Hopefully that checks out, even though it's an old reference.
(Also, agree with the original expression of the negative systemic evaluation of the US policing system, even if I don't love the crude expression; and even though I'm contributing in a humourous satire of the expression)
And sorry Democrats, until you get your Republican problem under control, we can't trust you either. In 2016 it looked like it might just be a flare-up, but the reappearance of symptoms indicates that the infection is deeper and ongoing.
I can't remember who it was, but sometime in the last few years a VC or CEO wrote an article documenting their day and how they "worked 12 hours a day" or something like that. What I remember most is that their accounting of their work included their time at the gym, at least one meal, and something else that few if any employers would consider "working time".
I agree that sometimes C-suite execs do work long hours sometimes, and I'll differ from you in that sometimes those long hours are legitimate and valuable for a company. IMO, it's not the norm nor is it generally worth the premium that most companies pay for those hours.
The worst thing is that looking at this case, at least from what I've seen, Blake Lively's side isn't as "pristine" as they first appeared. "They" might be right. I hope I don't end up siding with Candace Owens by the end of it. What frustrates me about both of these cases is that unless and until there is a public trial, nothing close to the truth will come out. But of course the tribalism has to start already.
In the Depp/Heard case, we got to see enough evidence that a relationship with either of them would have been problematic at best, abusive at worst. You can argue about who the worst was, but neither came away looking "clean," IMO.
I'm cool with your disagreement. It's not known right now what the best strategy is, and I'll concede I could be wrong on that one. I don't know if it will resonate more to "focus on the worst billionaires" or push "no such thing as an ethical billionaire".
I don't see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as "kings" as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I think it would have been better if she had used a "yes, and", recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the "kings" language on top of it.
For those who don't know, Bluesky isn't really federated. The only way to host a non-Bluesky instance required 1TB of storage in July 2024, and 5 TB of storage in Nov 2024. Could be way more than that now.
You basically have to be a company to federate into the ATProto (Bluesky) ecosystem. You can't just "stand up an instance".
(I know you've already realized that you were conflating Mastodon with Bluesky, I'm putting this here for others who come along so they can get the facts).
I think we agree on the overall premise, but disagree on the degree. I also think that's fine. I don't know how hard it would be to arm Canadians broadly as you suggest. I'm suggesting that armament will be most effective built on a foundation of intelligence and logistics.
I think there would be value in something like the Swiss model (though I understand that it isn't as ubiquitous as it once was).
Wars aren't won with weapons. Battles are won with weapons. Wars are won with intelligence and logistics.
Russia tried to make their "special military operation" a battle and take Kyiv in the first few days. They failed, and now they have a war on their hands. If you follow the details of the war, a lot of focus is placed on cities that are well-connected to other cities by road or by water. Your military can be much more agile in where it chooses to deploy resources if you control the supply infrastructure.
Occupations are notoriously even worse. The asymmetry of maintaining resources for an occupation is huge. Relatively small pockets of resistance, well applied, can cripple an occupier's forces, even if the resistance is relatively poorly armed.
The question is what the limit of the American populous's tolerance for soldiers dying to occupy Canada, of all places. I hope we never find out.
There was a good discussion online between Christine Lemmer-Webber, one of the editors of the ActivityPub W3C Standard, and Bryan Newbold, protocol engineer at BlueSky.
These are long reads. But they are worth reading. Christine and Bryan agree that ATProto and ActivityPub have different design goals and so what you get from "federation" with each is different. ATProto makes a centralized index of the entire system possible, at the cost of relying on very few (practically likely one) centralized providers.
As a result, the Lemmy ecosystem, as it exists today, wouldn't be possible with ATProto. It would probably look more like Reddit, but with a "credible exit" possible as a defense against enshittification.
The entire premise of this piece is that it happens consensually within the law. Secretary Krasnov-Trump of the 47th Oblast is not known for respecting consent or the law.
The outcome we have to be wary of is forcible annexation. Trump only respects strength, so the right thing to do is to be strong. Trump's reaction to Ontario's energy surcharge is proof that we're on the right track—it's him whining "no, I'm stronger". We have to keep showing Canadian strength in response. Not aggressive strength, but a forcible "no" with enough oomph to back it up.
He's a bully. He'll give up when we're no longer fun and hand the file over to someone who will be willing to negotiate. Then when a deal is reached that is almost exactly where we were in December, he'll claim victory for bringing Canada to heel.
Peace, Order, and Good Government is the right goal. But right now all three of those aims require paying attention to Trump, not ignoring him.
The fight for justice, democracy, and civility knows no borders. You (singular), and those who fight against oppression will always be our brothers/sisters IMO.
We know you're there, and we know who we are and aren't booing when we boo the Star-Spangled Banner.
I think I can speak for most Canadians if I say we're sorry that standing up for ourselves means hurting you, but we're not sorry for standing up for ourselves.
I think Trudeau is best when he gets to lead a country, and not have to deal with politics. I mean, he's not the best policy maker, IMO, but we've had worse PMs. Whenever he has to do "politics" stuff though he's... well, bad.
There isn't just one christian god. Who the christan god is depends on which accounts you consider.
It's easy to read the old testament, read the post-gospel books, listen to the 2000 years of doctrine, and come away with the opinion that the christian god is evil. If you just read the gospels though, and accept that part of the message is: "I'm throwing out the old deal, the new one is Love One Another," it's harder to maintain that argument.
I was raised Lutheran, and am currently a philosophical agnostic. I know people who have an internally consistent belief in a good and loving christian god based on how they interpret the entire body of work (they're well studied). I also believe their definitions of "good" and "loving" would align with yours.
New thought just now:
If the christian god is a singular entity and is evil, then it must exist
If it doesn't exist as a singular entity, the only thing to criticize is people's conception of it
Sorry for the long reply. You got me to extend my thinking and that came out in the comment.
No, Bastard (Operators from Hell).
Hopefully that checks out, even though it's an old reference.
(Also, agree with the original expression of the negative systemic evaluation of the US policing system, even if I don't love the crude expression; and even though I'm contributing in a humourous satire of the expression)