EhForumUser @ EhForumUser @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

318

Joined

2 yr. ago

The maximum fee dropped marginally as a result from $10.30 to $10

$78 in your pocket after one year. Just think of what you can buy with the savings! Maybe a small bag of groceries.

and fuck Doug Ford in particular

Goes without saying, but in fairness, this one is actually a federal issue.

Like you point out, it is the land values that have increased, not the structure cost. Why? Because dairy and poultry farmers, propped up by an old-timey socialist solution to supporting agriculture – which, in modern times, has pushed beyond just supporting agriculture and has transformed them into being the richest Canadians – are buying up all the farmland they can get their hands on at hyper-inflated prices. If you get away from the productive farmland, into the rocky expanses of Canada, housing has remained quite cheap.

Thing is, it used to be that cities could buy up farmland for practically nothing, thus allowing new housing to be cheap, but those days are over (arguably for the better, as farmland is important, but that comes with a cost). They have to now be able to outspend the diary/poultry producers for that land, which is no easy feat. Even if the urban sprawl ultimately wins, it has to pay more than it historically would have when farmers were poor and unable to drive prices up in competition. And that is cost that you, the homeowner, ultimately have to burden.

I'll note that only Mad Max is willing to do anything about it. Take from that what you will.

Yes and yes. Is there something that's not stating the obvious that you want to add?

black market

That's all you needed to say. A black market fundamentally cannot exist in a free market. A black market is only able to emerge beside a regulated market as ignoring regulations is what sets a black market apart from other markets.

I would at least like it if they talked about the real solutions

It is not likely that they have all the information to talk about it intelligently. It is not their jurisdiction. This would be like asking municipalities to comment on military operations.

or perhaps provided incentives for municipalities to institute the necessary changes

They tried that with childcare. Remember how that went? Not well, in case you forgot. It was treated like the world was going to end if the incentive was accepted. And that was a complete nothingburger in comparison to this.

If absolutely nothing else, they oughta be using their bully pulpit to get a national conversation going about these things

Have they not? In my mind they have made it abundantly clear that if people end up underwater in their homes, we're in serious, serious trouble. It would be like what happened in the US in 2008, except way, way worse as we're in much, much deeper.

How much clearer can they be without actually scaring people away from housing, which will then become a self-fulfilling prophesy?

I get that you, an individual, may actually want that to happen, but it is pretty obvious why the representation of the entire country does not.

No. A big reason why you see 10 pot shots on every street corner is because the shops needed to be licensed, and the licensure was a closed process. In other words, the government left it a secret as to whether or not your neighbour was going to also open a shop.

If you could have seen that your neighbour was opening a shop, as you could in a free market, chances are you would back away and find somewhere else before you sunk much into it. But the lack of a free market left people to guess – and many guessed wrong, only finding out after they were long into the process of running the business. At that point, you may as well try.

There is nothing free market about cannabis in Canada. It is regulated to the max.

At the federal level, it seems absolutely nobody cares about pushing the real solutions – abolishing our insane zoning codes that bake in inequality, abolishing other crazy land use regulations like parking minimums, and taxing land.

How do you suggest the federal level tackle those problems without breaking the law?

Or are you saying that the feds should try to overthrow the power that be in some kind of coup? That would be interesting, but how could that happen when the people who control the feds are, ultimately, the same people who control the power that would need to be overthrown?

In fact, the same people who went out of their way to ensure that the feds don't have legal authority over these kinds of matters. It would be kind of strange to walk back on that now after all the toil to set that up in the first place.

Chic coiffs.

Normally if things change you post a new message. That is how the cell network alert system functions. I repeat, they do not send you a link to a web page with the information you need to know, and there is no doubt good reason for that.

If you think the cell network alert system is fundamentally flawed, that is our top priority as it is how the vast majority of people using apps are going to receive the alerts. The call to improve alerts on Meta/X is way down the list to catch a smaller group of people who missed the cell network alerts. It is critical to reach the widest audience first.

But, again, the right way to get emergency information in front of people is to get it in front of them immediately, not make them navigate through layers upon layers to find the information. Once you get to fixing Meta/X, you are going to have them improve displaying the alerts in their own interface where the people already are. Forcing people to navigate to see an emergency alert will never be relevant. That is just plain bad UX.

True, but everyone loves the "Nobody likes a pedant" responses, so there is sacrifice to get the good stuff.

Thing is, if there is an emergency, you are not going to force the user to follow a link. You are going to put the details they need to know right there. Something Meta and X are quite happy to allow.

There is good reason the payload the emergency alert system those cell towers carry isn't a link to a CBC article. That would be silly and would be equally silly if done on Facebook/Instagram/X/whatever.

The framing of this as a linking issue is hilarious and nonsensical.

So the territorial government is literally posting on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter telling people how to search for CPAC Canada and CBC Radio so they can find the sites.

And the problem is that they haven't figured out how to hack into RSS feeds the same way?

Maybe getting the word out via Facebook, Instagram, and X is good enough? Outside of Podcasts, RSS is considered dead anyway. There are diminishing returns to consider.

Meta doesn't own a megaphone, though. It is but a lowly sharecropper who works the land of Microsoft, Google, and Apple. They let Meta use their megaphones sometimes, but only when it is on good behaviour.

It seems what you are really looking for is anyone with a voice to relay any important messages they hear.

The answer, based on the content article, is no. Betteridge can continue to hold his head high.

The article suggests that anything that might be perceived as being "plastic-free" is plastic using a less traditional polymer (not plastic-free), or something else, like paper (not plastic).

I'm not surprised either. I doubt anyone here failed to feel the concern that we have a long life ahead, allowing hearts to remain and children to suffer.

But is it realistic? On what basis do you think we have such longevity ahead of us? Perhaps the claim that the world is about to end is the more viable conclusion?

If the world is almost surely over, then you won't have a heart. These are the concerns of someone who thinks that life will go on for a long time.

Sounds nice, but how, exactly, would you filter a disease?

The engineering effort will be greatly reduced if you focus on filtering SARS-CoV-2 instead. It turns out that if you avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection, the COVID-19 disease will not develop. No need to overcomplicate the problem.

Agreed. Once the proverbial door of discussion closes, it's best left there. Again, what value would there be in reopening discussion? Once the door is hung, there is nothing left to talk about.

Discussion fundamentally can only take place around that which is unhinged.

Meta and X are acting preemptively before the government has even finalized how the system would work.

Stands to reason. If Canadians were creating laws around homicide for the first time, but the exact details weren't yet known, are you going to go around killing people while you still can, or are you going to respect the intent to the best of your ability knowing that Canadians do not want to be killed?

Logically, the latter, of course. Even if you don't quite get it right with respect to the final details, trying to respect the wishes is clearly better than ignoring them.

Meta and X feel that they shouldn’t be subject to the law of any other country.

And they are no doubt right. There are cases where they have ignored Canadian court decisions around individuals without any consequences. And if that were the only thing of relevance, they could simply ignore this whole ordeal.

Trouble is that, when it comes to the mass user base, they need to appease the people of those countries, else they will leave. Facebook doesn't have a compelling business if they can only win over product and customers from one country. Its value is dependent on serving the entire world.

It is not like the people of Canada went to all the trouble of bringing this legislation to the table because they wanted to play a prank on Musk. They are serious about it. If Facebook showed that it didn't care the users would get pissed off and walk away.

You can screw around with individuals without noticing, but in this case Canadians as a whole called for action. Losing all Canadian users would be a significant loss to their business. Facebook had to do something. Going on killing for months until the details come out, even if technically allowable, is not a good look.