Dearche @ Dearche @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

412

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, plenty of religious people simply use their religion as a shield and don't actually follow the tenants.

I mean, it's a common thing for atheists to know the bible better than people who wave around crosses screaming about Jesus doing this or that all the time.

That said, this last decade or so had the left using moral outrage as their founding principal to enforce their own "morals" onto others, stating that any other opinion on the subject is invalid and contravenes morals, despite the very act of denying others a voice in itself is immoral.

Pretty much every group can use morality as a weapon to discriminate against others when they embrace anger and hate as their motivation.

While I agree with the added risks of attack for homeless women, I wonder if homeless men are even able to get manual labour jobs either. I mean, you still need to get through the interview for those things. Even the lowest qualification jobs I've done still went through the routine of having you come in to sign some documents to officiate it all, and officially showing up and giving your name is the interview, which means it's the best chance to get rejected.

Yea, but that doesn't account for the cost in the slightest. Any city is better served by getting local providers to upgrade their physical lines, leaving only rural areas to use satellite, which is only in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of households. Even if it was to buy them all starlinks, as it was mentioned, the cost is many times that to just buying the dishes and pay for their normal fees, as I the monthly cost was only around $100 or so.

This doesn't just apply to personal electronics or cars. It'll also prevent farmers from being sued just for changing the oil of their John Deer tractors, or hospitals being out their MRI machine for months because the entire thing needs to be disassembled and transported back to the states to replace a single cable.

Don't imagine about the annoyance of having to change the battery of your electronics, but instead about having to decide between shipping your home's water boiler to the repair facility for weeks to replace a single control chip, or buying a new one because you can't afford to go so long without hot water.

I agree overall, but there is the lingering issue that the problems with IP laws is much more international than simply changing things locally. Most of the world has agreed to respect US IP laws and modify their own local laws accordingly.

That said, this can also be the start of a movement to create a new standard which is independent on US IP laws. If we can get the support of EU or any other one major world power, it wouldn't matter what the US's laws are. Lots of US companies already make separate products just to meet EU regulations, and if better IP laws that don't lock down critical equipment like agriculture or medical tools, most likely even US companies will have no choice but to base their products on such a standard due to the lost opportunity cost of making multiple products at such a large scale.

Not just aluminum, but building factories for anything takes years nowadays. The sheer amount of equipment needed alone is staggering, not to mention that such equipment is usually made from steel and aluminum and is often foreign made.

And this is presuming that the owners want to build the factory as fast as possible. There's quite a few from Biden's incentives that are still not anywhere near ready to start producing anything. And that's presuming that anybody has confidence that the economic environment will stay stable enough to make such a multi-decade investment worthwhile and won't be reversed because of unexpected tariffs.

This is litterally what's happening with the US oil sector. Trump removed regulations and put up incentives, and the industry just went "thanks for reducing our costs, but we're not increasing production one bit" and instead just ate up the bigger margins while charging the same amount to their customers.

This worked once, way back in the 19th century. It hasn't worked since.

Not to mention that they got a massive trade war at the time as well, and seriously strained their international relations. But back then, the US was a nobody nation and nobody cared about them, so going from "nobody" to "annoying joe shmoe" wasn't a problem. Now everybody watches carefully to see how the US rolls over even in its sleep, so every little thing they do on purpose has a huge rippling impact.

They're not only starting a trade war when nobody has won a trade war in over a century, but they're destroying a century of built up trust in the meantime, and economies are built on trust. Without trust, who the hell is willing to sign a deal that lasts more than a few months when the norm is to sign decade long deals?

Don't forget. Alberta and Ontario premiers are calling for appeasement as a RESPONSE to Trump breaking his word a second time to Canada in less than a month.

We've got craven liers on both side of the boarder, and we can't let either of them keep getting away with it.

Aside from Toronto and Ottowa and Northern Ontario. At least on the last provincial election, we all voted against him without a single trace of blue on any district.

It was quite frustrating when the two biggest population centers as well as the biggest physical area all voted against him, but we were still stuck with him.

Especially weird that anybody would vote for a guy who completely ignored you for four years in favour of concentrating all his effort on the city you often hate the most.

We already have a major free trade agreement with the EU, and we're not burdened by their regulations on most resources that we want to export to them anyways.

This is different from those people who are talking about actually joining the EU. We're just shipping our raw resources (or preferably refined resources).

And frankly speaking, a lot of the US's growth comes from the fact that they've been taking advantage of their legacy infrastructure like 60 year old power plants, and the fact that we sell them oil and minerals at costs much lower than the world average. We redirect a ton of that to the EU and other countries, and the US's growth with drastically slow down while giving us huge growth as the profit margin of our products will rise substantially.

EU might not be as rich as the US, but it is still quite rich, and isn't about to collapse under its own weight like China. As economies go, they are literally the next best thing after the US, and their reliability makes them far more attractive partners for the next half century.

Didn't we recently sign a major contract with Japan for natural gas? On top of the new natural gas facility we're building in BC?

Though I suspect that this relationship will only be good for a decade or two, becoming the #1 supplier of natural gas to eastern Asia will be good both from an economic and political stance, as that's the area that is likely to have the biggest economic impact on the world aside from India over the next half century.

