Minor surcharge, major irritation!

Like many of you, I sometimes find myself disproportionately annoyed by the little things. They might seem small in the grand scheme of life, the universe, and everything, but they’re more than just a minor nuisance in our daily lives. You might chuckle at the buildup, but bear with me.

I’m referring to the seemingly trivial surcharges and charity requests that have become far too common in our financial transactions. Take the credit card surcharge, for example. It might appear fair for a business to recoup an additional expense. However, businesses already set their prices to cover such costs, so why isn’t the credit card fee included in the product price? We don’t see separate charges for employee overtime or weekend rates, nor for maternity leave or late tax filings. Businesses typically calculate their product prices by tallying up their costs and adding a profit margin. So, why tack on a surcharge?

Some might argue that the payment method incurs this cost, and customers could choose another method, like cash, to avoid the fee. But that’s not entirely accurate. Many businesses don’t offer a cash option, especially for online purchases. More importantly, credit card payments are often less costly for retailers than cash, which requires more handling, stringent shrinkage checks, frequent bank visits, and extensive reconciliations. The only real advantage of cash for a retailer is the potential for tax evasion by underreporting income. But offering a discount for tax avoidance isn’t something you can advertise without raising eyebrows. So, why impose a credit card surcharge? It’s not for the reasons you might think. The practice began with large government entities that could enforce it and has since spread everywhere.

Then there’s its younger sibling, soon to be encountered at a supermarket near you: the request to round up your total or make a donation. What a service! The retailer takes a bit extra from you and donates on your behalf—no receipt, no tax deduction, no trace. While I’m sure the donations do reach charities, they may not go to organizations you’d choose to support. Everyone has their own criteria for charitable giving. Personally, I decline to support charities where administrative costs exceed 20% of their donations, which is often the case. It’s always a ‘no’ from me, but being asked is irritating. We don’t want to be solicited for money as we walk down the street, as happens in many less affluent parts of the world, so why should we tolerate it while shopping? The request feels like a nagging reminder to do the right thing. So please, retailers, stop pestering your customers.

Maybe I’m overgeneralizing. Perhaps you love it, but I have my doubts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Is the AEMO also lying to us ?

In an earlier post, I asked the question Why is the CSIRO lying to us? It covered the very significant shortcomings fothe CSIRO's Gencost report, especially it bias against Nuclear in favour of renewables. 

Today I am asking a similar question; Is the AEMO (Australia's Energy Market Operator) also lying to us?

It seems so.  In a rather detailed YouTube presentation, Aiden Morrison explores  AEMO's Integrated System Plan (ISP) for transforming Australia's energy grid towards Net Zero. The video titled "Unravelling AEMO's Integrated System Plan: World-class, incompetent, or corrupt? is well worth it, if you have the time and a fair amount of technical savvy. 

If not, spoiler alert, Yes it seems the ISP has serious flaws which all work to underestimate the costs of renewables and substantially overstate the cost of nuclear. 

So both the CSIRO and AEMO are producing biased reports to support the government's chosen options. This is a betrayal of their role as independent bodies whose role is to provide the best solutions for Australia.

The UN's world of the absurd

Alan Baker, director of the Institute of Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs nails it in his recent article titled The UN’s World of the absurd.

"Only in such a world can the majority of the international community deliberately ignore the openly declared genocidal intentions of Iran, Hamas and the PLO in their

Only in the world of the absurd can a despicable purveyor of terror, Hamas, carry out a brutal massacre, killing over a thousand innocent people, torturing, murdering and carrying out sadistic mass rape, over a space of just a few hours, and then run home to Gaza taking with them hundreds of hostages.

Only in the world of the absurd can the Palestinian representative organization that encourages, finances, supports and represents such murderers be feted and upgraded by the majority of member states in the international community.

Only in the world of the absurd can a group of non-democratic, terror-supporting states oblige the United Nations General Assembly by proposing a resolution that indulges in pampering a terror-supporting entity in a misguided and surreal demonstration of naïveté, skewed political correctness and acute hypocrisy.

Only in the same world of the absurd can 143 states parrot their support for what they blindly proclaim to be a "two-state solution" without really understanding what they are talking about out of ignorance and stupidity.

Only in the world of the absurd can the majority of the international community deliberately ignore the openly declared genocidal intentions of Iran, Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in their efforts to eliminate the Jewish state and kill all Jews. And this, while at the same time upgrading the Palestinian representation in the United Nations.

Lastly, only in the world of the absurd can all this happen at the same time as incited and handsomely financed and organized groups of violent, hysterical, antisemitic demonstrators occupy campuses and town centers in U.S. and European cities, calling for the elimination of the only Jewish state."

and I add,

Only in the world of the absurd can a so-called "International" Criminal Court charge the democratically elected leaders of the country attacked by a genocidal terrorist group, with "crimes against humanity" when they defend their country by trying to eliminate the terrorist group that started the war and do so with the lowest level of civilian casualties of any previous such wars. 

and again, (added 23 May)

Only in the world of the absurd would democratic European countries Spain, Ireland and Norway reward the terrorist attack of Hamas by giving diplomatic recognition to a so-called Palestinian "state”. A state which does not satisfy any of the pre-conditions of statehood; well-defined borders, a single government that holds elections, and one which wants to live in peaceful co-existence with its neighbours. 

