Subscript5676 @ Subscript5676 @lemmy.ca

Posts

3

Comments

77

Joined

5 mo. ago

Optics. He can claim to be a victim of “Canadian oppressors” and try to convince more people that there are “Canadian oppressors”.

While it’s true there’s a lot of that, AWS just dominates the cloud, and many of our own tech companies here in Canada use AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, not because they’re cheap, but because they have good uptime guarantees, security guarantees, easily allow you to deploy worldwide and provide fast access to customers almost everywhere (especially major markets like the EU and Asia), and provides companies access to a large talent pool who know how to use these systems. You’d be hard-pressed, as a business owner and/or CTO, to use other options and handle all those downsides yourself, slowing down your ability to do business. The only other potential non-US alternative here is probably Alibaba, but they’re not even close to being considered competition internationally.

Aside from Apple, the big tech companies down south are big and hard to displace not because of what most people know them for, but because of this large arm of software infrastructure that basically serves as the literal backbone of the consumer-side of the Internet.

And for those who think that we can just build that infrastructure ourselves, take note that these companies have been doing this for at least a decade, and spent billions and probably trillions doing this in the US and abroad. AWS itself claims that between 2011 and 2022, it invested $108.9 billion in USD, just within the US alone, and they have data centres in many parts of the world. Not discouraging anyone, but you have to think about where that kind of money has to come from.

You missed an important word for the part about traffic

… can sit in traffic for 30 seconds less than before (temporarily) …

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’d be a slight recovery in tourists at all, especially if the negotiations appear to be somewhat smooth.

This chat with my colleagues about the situation down south and what they’ve been doing with regards to the state just sort of revealed to me that while there are people like us on Lemmy that are repulsed by what’s happening there, there are also people who have closer ties to the US or have frequented the US who try to find ways to tell themselves that they themselves should be fine crossing the border, as long as they get rid of things on themselves that would upset the orange down south. For those with family, I get it. But for those who’re still doing it for leisure, it’s rather clear from the way they’re putting it that they prioritize their own lifestyle over politics, which, tbf, we all have different lines that we draw on that.

Sorry for making a comment that seems impossible to reply to, but I just needed to get that off my chest.

Oh he knew. But he’s also the kind of person who would know how to put up an image when he needs to, and I’m sure he knows how to not prod at tigers (even if it’s just a kitten pretending to be one). There’s some sliminess in him and he knows how to slither his way around things that are potentially dangerous to get what he wants, though at least he doesn’t go around hurting other people.

I have a colleague who said he feels fine going down there for whatever cause he thinks he’ll pass with just how white he looks 🤷 Some people…

Sorry, I can help it…

* smacks roof of car labelled The Left

This bad boy can fit so many punches in it

In that case, okay, I see where you’re coming from with the previous comment. But yeah, it’s always good to question claims of some 4D-chess-like move a government is doing, cause often times, we’d actually know what’s happened, and so would the party on the other side of the table.

I will also say this to clarify, cause I think it seems like we have different definitions: when I said pro-X, I only meant it in the sense that you actively do things that benefit party X. I noticed that it’s used interchangeably with “action benefits party X,” but context doesn’t always make it clear.

And I’m only saying that calling what we see right now a bend of the knee might still be a bit early given that this is a situation that’s still ongoing. If the events are to stop right now, and we essentially get nothing else on top of getting Trump on the negotiating table, then heck ya it’s a capitulation. You call it optimism, I call it seeing it for what it is putting aside my pessimistic view on it. But yes, I agree that we shouldn’t need to do what Carney did.

The questionable bills, and general de-regulation / removal of environmental reviews, are in line with US interests at present, which are backed by tech giants wanting to take more control / have more autonomy. The continued (over) reliance on US tech services is also clearly not in Canada's best interests, given how the US has been leveraging their near monopolistic status in that realm. Many of our newly elected government officials got in on a promise of standing up to America's authoritarian bullshit, but once in power have basically complied and made similar authoritarian steps.

