1 productivity is what I recently experienced in receiving an email from a water authority with an attachment. The attachment had an unreasonable size. The story of that email's attachment continues here in a post I put up on, and later updated on, a community Facebook page:
While I appreciate that this is a first world problem, can anyone please advise if the size in megabyte of XXXXX Council's water bill reached a mammoth size in the most recent mailing. Here I show a graph of the size of the most recent four bills (with 4 being the most recent). 11 Megabyte for an attachment is huge! Council seems to want to consume all my email provider's data capacity."
---
Update: I have had a response from Council:
“Hi Ozhamada,
Our mail house has identified the cause of the issue which had resulted in emailed account having such a large file size.
The file size issue was to do with the newsletter which they have now corrected.
Thank you for your enquiry which has helped identify and correct this issue.
The Bishop preached at a Dublin Pride Service as linked. A tragedy of “pride”.
I have summarised the sermon below. The summary – of a sermon which is absent
of any direct exposition of Biblical text - concludes with: “The core message
is that if it was right for Jesus's apostles to speak their truth with pride,
it is equally right and necessary for the LGBTQIA+ community to do the same.”
And, it is in that summary that we see the failure of the
sermon, that the apostle’s (Peter and John, [Acts 3]) were not speaking in
pride, but in humility - indeed, the apostles were at threat of imprisonment [Acts 4]. They spoke filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts 2]. The apostles were not speaking in pride but instead in boldness and
unapologetic first-person witness. They were humble men who had the un-measurable support and strength of Christ.
And speaking in boldness and unapologetic first-person witness, in the Spirit, and as representatives of Christ, is completely different from the LGBTQIA+ community's tendency to speak in pride. For that community's pride is regularly evidenced as arrogance, self-exaltation, and hubris.
The speaker links the "pride" of Peter and John
and the "pride" of the LGBTQIA+ community through the shared act of
publicly speaking their truth and living authentically, even in the face of
opposition from established authorities.
Here's how the link is made:
1.Pride of Peter
and John: The speaker describes Peter and John as being "too public in
their preaching and healing in and around the temple," leading to a
"movement fueled by love and filled with pride." When chastised by
the religious authorities and told to "no longer speak their truth
publicly," Peter and John refuse to be silenced. The speaker emphasizes,
"But if you know who you are and how you are and you know that your life
is changed that's not something you keep inside You have pride and you keep on
telling your story." Their pride is their unwavering conviction and
determination to share the Gospel despite threats.
2.Pride of the LGBTQIA+ Community: The speaker
explicitly connects this to the experience of the queer community. They state
that for decades, society and the church have told them "Stop speaking be
silent Don't tell us Do not speak your truth." However, the speaker then
directly counters this by urging, "I say to you speak your truth... as an
out proud partnered lesbian I say to you speak your truth. We are made in God's
image and likeness and fully embraced by Christ just as we are. We of the queer
community are good enough. We are called to tell the stories of who and how we
are and how God lives and moves and has God being in our lives."
The link is established by framing both instances as a
courageous and divinely inspired refusal to be silent about a transformative
truth. For Peter and John, it was the truth of Jesus's resurrection and love;
for the LGBTQIA+ community, it is the truth of their God-given identity and the
profound love they experience. Both are acts of defiant, faithful
self-expression ("pride") against prevailing norms and oppressive
religious or societal structures.
The core message is that if it was right for
Jesus's apostles to speak their truth with pride, it is equally right and
necessary for the LGBTQIA+ community to do the same.
I was fortunate this to travel on one of NSW Transport's new Mariyung Fleet trains. I travelled as part of a couple and we both took bicycles. The following photographs illustrate the dedicated bicycle carrying space. Our journey was from Hornsby to Newcastle Interchange.
On the eight car set train the bicycle carrying space is on cars 2 and 7.
The experience was one of ease and convenience.
The bicycle carriers will prove popular.
There is no additional cost to take a bicycle on the train. Boarding at Hornsby, car 7 pulled up precisely at the elevator which is fantastic for anyone who has had to get their bicycle down on to the platform. At Newcastle Interchange, if required, you can immediately board the light rail and it too has a dedicated bicycle area.
