That's a very simple view. Most of western Europe and Asia have higher fire safety than Canada and have plenty of single-staircase buildings. These kinds of decisions are not made based off a single YouTube video. It may be a source of public awareness about other approaches, but that's only the springboard to get feasibilty studies and expert consultations underway. There are external fire escapes, mandated sprinkler systems and other ways to improve fire safety which alone will likely prove far more effective than double staircases.
There are many valid downsides to our outdated fire standards in Canada—many that introduce their own health impacts in other ways. And I wouldn't quite consider a fire chief to be the ultimate expert here. Sure their input is important to have, but I also want to hear from architects, standards bodies and academics that study building design and safety.
The biggest hastle was that any persistent tunnel I would make over any protocol (I tried OpenVPN, WireGuard, SSH, Shadowsocks, etc) to any IP address would be blocked after (I think) 3 hours. This let them basically block any VPN that wasn't already explicitly blacklisted outright.
My solution was to make a simple API on the server that got a new IPv6 address for the server and returned it.
There was a WireGuard server running on port 53 and listening from any incoming IP. On my devices I would call the API every hour when idle and change the IP in the WireGuard config. On Android I had a Tasker automation to do this and on my laptop a shell script on a cronjob.
Lmao part of the reason I went so deep into the Linux world was because my school board had super advanced network policies that were able to effectively block specific traffic and pretty much any commercial VPN. I had to build my own server at home to connect to from school using a bunch of traffic cloaking techniques to get unobstructed internet access.
I didn't really use any sites that were blocked anyway, but it made me go "watch me bitch" to whoever was overengineering the censorship system in our school board's IT.
I mistyped my PIN (yes PIN, you can have only a 4 or 6 digit number, not a real password) into my bank app too many times and had to reset it. I was prompted the secret question "what is the name of your childhood best friend?" This alone would have given me (or anyone) access to my bank account. I forgot what the answer was and had my account locked after a few attempts.
How was I to prove my identity? Call the 1-800 number and the automated system asked for my account number or any credit/debit card number, the numbers in my postal code, my phone number, and my birthday. THAT'S IT. Account unlocked and was able to set a new password PIN. So many people know or can easily find out this information.
I use very strong digital security everywhere that allows it, but of the hundreds of accounts I have, my bank is the least secure and does not allow any stronger security even if you want it!
The way to beat this system is to build alternatives and wean people off of their dependence on it, and deprive it of victims.
And how do you propose we do this considering the only way the system can have alternatives is if the system allows for alternatives which (spoiler) >!it won't!<.
I didn't say I would jump. I said I'd think "why am I not jumping." Maybe I'm right not to jump. Or, there might be a good reason everyone is jumping. Maybe I should too. Maybe.
Sayings have to be short and memorable, meaning they usually lack nuance, are wrong depending on context, or are just straight up wrong. That's why I don't like the bridge jumping one; it's the same reason I don't like most sayings. I don't think the bridge jumping saying is "straight up wrong." Simplistic and lacking nuance? Yes.
I think you're right in that few make their own decisions and defer to their "heroes." I'd instead say few truly think critically, despite believing they do.
There are always people who do things nobody else does, don't do things everyone else does, do things with an uncommon approach, or hold opinions that are considered outside the sphere of common thought. As a whole, this is okay. Not just okay, but good. Good for making societies interesting.
When everyone does x, that doesn't mean you should be doing x. Divergence sometimes proves righteous. This is what I presume is intended by the bridge jumping saying.
However, I feel that many are far too arrogant in their divergencies. If something is different from everything else, that does not make it inately better. Often, it is not.
This is especially true in the West. Western (especially American) culture is so individualistic that arrogance is rampant. How often do people really stop think whether they are really right about an ingrained divergency, to think that maybe they are in the wrong...maybe they're not a rare enlightened one. For example, maybe prevaling theory from experts might have just a modicum of validity. Maybe more than some nunce's gut feeling.
Anyway, I'm rambling so to get to the point:
If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, don't jump blindly, but question why you aren't jumping. You might be right not to jump. However, as the only one not jumping, you should consider if jumping might be just fine. Maybe everyone else has a good reason to be jumping.
That's a very simple view. Most of western Europe and Asia have higher fire safety than Canada and have plenty of single-staircase buildings. These kinds of decisions are not made based off a single YouTube video. It may be a source of public awareness about other approaches, but that's only the springboard to get feasibilty studies and expert consultations underway. There are external fire escapes, mandated sprinkler systems and other ways to improve fire safety which alone will likely prove far more effective than double staircases.
There are many valid downsides to our outdated fire standards in Canada—many that introduce their own health impacts in other ways. And I wouldn't quite consider a fire chief to be the ultimate expert here. Sure their input is important to have, but I also want to hear from architects, standards bodies and academics that study building design and safety.