AI poetry shoot out

A few months ago I had a play with Google's Bard AI product by asking it to produce a poem on 'tea'. I thought it produced a surprisingly good poem.

Given the growing competition in general-purpose AI products, we have seen the release of a number of products by the major players, including Microsoft's Copilot,Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Bard.

SO I thought why not re-visit the poetry challenge and see what these competing products produce. Here are the results. In each case, the prompt was "Please produce a poem about tea".

Copilot

Steeped Tranquility

In porcelain cups, warmth unfurls,

Amidst fragrant leaves, secrets swirl.

A sip of solace, a whispered plea,

Tea, the elixir of serenity.

Amber hues dance in morning light,

A symphony of flavors takes flight.

From jasmine blooms to chai's embrace,

Each brew tells tales of time and space.

Steam-kissed lips, a gentle sip, 

The world outside begins to slip. 

In quietude, we find our way, 

Tea, the muse of a tranquil day.

So raise your cup, let worries cease, 

Sip the magic, find inner peace. 

For in this humble leaf, we see, 

A universe steeped in harmony.

Claude

The Warmth of Tea

Fragrant tendrils of steam unfurl,

Rising from the ceramic's curl.

Amber liquid, deep and clear,

Inviting me to linger here.

A ritual steeped in calm delight,

A moment's pause to savor right.

Floral, earthy notes entwine,

Nature's balm in this cup of mine.

With each sip, I am transported,

To lush gardens zephyrs courted

Peace cascades with each beat,

In the warmth of this cuppa replete.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

ChatGPT 3.5

In porcelain cups, a world unfolds,

Where leaves dance in waters bold.

A brew of warmth, a soothing balm,

In every sip, a quiet calm.

From misty hills to ancient lands,

Tea whispers tales from distant strands.

Its fragrance floats on gentle breeze,

A melody to bring us ease.

In morning's light or twilight's gleam,

Tea beckons with its tranquil stream.

A ritual, a sacred rite,

To pause, to savor, to invite.

From jasmine's kiss to bergamot's zest,

Each flavor a journey, a quest.

With every cup, a journey's start,

To mend the soul, to soothe the heart.

So let us raise our cups on high,

To tea, the poet's endless sky.

In its embrace, we find release,

A moment's peace, a sweet release.

and finally the original produced by Google's Bard

Bard

"In porcelain cup, a golden brew,

Steaming tendrils reaching you.

A gentle scent, a fragrant sigh,

Unfurling secrets from the sky.

Emerald leaves, once sun-kissed green,

Infuse their essence, calm and keen.

A touch of honey, sweet and pure,

Enhances flavors, ever sure.

The first sip warms, a comforting fire,

Chasing away life's worries and ire.

A moment stolen, just for you,

Peace and solace, calming hue.

With every cup, a journey starts,

Across vast lands and beating hearts.

From rolling hills to misty shores,

The taste of life, forever yours.

So raise your cup and take a sip,

Let troubles fade, your spirit trip.

In every drop, a whisper lies,

The magic of tea, beneath the skies."

They all sound pretty good to me. What do you think?

The Ultra Safe Nuclear reactor

 Nuclear energy has re-emerged as an essential component of any Net Zero future. While many, mainly Green, groups continue to argue it is not 'essential', the IPCC has accepted this as the case.

The association with Nuclear weapons and the known longevity of nuclear waste products have remained the first visceral objection by those who oppose the technology. They typically bundle these as 'nuclear is just not safe'.

This is despite the exceptional safety record of nuclear power generation over 7 decades, comparable to Hydro and Solar power.  Added to this is the issue of cost. Nuclear technology has required custom design and construction which together with the need to meet onerous environmental constraints, has made each new build expensive and time-consuming. There is a wide range of construction times and costs.

Nevertheless, the drive towards Net Zero has seen a major rethink in addressing these issues. The construction time and cost problems are being solved by the introduction of Small Modular Reactors. Reactors that have lower power from 25-300 MW and mostly constructed using modules built largely off site in a repetitive manufacturing process. These can make significant reductions in construction times, down from a typical 8 years to 3-4 years and with cost per KW generated being halved.

At the same time safety is being addressed with the emergence of novel designs with built-in passive safety. I recently came across the Ultra Safe design, as exemplified in the following short video. Well worth a view.

With Nuclear it is not if but when. And countries that stick to the old prejudices will suffer energy poverty if they try to fulfil their Net Zero dream with solar and wind.

Unfortunately, too many countries, including Australia, are wearing blinkers.