This is a very charged take of Bill C-5 and it makes it hard to agree or disagree. Might just be a me-thing, but anytime people use very charged words or takes, I just have the tendency to retort, because while they aren’t possibilities you can disprove, there’s also nothing to prove them. We can entertain the possibility, but I do wonder if we’d just be focusing on the wrong problem and make constructive conversations impossible to make.

Uhh… Did you reply to the right person/comment? I don’t see how your comment connects to mine here. But I’ll reply to your comment anyway.

I don’t disagree with your comment, but I am definitely a bit more hesitant to label Carney as anything (the word “neoliberal” has so many competing definitions it’s essentially a nothing-burger with only some bad flavour attached to it to make it a punching bag by all sides these days). First off, it’s pretty clear that Trump’s moves are done in favour of the US tech oligarchs, that we can agree on.

Carney’s recent moves have basically burnt through his political capital extremely quickly, though I can’t say all of them align with or benefit the US, not even the pipelines he’s been eager to build, especially cause most of the O&G companies in Alberta are mostly owned by foreign companies (source), not necessarily all by the US. And Carney’s government hasn’t done that much with about 2 months in, but none of them have been pro-international trade per se. Cutting the carbon tax is definitely pro-business but it was done more so to appease the right more broadly than just businesses, though I guess if you consider the fact that O&G companies are mostly foreign-owned, then you might say it’s pro-international-trade, but since we’ve barely decarbonized our economy and society by much (doesn’t help that Ontario and Alberta have such strong conservative provincial governments), and the costs are passed onto consumers anyway (though consumers get that rebate), cutting the carbon tax does essentially nothing for businesses at the expense of consumers. Internal trade barriers is, well, internal, and its consequences can be a toss up for businesses in general: those with the resources to operate across provinces may be able to give smaller players a hard time.

All-in-all, I haven’t seen their other moves as being obtusely against Canadian interests, even if we don’t agree with all of them (eg Bill C-5 and Bill C-2), and even if they hurt Canadians in the long run. That said, the earlier border bill is basically an appeasement, given that it was clearly a cop out issue by Trump. This cutting of the Digital Services Tax is another instance of Carney’s government giving up on a policy that is in the country’s interest to try gain what they think is also in the country’s interest with the US, and ostensibly so. So that’s two, but we’ll still need at least a few more of such instances to see if Carney’s gov is pro-US, cause insofar, these were done to get Trump onto the negotiating table by hurting Canadians a little (privacy on the border bill, and putting back on the threat to our media and online entertainment industry). I would hope we’d actually get something given that the sacrifices have been made, and I’d rather we don’t do what Carney did, but we can’t disregard the fact that there’s a potential gain to be made, even if we don’t like how things are going down, and don’t like how we’re negotiating with a wannabe dictator. We haven’t gotten anything out of it though, so patience with Carney is going to run thin.

And let’s not even talk about PP. Just because he’s not elected and we didn’t immediately get Musk-ed, doesn’t necessarily make me feel any better with how most of Carney’s economic moves have been more conservative than what I think is necessary. For example, he said we should have a good energy mix, but he’s yet to announce or even mention any investment or developments in green energy, or anything that would contribute to a good off-ramp for O&G companies (even if we don’t think they deserve it) and making sure we have a healthy amount of green energy generation, and thus only making it more and more necessary to more extreme measures if we want to save our and our children's future.

I’m gonna need some citations or sources for that.

AFAIK, the service tax was not “put in place ages ago”. It was put in force in June 2024, literally last year, and the first payments were expected literally yesterday, on June 30th, 2025. It’s retroactive, but still only goes back to 2022, which isn’t “ages ago”. Source

And what’s this wheat market steal you’re talking about?

Fuck this imperialistic, purely exploitative, and victim-seeking, almost Nazi take.