It's not an issue inherent to any regime, but one of economic motivators. The fundamental economic system is designed around the idea of squeezing value upwards through any means necessary. Governments are the force that prevents this sort of thing from happening excessively via regulations. It's why Canada wasn't hit nearly as bad as other countries during the 2008 financial crisis, because we had good banking regulations that prevented the worst from that happening over here. Unfortunately, those regulations got demolished a few years later, but the principal itself stands.

Part of governments is to be the moral stand that forces the economy to include morality as part of its working principal, despite every incentive of capitalism is to discard morality as an obstacle. It's the balancing force that makes a country prosper not just materially, but culturally and morally.

That said, it is the failure of modern governments to enforce such moral behaviour these last two decades especially, but it is also a failure of us voters to force them to make good and uphold such morals in the first place. Governments are supposed to fear the masses, but we've let them go without fear for so long that they have all become quite entitled to their positions.

Honestly, I think it comes down to mentality. As morbid as it sounds, men are used to toughing it out because that's what's expected of them, so are more likely to survive short term homelessness. And if you survive it in the short term, you have a good chance of surviving it in the long term.

Not to mention that men are probably more likely to already be abusing such substances before becoming homeless as an established coping mechanism, whereas more women probably start abusing those substances after, leaving them less experienced to avoid overdosing, or otherwise more prone using drugs in ways that threaten their health.

Either way, this isn't an issue of the difficulty surviving on the streets, it's an issue that people are forced to survive on the streets in the first place. Shelters are nothing more than a stopgap, and the city and province should be focusing their efforts on both preventing people from becoming homeless, as well as habituating those that have fallen that far.

Especially as once you become homeless, you lose the ability to get a new job since nobody will hire someone who arrives at an interview with bundled cloths and smelling of piss because they have no ability to get a shower.

Honestly, it's basically a prerequisite.

Not to mention just how easy it is for them to win massively from any sort of crisis. Every single time there's a recession, it's always the oligarchs that win huge at the cost of everybody else. Only a few most responsible for a major crash ever lose out, or some that grow insanely dumb or complacent, and anybody else with half a billion makes it out like bandits each time.

At the minimum, they can hoover up everything at pennies to the dollar during the recession and they have far more control over everything once things start to recover and are in a position to sell anything they didn't actually want so they're ready for the next recession or bubble.

The tech industry's strategy was recently revealed in several documentaries and exposes. They buy up entire companies while they're small and cheap, grow massive and bloated from the huge influx of people and IPs, then when the current bubble bursts, they dump all that excess weight while retaining all the most valuable assets while thousands to millions lose their jobs. And they retain investor trust because they just say that they're preparing for the upcoming recession so they're actually the smart ones and the ones that should be invested in more.

You know there's something fishy when several tech giants suddenly start laying off people out of nowhere and they're all raising some alarm about a downturn months before anybody's stocks started falling or GPD growth slows.

I think it's a bit optimistic in general to think that it's a near sure thing. The lead isn't big, and all it takes is someone doing something big for things to change on the spot, and if that happens less than a month before the polls open, it could swing things drastically. It might not seem likely, but it's not like it hasn't happened before.

Instead, it's better to focus on what PP is screwing up while showing how alternatives are more beneficial to those who would instinctively vote for him regardless of what drivel is coming out of his mouth because they hate anybody else more than they hate him.

I mean, nothing's stopped him from taking illegal actions. Quite a few of his edicts are completely illegal and enforced illegally as well.

Hell, some go directly against their constitution but are being enacted even faster than the judges can do anything about it.

Why the hell is the government paying for a service that is directed towards individual households at a price that few households would find difficult to pay for in the first place?

This is frankly not only a waste of taxpayer money, but also a blatant attempt to buddy up with an American oligarch.

Once again, Ford is selling this province to his oligarch buddies.

I think there's a serious issue of conflating affordable housing with low income housing. The two are different things. I mean, a two bedroom apartment that can be paid for from a single person's full time salary at minimum wage is different from an apartment meant for someone who can't hold a steady job.

People so often talk about the latter as the only form of affordable housing, when it's the former that's actually needed. So many people are in subsidized housing because it's either that, or something that's over $2k a month for a single bedroom or a condo that's half a million. There is almost nothing in between for most of Toronto, which is the real issue.

And all the problems with drug abuse and people causing so much local trouble is because they've lost purpose. Without housing that's of a decent price, it's no wonder that so many homeless have appeared and is causing trouble all over the city the moment the economy dipped. For lots of people, the moment they lose their income, they're too far over their heads to be able to stay at their current homes because they're so expensive. And how the hell is anybody supposed to get a job when they don't have a home to take a shower to get cleaned up for an interview?

Affordable housing is literally the first step to being able to live like a basic human being, and those NIMBYs are against such things. They're basically the same as all the things we complain about when it comes to the western oligarchs like Musk.

I think we shouldn't just see this as a Trump 2.0 thing either. This has been going on for at least a decade now. It's just that T2.0 has taken things to the point that it can't be ignored. NAFTA2 was pretty bad for us, and Biden hasn't done anything to make things easier.

Even if we don't get a Putin scene where Trump rewrites the constitution and gets a third term (somehow when he's like 80 and clearly suffering from dementia), I have little hope that the next president will be any better. Even the best case scenario would be someone who's completely occupied putting out the internal fires Trump has set with napalm, and won't have time to give the rest of the world much thought, let alone Canada.

Relying so much on the US was never such a good idea, and there won't be any stability down south for the next decade at least.