Aaron Fenwick

The only accurate alignment chart

@SundayCosplays @alt911theories Not really no? It’s so redundant that non halal places look for a substitute word starting with H to keep the acronym the same.

@AaronWFenwick @alt911theories Okay but that just reinforces what i said and she said? It's been around so long at this point its all just slang for the same thing and the H is redundant and it's just snack pack at this point

Not standing for this ladstreet erasure

@SundayCosplays @alt911theories Mate the H is so widely used I’ve seen non halal places substitute in other words. There is a Greek place that calls it a “Hellenic snack pack” , I’ve seen non halal”happy snack pack”.

@alt911theories I mean she kinda right, the halal can be silent, sometimes I say hsp, sometimes just snack pack, halal feels like a given when the whole place is halal, I don't say halal kebab because it's kind of implied?

What you mean, is goth not when black clothes , girl and all look the same?

@PatrickSchuess1 @AnalyticaCamil1

@AaronWFenwick @AnalyticaCamil1 Not really, the poor showing of their air defenses if far more of an embarrassment than 3 hits is a PR victory.

Pretty sure that they notched one Israeli F-15 near Tehran (the IDF isn’t announcing it because wartime censorship, but the IDF’s digital boosters alluded to a successful pilot retrieval op), and they’ve definitely hit an F-35 and an F-18.

@AnalyticaCamil1 And I’ll add, one of the biggest propaganda victories Iran could have would be to take down a US fighter, capture the pilot and return the pilot to get something in return. Keeping a US PoW safe helps the whole we are being attacked by honorless barbarians narrative.

@AnalyticaCamil1 This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, Iranian air defence only has to score one definitive kill. It’s why the pro war propagandists twist so hard to write off any hit as an accident. Every aircraft hit is an Iranian PR victory.

@suchnerve @Srirachachau Called it x.com/aaronwfenwick/…

Oh we’re going to WAR war

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna No that’s misrepresenting the source and assuming the scheme has not grown in participants over three years which is suspect. (It’s added near 1/4million)

@AaronWFenwick @e11_anna Nobody said it invalidates them. The question is whether they justify the cost. $1B in financial returns on $48.5B spent. The gap is widening. Every year. Your own sources.

Something not discussed on here, where NDIS often just seen as negative. abc.net.au/news/2026-03-2…

@WesternGamayun @ilangoldenberg No but other nations will need it to pay Iran's sea toll. They will buy Yuan in USD etc etc.

@AaronWFenwick @ilangoldenberg China doesn’t need Yuan -it’s not a convertible currency. It loves “paying” Iran in Yuan for minerals, but it doesn’t want to be paid in Yuan.

No objective observer who has watched Iranian behavior over the past month can possibly believe that a major US land operation to take Kharg Island will cause the Iranians to give up. The much more likely and obvious response will be for them to double down and launch more at energy infrastructure. This is only something you do if you are desperate and don’t have other options. It’s extraordinarily reckless.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna No, because there is a widening gap does not invalidate the benefits. The two are not mutually exclusive.

@AaronWFenwick @e11_anna You're claiming benefits are underestimated while acknowledging the gap is widening. Pick one.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna No debate here that the scheme needs reform and costs reductions, but that can be addressed by a government with enough guts for reform. Sadly not many players are willing to undertake seriously...

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna Again odd assumption that the non market benefit would remain identical after 3 years... The CIE review did see a widening gap that need addressing but the old "methodology related answers" handwave is just a dodge.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna Needs unmet by the scheme… does not mean there were not met privately.

That's factually wrong. Pre-NDIS, ~50% of needs were unmet - meaning no one was paying them. The NDIS didn't redistribute existing costs, it created ~$37B/yr in new ones. "Costs are always met by someone" only works if the counterfactual is full private provision. It wasn't. It never would have been. And even accepting that some level of public cost is justified - which it is - that doesn't defend this level of public cost. The original CBA set the bar at $3,800 per participant per year to pass the cost-benefit test. We're now spending ~$67,600 per participant per year. The return on investment required to justify that has never been calculated, let alone demonstrated. The question isn't whether government should meet some disability costs. It's whether $48.5B - 4× the inflation-adjusted baseline, 8× the original net fiscal cost, growing at 10%/yr - is meeting those costs efficiently and returning value commensurate with the spend. That case has never been made. "The alternative is worse" is not a cost-benefit analysis. It's a thought-terminating cliché that forecloses exactly the scrutiny a $48.5B program demands.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna CIE in their review in 2023 and the Acturies Insititue in 2025 (using the same data as CIE) saw a signifcant net benifit economically through increase employment for participants, reduced out of pocket costs for supports etc. Also noted that these benefits are under esitimated.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna But that is largely irrelevant to my original point, these costs are met either privately or publically. No scheme or a reduced scheme and that cost goes back on individuals.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna Now that is down below 30% (and there are signficant issues there still. Psychosocial participants see signifcant gaps in coverage) When you are covering at least 3 times as many people more comprehensivly, yes the cost of the scheme goes up. A x4 increase is about right.

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna Underfunded and covering fewer people and less stuff. Almost 50% (varies by state) of paricipents under the pre-NDIS schemes had unmet support requirements which would need to be met by the community or or the individual. (Productivity commision 2011)

@Mark_Graph @e11_anna The costs of healthcare and disability are always paid, either privately by the persons affected and their families or publicly. The NDIS has a multitude of flaws but broadbase assistance is cheaper overall in both cash and human suffering.

@e11_anna At what cost? At what cost growth rate?

Australia for the invention of the HSP alone.