1. First Nations are part of Canada and they have a say in this country’s future.
2. Prosperity and resource utilization do not have to be achieved by closing the door on discussions that need to be had.
3. This bill is blatantly and clearly undemocratic, and is a threat that can throw this country into the similar shit show that we see down south. If you’re happy to see it passed, I don’t know what to say about you.

I’m hoping this is just your bad take and not trying to parrot some shit rhetoric that’s been coming out of certain talk figures and some less reputable users around here.

It’s not that simple though. People who live in rural areas already have resources that they trust, and that’s outside of the Internet, and with their local communities, churches or not. The way we, as humans, look at information is highly dependent on what we already know, with all our biases and know-hows shaped by our past experiences. And as much as people on Lemmy think it’s easy, knowing how to lookup the Internet is a skill: just work with someone who doesn’t use the Internet much, and you’ll see how some amount of investigative skill and patience is needed, and it’s not just a “ask whatever you want into the search bar” kind of deal. Even we don’t just do that: the Internet has a ton of trashy websites that can’t be trusted, and we have to learn how to filter those out.

It’s easy to just say that these people are gullible, but I see their gullibility as something that is shaped by people with malicious intents. Keep the education system badly funded or ran by likeminded people, add that with a community that seems to be doing well without outside knowledge, and you have an environment that’ll churn out people who are likely to believe whatever their circle of people peddles to them, especially if they’ve created an environment where you don’t trust anyone from the out group.

This whole thing is just sad to read, though I think I’m rather naive to reasons why the ideas of separatism was even there in the first place, if not just because some small group of powerful individuals wanted impunity when it comes to resource extraction, and, over the years, gained governmental powers and installed a useful and twisted mouthpiece as their their Premier, and started using recent alt-right tactics to look for any points of dissatisfaction turn that into a bludgeon against Ottawa.

I feel sorry for rural Albertans cause their lives and worldview have been shaped to have little to no options but what O&G execs and extreme religious leaders want.

Could we share this with MPs or even Carney so that they’d see this? Cause I really wish they can see this to know that this is what we’re facing, and we really hope they’ll do the right thing. I’m probably just trying to feel hopeful though.

If more people can actually care about the lives of others, the problems that our world and humanity face right now would’ve been much easier to solve.

Recent news all really just make me wonder if we just voted the Conservatives into power.

It’s baffling to me how a fucker who would lie straight in your face with no change in their facial expression is even allowed to hold any office without people being up in their pitchforks to force em out of power, and for decades too.

People are just selfish

Not sure if you’re stating that as a “humans are selfish beings”, or just stating that people you know (from the example you gave) are selfish. Either way, while it may make you feel good saying that, lumping all of humanity as one and sweeping them all with a blunt stick is frankly pointless and non-constructive.

In any case, your very article is an illustration of your own selfishness. Just look at what you said yourself:

But frankly, this isn't what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear that prices are going to plummet. I don't care if investors, REITs, and people who own more than one home will suffer. I want them to burn.

What of the older generation that only have that one unit they’re planning to sell off after their kids have all grown up and moved out, so that they can buy a cheaper, smaller house, AND use whatever money they make out of their old house for their retirement? What if the families that just have 2 places because they frequently work between the two cities? Or those who have a significant number of the family members living in another city? These families are all over the place, and you’re fine with them being burnt so that YOU can afford to buy a house?

What you’re saying here makes you not much different than that person beside you at that dinner, except you’re either hiding or ignoring some of the people that will be hurt in the process.

Yes, housing shouldn’t be an investment asset. Yes, allowing the rich to just buy up every single housing unit without constraint is bad. Yes, people shouldn’t be shit to other people. And yes, housing prices should come down. But the problem is more complicated than how you’re treating it in the article. I don’t deny that a strong reason why this problem isn’t solved today is because a lot of rich and powerful institutions and people are benefiting from it, but a lot of people who’s already passed that ever-growing gap aren’t there because they wanted to join the other side and pull that ladder up; they’re there because that’s the setting of the game as it is right now, and they were just fortunate enough to make it there.

