Sorry for the late reply, I wanted to think through my response and then I got busy.

The Greens could publicly behave with humility. As I said, the claim that "they don't show humility because it would hurt them politically" doesn't hold up if the Greens are being "slandered" in the press for lacking humility.

And as for the HAAF, a few points:

1. The Australia Institute is broadly untrustworthy. They're biased towards minor parties, or rather just anyone that'll give them attention. They're also closely tied to the now defunct Australian Democrats and those people would prefer if Labor was closer to the Liberals not just in practice but in ideology. Worst of all though, they're a think-tank. Think-tanks are, quite honestly, full of idiots. Policy-area experts, like those in the construction industry or those that work in social services, they're much more reliable than a bunch of upper-class consultants.
2. The HAAF was supported across the board by people who are directly engaged with vulnerable people, and they said it was especially critical that it be passed immediately. The delay was opposed by any organization that actually dealt with vulnerable people, and the resulting delay of 1-year resulted in less housing being built. Hell, considering the state of the Australian building industry I wonder if more housing would be built even if the Greens got all their demands after this delay.
3. The idea that it'd do nothing, that is absurd.

And on the double standard. The fact is the Greens would not be able to win elections without Labor. Labor could easily win elections without the Greens. You could argue that's because the system is rigged and that the system should be changed, but we're one of the best-performing democracies in the world. This isn't America where voting is optional, elections in Australia are fought in the center and Labor are much more palatable to the average Australian than some inner-city tree huggers who have never worked a day in their life. Maybe an Adam Bandt dictatorship would make the country better, who knows, but I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it.

That phrasing comes from a channel that calls the Teals "not-shit". The imported narrative that "both sides are the same" gives license to the conservative working class to vote against their economic interests, but frankly speaking the Labor party is broadly made up of people who genuinely care but are faced with a corrupt system operating under American global dominance.

We have it quite good in Australia, for the most part. It could be SO much worse.

I think, given the (presumed) widespread perception that the Greens are arrogant, they ought to publicly air that reflection. If I'm speaking purely strategically, that would be more likely to win votes from me than what they ended up doing. I think the reason they don't is because they're incapable of such reflection. The only policy changes I recall them making are to support increased defense spending following Trump's win, and to oppose IRV and support PR after Bandt lost his seat (I BTW, support going the opposite direction with Condorcet).

As for Chandler-Mather, I think the other MP's complaining is more to do with them not seeing him as an adult than the severity of his treatment. Given how he went on the radio to complain about the treatment, I'd say they were right to.

I can't speak much to your anecdote, as you said. I can easily imagine the Greens apologising for using the wrong pronoun or mocking disability. I'm not sure where the exact line would be (in my almost entirely imagined idea of the Greens). The idea that their decisions are any less than perfect seems to be a sore spot for them, the only public self-reflection they've done regarding the last term is that "Labor ran an effective campaign on us blocking the HAAF for a year" IIRC.

I think they're a lot more sensitive regarding the Greens political party than they are individually. They are also sensitive individually when they're speaking on behalf of the Greens publicly (see my earlier example with Bandt, and Max Chandler-Mather's comments about other politicians being mean). You could instead say they're sensitive to humiliation, but that wouldn't fit my (entirely imagined) narrative of the Greens being racist so I'll put that theory aside.

Also maybe changing your vote because you thought an individual action by someone was stupid is a childish way of thinking about politics?

I didn't change my vote because of that. I became open to reconsidering my views after that. Although I'm not even sure if that was the exact snowball that started this.

I think people on the hard left or hard racist are more likely to specifically feel angry when criticized because the specific association of "makes me uncomfortable = evil" is much more likely. In the left's case, they're in the child prodigy "I'm too smart to be emotional" camp. In the hard right's case it's because the possibility that their gut instinct should maybe be interrogated is unfathomable to them.

In other words I think both One Nation and the Greens are made up of people with low EQ.

I'd say the Greens are the most likely to be racist. They're the kinds of people who could never even conceive of the possibility that they are not completely virtuous ("they' as in themselves, not POC. I'm not claiming some reverse racism BS).

I cannot imagine them being called racist and them not feeling angry at the accusation. I cannot imagine them admitting to fault. And I cannot imagine them growing as a result.

It took a while, but the trigger for me switching my vote from the Greens to Labor was when Bandt asked Albanese something in question time and was absolutely seething in anger when the (Labor) speaker said his question was against the rules. The Greens (or at least Bandt) are people who consider anything that makes them uncomfortable to be absolute evil.

Neither will I, but honestly if I remember I don't think the biosecurity rules around imported beef here are that important (that isn't to say biosecurity itself isn't important). Neither are exports to America though. TBH these trade talks don't seem to matter at all.

He probably arranged for this himself. Wouldn't put it past him.

I should really buy some long pants.

Please don't scare me with a title like that so soon after an election.

Sure, privatize the railroads. That going well is the norm, not the exception. /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis

You're not 100% wrong. Zero_gravitas answered my comment about the apsis with a comment about the seasons, and I called them wrong even though technically they were just referring to the wrong topic. I was right though, the perihelion occurs in January and the anhelion occurs in July, and that this means the sun is closer to earth during Australian summer than it is during American summer.

No, it's not the angle. The sun's orbit isn't exactly symetrical, it's a bit lopsided. In January the sun is about 5% closer to earth.

In the Northern hemisphere this is during winter, so it's the best of both worlds. In Australia though it's the reverse. We get extra dim winters and extra bright summers.

Be careful of the summer sun.

The sun isn't always a fixed distance from earth. It's closest in January, which is winter in America but in Australia that's summer. So they should be ready for hot summers with a high risk of skin cancer.

There's probably more to worry about in the tropics (invasive species like kane toads and fire ants especially) but I don't live in the tropics so I'll leave that to someone else.

Apparently some people did, confronted the AEC staff about it, and were told to "just number 1-6".

"A real estate convention in Australia" to be precise.

I wouldn't really know. I just know there's some kind of issue with that.

And regardless it's true that it'd be a waste of resources to duplicate a "margin-for-error" on every single house to ensure the fridge keeps running all year round.

Rooftop solar causes some issues for the grid and especially with every person getting their own battery it's not very efficient.

On rural properties it would make sense to mandate them, but it would also be political suicide.

Bakers Delight donated to them.

Probably more companies to, but Bakers Delight has been the most inconvenient. I haven't been able to find good bread anywhere else (or indeed, even at Bakers Delight these days).

Regional seats often held for or swung to the LNP. The election results aren't as much of a glowing endorsement for renewables as you suggest. Still, it is rich for that statement to be coming from the Nationals, considering that their long history of lies about renewables are partly to blame for the loss of their social license.