The guy who made it explicitly rejected a van for his purposes. Maybe we should let him decide how to do his job?

Your argument is the extreme minority who make this decision differently than everyone, exclusively limited to countries that have heavy government incentives to do so, being free to make an impractical choice somehow is rational because they are free to make a decision. Surely you can appreciate why I can’t accept that as an argument for why that demonstrates it’s a suitable vehicle for that purpose.

. . . very small niche of of tradesmen . . .How many niches does it take when, all together, they’re no longer niche cases?

Most people would argue a majority. Even if we relax it to something more common like, at least a quarter of tradesmen in more than 2 developed countries, this example wouldn’t qualify as more than niche. I mean, the actual hard to swallow fact is tradesmen almost definitely wouldn’t prefer pickup trucks without the extreme tax advantages in the US/CAN biasing towards them, as is evidenced by countries where the government handouts aren’t so generous.

That truck pictured would be better served with a van. Ladders and conduit on the roof, tools in the back. This is standard setup in the UK, UAE and Australia at least, I imagine for everywhere outside of North America.

Ah ok, I’ve only ever heard fifth wheeler be used to describe a camper. Hauling large trailers is something a pickup truck is better at than a van, but if that’s the type of work you do surely the obvious 5T flatbed is the better option, no? I appreciate that you’ll probably counter that the versatility for someone who only needs to do that occasionally and that is valid, but I hope you’ll appreciate that we’re now talking about a very small niche of of tradesmen in response to a comment I originally made making a generalization.

I felt it was obvious I was talking about tradesmen and workers doing work, with all the talk about toolboxes and having to walk into the tray (and given that what most truck owners like to pretend to be). For use as a work vehicle, doing work tasks for tradesmen, a van is far more practical.

Are you implying that construction workers who move around a lot need a gigantic camper when they move between jobs? Because I realize that yanks do tend to do that, though I’d argue that this is more a reflection of yankee culture than applicability for actual work.

they ride a bit lower while having a same or higher ceiling height

This is the line that gives away why they’re unquestionably better if you actually need to use it for work.

These jackasses with a tray 1.5m off the ground clearly aren’t regularly needing to get to their oversized toolbox at the back of the tray, because clambering in and out of that thing is an enormous pain in the ass.

This gets brought up so much because it clearly differentiates the people doing work from the people playing dress up.

A country can be losing but in an existential conflict seem to rarely outright surrender. Ukraines position, while dire, is far stronger than the talibans after the US invasion of Iraq. 20 years later, they were still fighting and ultimately prevailed.

In my mind, this Inevitably is in ukraines future if allies don’t continue to materially support Ukraine - either way the Russian occupation ultimately fails, the question is does Ukraine defend itself and remain a sovereign nation or do they fall and an insurgency later force it’s reinstatement.

This is the first result from Google. It’s I guess ancient history now being it was the labor rights push to (probably) unintentionally discredit kevin07, but internal politics aside Conroy (famous for his opposition to adult rating for videogames) was for aong time a candidate for ‘biggest piece of shit in Australian politics’. Stephen Conroy was the face of it, so search for him and firewall to your hearts content. The Alana and Madeline foundation were involved in some of the testing that damned the project, if I remember right (as if common sense hadn’t already damned it with seconds of the sales pitch).

Theres a scale of influence, with a big difference between foolproof and entirely unenforceable.

In this case, it’s effectively unenforceable, so what’s the point in wasting time and effort drafting something that won’t actually make any difference?

A few years ago the Australian government spent an enormous amount of money on a proposed firewall to protect the children. After years of development they were ready to pilot test their white elephant, and discovered that, on average, the Australian 12 year old could bypass it in ten minutes.

It’s unlikely that the government could even enforce an obstacle as robust as the “are you 18+” checkbox that porn sites opt in to. This new law will not have any influence on under 16s online presence.