I understand your anger and frustration. I can’t afford a house too, and probably for a very long time as well. But literally burning the “other side” just so I can own a house and own “the other side” is not the way for us all to win this, practically and morally so.

It’s frustrating. It feels hopeless. But it does no one any good going at the problem naively.

There’s no good reason today and in the future, period.

There are “experts” who still claim these, but they are based on a very dated recommendation from at least 15 - 20 years ago at this point. To some, such non-sensical requirements (by the fact that we should be storing passwords as hashes today) have become doctrine, rather than any fact based in reality.

And some users have been conditioned into thinking that these are good security practices as well, because governments and banks still make use of them, and these are the very organizations that should be the best-in-class when it comes to security. Some of these users become CEOs or product designers with more say than their IT and security experts in the company. The rest is history from there.

Yeah, sorry lol. I definitely went on a big tangent there with human-created systems for humanity. It’s what I constantly think of though, whenever I look at recent events.

Going back to religious symbols, I think enforcing it on teachers was particularly controversial because 1) it’s a very common profession for people to go into, and so it becomes a strong point of institutional discrimination (if that’s not something that already raises eyebrows even for those other professions), and 2) that it’s arguably ineffective, as is the case in Bedford (and I’d argue it so for other professions too). IMO, if they are allowed to wear those symbols, at least it’d be a bad look for their religion if they made a clearly bad decision if and when it’s based on their religious knowledge. And it’s easy enough for kids to pick up on that, especially if we do them right by instilling them with critical thinking.

Kids aren’t stupid. They don’t look at a crucifix on the wall and just think “that’s cool, imma follow it”. They’ll most likely think nothing of it, but will be curious about it. They’ll wonder what it is and ask. Teachers should be prepared to answer the questions that follow. (Eg) “This used to be a Christian school,” “Why’s it not one anymore?” “Because some not so great things happened all across Quebec and people realized that it’s most probably not a good idea for schools to be tied to religions,” “What wasn’t so great?” “While Quebec was doing well, its people were not, and unfortunately, the people who were in control of schools were not preparing children to be smart enough to do difficult work that’s needed to become successful. We decided that we’ve had enough of that, and so schools have changed to become what they are today. We want our new generation to be smart, independent people who can do amazing things with their lives.”

Of course, there’s going to be those who are overtly against secularism, or those who wish to go back to those times, who would pass to become teachers. While the state cannot outright ban such people from becoming teachers, there are many ways to make it clear that schools are secular spaces, and the state will exercise its power within secular rules to uphold them. For example, spreading religion in schools can be made strictly forbidden. To go one step further, ban talking about religions in schools, and only allow them be mentioned within the context of history, and as factually possible and without using strong words. Banning the topic on school grounds is also good for avoiding conflicts between religious groups, at least within schools. Have control over the approval of history and moral teachers and make it fair by excluding those who would have a conflict of interests: both religious and anti-religious people wouldn’t be allowed to teach these subjects. That way, you can still have those who are religious become teachers without robbing them of a chance of a decent job (arguable given the current state of things, but I meant a “job” more so in the general sense, so not just teachers), ie without closing off a potential future for a large group of people, with some sacrifices. This is something that I think is a practical solution (though not entirely original, I must admit).

I can understand your frustration of having to deal with the fact that kids would have to be in contact with religious teachers, but I’d argue that a heavy-handed approach, while it may satisfy you currently, is not beneficial in the long term for yourself or society as a whole. Once again, you may win the war, but you can’t win their hearts. Discrimination breeds hatred, and hatred brings about the worse in people. We see this everywhere, and throughout time. Sweep it under the rug, and one day it’ll grow large enough to swallow us all along with the rug.

It needs to be shown as clearly as possible by neutral parties that secularism is good for everyone, including those who are religious, and show concrete results, while we keep training the next generation to have the ability to think for and by themselves, instead of having someone else think for them. This extends to a lot of things, though it can be summarized as a better chance at life for everyone, and an actually-better life for everyone.