Shalom,
Ozhamada
This clamp locks into position against the front bicycle wheel as the arm takes the weight of the bicycle.
The front wheel suspended on a padded pin and clamped
Two bicycles neatly fit next to each other. There is a quick release strap fitted to the rear wheel.
We sat in car 8 and had a clear view through to the bicycles in car 7. There is disabled seating opposite the bicycle carrying space. The transit door is accessible at all times during the journey.
The in-car digital indicator switches between destination information and car information (see next photograph)
The cars that have bicycle carrying space are indicated. The indicator highlights that car 8 - the car that we sat in - is a quiet carriage. In a quiet carriage chatting is to be kept to a minimum and mobile telephone calls must be taken in another carriage.
This blog has a run of reporting bad preaching. Even the Sydney Anglicans can sadly fail (as linked). I contemplated writing a post on the Budde sermon to the newly elected President Trump yet another captured my thoughts entirely (as linked).
St John’s Anglican Cathedral in Brisbane serves up many sermons. The Rev’d Dr Ann Solari on the 5th January 2025 preached a sermon titled: “Giving the Gifts away: The Epiphany of the Lord”. As is a feature of many sermons of that church, Solari concluded the sermon with a question to her audience. Let’s examine that question from the published sermon on the church’s website:
“This story of the wise ones does however raise an interesting question.
If Jesus was given these valuable gifts as a small child how come he did he end up with nothing?
Did Jesus do what he asked the rich young man to do?
Did Jesus give all that he had to the poor?
What does this say to us?
Amen”
Screenshot from St John's Anglican Cathedral website
On 5 January 2025 many may have still been recovering from Christmas and New Year hangover. Simple mathematic calculations are often difficult with a cloudy head. Yet, the “interesting question” was not one question but instead “interesting questions”. Where the count should be one, it is four. Very Monty Pythonesque!
Putting aside the grammar of the first question one’s head spins at the connection within the sermon between that first question and the wonderful words that were included in respect to the gift of myrrh. For the preacher correctly identified the myrrh as a pointer to Christ’s early death. So, counter to the question's notion that has the listener pondering why Jesus ended up with nothing, the gifts indicated that Jesus would end up with nothing.
The second question is a puzzle in that rich young man is not previously mentioned in the sermon. Does the preacher assume her audience to be telepathic? If it is a reference to the story in Matthew 19:16-22 one wonders how Jesus is to follow himself :“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
The sermon is a failure. It is a failure in that the preacher has asked questions that are either dubious or which will lead to ambiguous or inconsistent application by the listeners. It offers questions at a moment in the sermon where applications are expected. It is a failure of oratory form - awkward questions left hanging in the air - that cannot be concluded successfully away from the pulpit. The questions are absent solid answers and sound applications; they do not keep to the pattern of sound teaching (Paul's instruction to Timothy).
The only appropriate response of the discerning pewsitter is to robustly indicate that they had been short-changed; that they expect well-rounded sermons starting from the very next week.
This post solves a mathematic problem on Page 32 of the non-fiction
book: “Honeysuckle Creek – The story of Tom Reid, A little Dish and Neil
Armstrong’s First Step”, Andrew Tink, 2018
Problem: An object 2cm, high is held at a
distance of 60cm from a convex lens of focal length of 20cm. Find the nature,
position, and size of the image.
1. Given:
Object
height (h₁) = 2 cm
Object
distance (u) = -60 cm (negative sign convention)
Focal
length (f) = 20 cm
2. Find Image Distance (v):
Use
the lens formula: 1/f = 1/v - 1/u
Substitute
the given values: 1/20 = 1/v - 1/(-60)
Simplify:
1/20 = 1/v + 1/60
1/v
= 1/20 - 1/60
1/v
= (3 - 1) / 60
1/v
= 2/60
v =
60/2
v =
30 cm
3. Find Image Height (h₂):
Use
the magnification formula: h₂/h₁ = -v/u
Substitute
the values: h₂/2 = -30/(-60)
h₂/2
= 1/2
h₂ =
1 cm
4. Determine Nature of Image:
Since
the image distance (v) is positive, the image is real.
