HonoredMule @ HonoredMule @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

203

Joined

5 mo. ago

Is that why the content of that article gives only absolute numbers and nothing that can actually aid comparison or put it in context?

Feel free to treat that as a rhetorical question. 🤨

I am anti-theist, and fuck no to banning public displays of anything. It's in the name - public. Public space belongs to everyone. Freedom of expression should not be a privilege restricted to people who can afford to buy or rent a place to exercise it.

If you can prove harm, we can ban the harm. Any and all bans must be tightly focused on restricting only harm and to a greater degree than it inherently restricts freedom. Elsewise, we're just oppressing dissent/diversity and essentially abandoning freedom itself as a core value. And the fact that we're talking about dictating what people can do on or with their own bodies raises the stakes that much higher. Seriously, this is a dangerous path and the hazards far greater than any possible reward.

Tax religion. Remove their privilege. Do not create a new underclass.

I heard arguments about it in other spaces that made a lot of sense to me. Like a judge who ought to be able to visibly set their religion aside while exercising their authority, rather than signaling possible conflicts of interest in the very office such would compromise. I think I'm even on board with that reasoning. By that same reasoning, maybe it's appropriate to also restrict displays of religious affiliation by school staff.

But why students?

That's blatant cultural suppression and I cannot conceive a remotely coherent justification for it. And why the focus specifically on people showing their faces? Can you imagine if we mandated a certain amount of cleavage? How the fuck is this anybody's business?

This just has me re-evaluating the cultural protectionism/outgroup suppression I'd previously deemed adequately justified.

Shouldn't it be a big tax on the sale of houses to multi-property owners? They're the ones to discourage, not the people reducing their real estate portfolio.

As long as our population is growing, the death of boomers isn't going to make a difference.

You know, Poilievre was right.

He can't go around taking concrete positions and advocating actual policy decisions. The governing party might agree they're good and do it themselves. And we certainly can't have that, can we? The point of official opposition is to oppose, not some hippy leftist nonsense like making Canada better.

Ugh. This is the explanation I buy. It's the only one more powerful than the constant drive for economic dominance demanding absolute control of everything.

I don't understand how Israel gets to be so special. I also don't get how any other nation would accept anything less, especially once the deal with Israel proved it (politically) can be done. Technical feasibility shouldn't even be in question.

Well, I guess it's nice that militaries get to "own nothing and be happy" too.

Long before Musk's true character became widely known, this was my primary reason not to get a Tesla. In fact, Tesla's focus on proprietary software and post-purchase access to vehicles marked the sharp end to my favorable opinion of both him and the company.

Back when he was selling his EV vision and struggling to get the roadster into production, it hadn't even occurred to me that someone with such ambitions would build a closed platform. It would just be so out of line with the values supposedly driving him.

Nowadays I think my best shot at getting the sort of EV I want is either doing my own conversion or finding some small operation producing kit cars. But I need a truck or at least something that can haul heavy trailer loads up long hills.

(🧠 Don't say bootlegger, don't say bootlegger.)

It sounds like business is booming for bootleggers right about now.

(🧠 That's it, I quit.)

I have no expertise in military technology and cannot speak to the superiority of F-35s, the magnitude of their tactical advantage, nor the factors that justify or mitigate their operating cost. But the auxiliary benefits of buying into Saab's ecosystem are accumulating into quite the stack. Given that our military strength is somewhat predicated on economic strength, I like seeing us take a path that grows both. The latter pays dividends even if we fight no real wars nor avert any theoretical ones.

And ultimately, Lockheed Martin's technological advantage is built on capital investment and mindshare. With sufficient resources consolidating elsewhere, that can be eventually rivaled. Even before that point, we're looking at facing rivals with lesser tech than the Gripen, or rivals that control the F-35 program and its supply lines. The upsides are just too context-sensitive.

Cancer is very dumb, by any metric I can possibly imagine:

• it literally lacks any mechanism for intellect/processing information
• it is a random mutation that renders affected cells dysfunctional
• it has no mechanism to spread to another host, yet still kills the host it has
• it has four different ways that it might just kill itself

This only makes the metaphor all the more apt. Intelligent foes are far less dangerous. You have to be exceedingly dumb to choose mutually assured destruction.

Good.

Let him stick to that line, keeping Canadians angry and trade negotiations stalled. He's helping us maintain the momentum needed to build a stronger Canada and end reliance on U.S. trade for good. When he and his ilk are all eventually deposed, the U.S. will have to make many concessions to get (partially) back into our good graces. If that doesn't happen, our need for political separation will only increase.

No deal is the best deal.

The main thing we'd lose is the autonomy to manage our own economy. Given that's something we've handled especially well resulting in impressive economic stability in spite of global events, it's not a thing to be sacrificed lightly - or at all.

The main benefit of joining the Eurozone is tight economic integration that lets member nations share the larger group's economic stability. That benefit is never going to substantively materialize for a nation physically separated by an ocean. But we'd still be losing the right to decide how many power coupons we print, directly regulate our own banks, and set interest rates/inflation targets.

I'm open to other forms of EU association, but the Eurozone is a solid hell no.

Any reporter who's inclined to ask tough questions and actually given a chance has about three hundred others that hit closer to home for their own electorate. They'll be lucky if they can ask two, and know they're not getting an actual answer anyway.

It's just another example of Canada letting the U.S. dictate our IP laws to their media moguls' benefit, for the sake of trade. These are the things Dumpster does not count in the balance of a deal yet presumes is entrenched even after reneging on that deal.

If the deal is ripped up, it should be ripped up entirely.

We're being gifted more freedom to make sure our own laws are working for us.

I'll take homelessness over being conquered, thank you just the same.

Man, he's really hitting the ground running, and every step is fire. A couple weeks ago I was begging for Canada's leadership to shut down U.S. negotiations until Dumpster acknowledged our sovereignty and repudiated his threats against it. And Trudeau was handling things pretty well, but no way he'd go that far.

Carney did it in on day 2. ✊

I think we might have found the only leader in the Western world that can outpace the orange clown.

Addendum: I first broached that "demand acknowledgement" move over a month ago.

I sympathize with Newfoundlanders, but running more efficient operations at scale is how we increase our national productivity. I think the answer is to figure out how to make that work both ways and also to repurpose the labor that's made redundant.

I'd wager Newfoundland will remain the primary market for their own unique alcohol products, and won't they additionally be able to grow their interprovincial sales? That won't cover all the losses, but Canada also needs a lot of stuff that Canada does not produce and no longer wants to buy from the U.S. That represents opportunity.

Maybe, but we can't be sure until they call their rivals sodomists.