Sorry, I should have been more clear. My "torn" was with regard to whether I agreed that it was a "sensationalist bullshit headline" when it was almost perfectly accurate in what was being banned: the aerosol. It missed the bit about "current formulation", though, hence my being torn.
It's current formulation is still legal with other delivery mechanisms, so there is a bit of nuance. As much as I dislike clickbait, I also don't except a headline to provide nuance.
I'm torn as to whether to agree with you or not. On the one hand, people who aren't taking the time to parse the headline are certainly getting worked up. On the other hand, the headline accurately represents the ban in that the current formulation of WD-40 will be banned in aerosol form. If they want to sell that formulation in plain cans or Non-aerosol spray bottles, they are free to do so.
Looking at the breakdown, the variation in cost per unit makes me think that there is more than just the cost of the shelter itself. Remote areas, new service connections, etc must play a role in overall costs.
What about my parental right to have compulsory schooling actually teach about the real world as it exists and help me prepare my child for life in that world?
You have no such right as a parent. As a child, you do in fact have an actual Charter right to an education, and your parents cannot interfere with that right.
Even better! That means, I think, that it is the duty of the government and the schools they run to provide the best education possible, not just the education they or activist groups desire.
What about my parental right to have compulsory schooling actually teach about the real world as it exists and help me prepare my child for life in that world?
What about my parental right to expect that the institutions and employees charged with providing that compulsory schooling ensure that my child is treated with respect for who they are and protected from those who would do otherwise?
If we're going to talk about parental rights as though children have none, then let's put it all on the table.
I've worked lots of places where working late meant overtime pay, which was against policy and therefore led to battles, "administrative penalties" like getting lousy shifts, and occasionally even labour board intervention. So yeah, it's not unreasonable to think that someone might push the problem on to someone else.
I don't know much about airline regulations, but I would hope that there are also limits on hours based on safety regulations. In that case, the entire flight might get cancelled when someone exceeds allowable hours. Now imagine the pressure the employer applies to the employees in that circumstance. And the outcry from the passengers booked on said cancelled flight.
Did you consider the possibility that OP knew all of that and expected enough people to know to feel confident in making not just a pun, but one with thorns?
In fact, even without the analysis, I recognized what I thought was nicely pointed pun.
I thought that's where they were headed on 21st Street and then on 2nd Avenue. Then they went backwards, at least on 21st. I think it was supposed to be a pedestrian mall, but it ended up being a parking mall, whatever that is.
Not in any meaningful sense. If they were, they'd for sure have found a way to pay themselves and avoid labour disputes that put them on the picket line.
The problem is not search engines per se, but how those engines work. When the search engine pulls so much more than just a link, there is no need to actually go to the site. That means the only party making ad revenue is the search engine.
Then you have platforms like Twitter and Facebook that have a "pay to promote" system. AYour feeds are not just what you've decided to follow sorted by how you prioritize things, but sorted by who has paid the most, including content that you never actually subscribed to. That means if the CBC, or anyone, wants to actually be seen by their followers, they have to both pay and provide enough content that makes visiting the site less necessary. So on top of reduced opportunity for ad revenue or to gain an actual subscription, they have to pay to get that reduced opportunity.
Yes, I know that the sites have some control over how much beyond a link they allow to be pulled, but the nature of human attention means that being too restrictive is basically equivalent to not existing.
To be clear, I don't have a solution. The current legislation is not the answer, but something needs to be done. I'm starting to think that news and journalism needs to be supported the way we used to support the arts. Government funding with very, very few strings attached. But I can see lots of problems with that, too.
Were any other employer in the country doing what the federal government is doing it would have been charged with gross violations of labour laws. The federal government just absolves itself with a, "Tee hee. Oops."
That's the part I've never understood. How is it possible for any employer to not be subject to labour law and contract obligations. Why weren't they on strike until it was fixed? It's not like they were being paid! I remember having gone on strike because the camp cooks decided to serve something other than steak on Wednesday (steak day, as it was known).
I've also never understood why local managers couldn't just cut cheques based on known wages and deductions while others work on rectifying the problems.
And strategic voting has to be actually strategic. All of the parties play the long game, so we have to as well. If we never show them what we really want by voting for the people and policies we want, even when we think there is little chance of victory, none of them will ever see that we like those policies and people.
Given that we have no "none of the above" option that would force the election to be rerun with different candidates, the best strategy now is to vote for one of the fringe parties, ideally one that is satirical. At this point, there is no party that stands for what actually benefits the masses, so we might as vote for the jokers. Could it really be any worse than the mainstream parties that seem to be actively working against our interests?
As a parent, I just have to say parents do a really shitty job of educating their kids. Me included. If I knew twice what I know now, I would have still been woefully underqualified to turn an infant into a healthy adult, prepared to take on the challenges of life without being a net drain on society. Thank goodness there was half decent schooling available.
School is the only thing that prevents most kids from growing up to be the kinds of adults we hate dealing with. The less control that parents and politicians have over curriculum, the better.
No, we needn't cancel all the fun activities that involve large groups of people. But maybe we should give some thought to how those things work.
Would normalizing the use of decent masks help? Would it help to offer refunds to those who test positive or even just don't feel well? Maybe there are ways to run them that doesn't require people to be packed in like factory farmed chickens. Maybe there are ways to manage ventilation in a way that doesn't move the air horizontally through facilities. Maybe there are ways to partition the crowd into smaller cohorts that don't mingle with other cohorts.
I wouldn't mind finding a way to attend some of these things without just accepting that I'm going to catch something every couple of times I go out.
Obviously something I hadn't considered. On the other hand, we buy plenty of canned and boxed food without being able to see the food itself, so this may be just a matter of forcing us to adjust. Although I'm not sure that I can ever be convinced to buy most meats without being able to see it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My "torn" was with regard to whether I agreed that it was a "sensationalist bullshit headline" when it was almost perfectly accurate in what was being banned: the aerosol. It missed the bit about "current formulation", though, hence my being torn.
It's current formulation is still legal with other delivery mechanisms, so there is a bit of nuance. As much as I dislike clickbait, I also don't except a headline to provide nuance.