The
magnification (h₂/h₁) is positive and less than 1, so the image is inverted
and diminished.
Therefore:
The
image is real, inverted, and diminished.
The
image is formed 30 cm from the lens on the opposite side of the
object.
This post solves a mathematic problem on Page 32 of the non-fiction
book: “Honeysuckle Creek – The story of Tom Reid, A little Dish and Neil
Armstrong’s First Step”, Andrew Tink, 2018
Problem: P and Q are points of tangents OP and
OQ drawn to a circle whose centre is C; PC and OQ are produced to meet in L; QC
and OP are produced to meet in M. Prove that LM is parallel to PQ.
1. Understand the problem:
We
have a circle with centre C.
OP
and OQ are tangents to the circle from an external point O.
PC
is extended to point L.
QC
is extended to point M.
We
need to prove that LM is parallel to PQ.
2. Visualize the problem:
circle with tangents OP and OQ, center C, and points L and M
3. Key concepts:
Tangents
to a circle: A tangent to a circle is a line that touches the circle
at exactly one point.
Radius
and tangent: The radius drawn to the point of tangency is
perpendicular to the tangent.
Parallel
lines: Two lines are parallel if their corresponding angles are equal.
4. Proof:
Step
1: Since OP and OQ are tangents to the circle, we know that:
∠OPC
= 90° (radius perpendicular to tangent)
∠OQC
= 90° (radius perpendicular to tangent)
Step
2: Consider triangles OPC and OQC:
OP
= OQ (tangents from an external point to a circle are equal)
OC
is common to both triangles
∠OPC
= ∠OQC = 90° (proved
in step 1)
Therefore, triangles OPC and OQC are congruent by the
Hypotenuse-Leg (HL) congruence theorem.
Step
3: Since triangles OPC and OQC are congruent:
∠PCO
= ∠QCO (corresponding angles of congruent triangles)
Step
4: Consider angles ∠PCO and ∠QCM:
∠PCO
+ ∠QCM = 180° (linear
pair)
Therefore, ∠QCM = 180° - ∠PCO
Step
5: Similarly, consider angles ∠QCO and ∠PCM:
∠QCO
+ ∠PCM = 180° (linear
pair)
Therefore, ∠PCM = 180° - ∠QCO
Step
6: Since ∠PCO = ∠QCO (proved in step 3):
∠QCM
= ∠PCM
Step
7: In triangles QCM and PCM:
∠QCM
= ∠PCM (proved in step 6)
CM
is common to both triangles
Therefore, triangles QCM and PCM are congruent by the
Angle-Side-Angle (ASA) congruence theorem.
Step
8: Since triangles QCM and PCM are congruent:
∠QMC
= ∠PMC (corresponding angles of congruent triangles)
Step
9: Since ∠QMC = ∠PMC, we can conclude that LM
is parallel to PQ (alternate interior angles are equal).
Therefore, we have proved that LM is parallel to PQ.
It is chilling to return from Christmas leave to learn of two vehicle-ramming attacks. Motor vehicles are a study in risk/reward - they offer us mobility and convenience yet they also can cause carnage. Over Christmas time road and emergency authorities alert the public of the risk of vehicle accidents yet vehicle-ramming attacks highlight the risk that vehicles will be used as weapons.
Timely to the two vehicle-ramming events is a reminder to ensure that risk mitigation measures for public street events include the installation of temporary vehicle barriers. Naturally, there needs to be a balanced measure of implementation of the vehicle barriers in that emergency vehicle access needs to be provided for.
Another risk mitigation measure is to control vehicle movements to scheduled bump-in/bump-out times.
Here is a brief summary of the two vehicle-ramming attacks. I have been cautious in excluding any comment about the rogue actors ethnicity, country of birth or radicalisation, however, it is noteworthy that in both instance the rogue actors had publicly expressed, by social media, in the year prior to the event, intentions to end their lives in a manner that would harm others.
Table 1: Summary of recent vehicle-ramming attacks
Note: A vehicle-ramming attack is an assault in which a perpetrator deliberately rams a vehicle into a building, multiple people, or another vehicle. The count of dead and injured is accurate at 3 January 2025 at the time of publishing this article.
