jadero @ jadero @lemmy.ca

Just a Southern Saskatchewan retiree looking for a place to keep up with st

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

343

Joined

2 yr. ago

How about maybe seeking input from people with actual, concrete expertise in the relevant fields on what can be done today, tomorrow, etc to, you know, actually meet the damned goals!

I sympathize. Circumstances mean that we actually do still need, not just a phone number, but a landline. We just hang up on those rare occasions when our call screening fails.

The trouble is that means policy is being set or supported based on the people who don't know enough about anything to even figure out how to manage their phones.

We're all doomed.

Hey, don't you know that unmeasured = nonexistent? We're all just infants playing peek-a-boo.

I guess I did heavily imply that the concept of limited liability companies is evil by design. That's on me. My intention was to call out the egregious misuse of them.

I'm not even so much concerned that the system is possible to abuse as that it not seen as abuse by too many.

This, right here, is our fundamental problem. The idea that everything and everyone has to be enclosed and developed or otherwise conform to some narrow master plan is behind everything from loss of access to public lands to colonialism and beyond.

If the land supported several hundred thousand people there, then it was obviously providing what the people needed and there had to be both systems of governance and economic systems. The fact that they did not conform to the ideals of someone from outside does not change those simple facts.

Is this not by design?

1. Create a company, making sure that your personal assets are insulated from the corporate liabilities.
2. Convert corporate assets and liabilities to personal assets with exorbitant pay by stripping corporate assets and propping things up with loans.
3. Company goes bankrupt.
4. You take your millions and cry about the economy and regulations.

I've yet to hear of a corporate bankruptcy that left the owners and officers and board members on the bread lines.

Holy shit! Not knowing whether you were joking or not, I did a basic wikipedia search. Unless someone has vandalized her page, you're right.

So who is she to talk? Why aren't interviewers pressing her on this?

Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I'm firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.

In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:

• Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
• In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
• There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
• There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it's possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.

In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.

Don't forget that impaired driving is a criminal offense. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that impaired driving makes up over half of those with criminal records. Maybe more in SK, where even senior politicians, including the Premier, have impaired driving records.

Like this?. We just need more people and governments on board.

Parking garages would be perfect!

As much as I love golf, I agree about the courses. I now play only on "pasture courses". Basically a chunk of unirrigated land with 9 flags surrounded by sand for a "green". $5/round, $50/season. They may be just a Saskatchewan thing, but I love them.

I'm very impressed by the compassion of your response. It would have been so much easier to downvotes and move on, my first instinct.

That makes me think that there need to be dedicated locations, perhaps with a few critical utilities already in place. The numbers of people living there and their reasons for living there would be a useful measure of how well we're doing in providing proper shelter.

Those locations need to have ready access to various services, not parked on the outskirts. Maybe it's worth giving up a park or two. Keeping them central and visible would be an important part of getting communities on board with proper social housing programs.

I have no doubt that, in certain climates or certain times of year, some people would deliberately choose to live there for adventure or lifestyle reasons, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Which is disgusting! Their job is supposed to be about doing what is best for the people who live here, not whatever best serves the interests of their party. If there were a system that was good for the people while eliminating the concept of parties, every party should be glad to do the work of implementing it.

Where I live in Southern Saskatchewan, farmers are digging out shelter belts very rapidly. I would imagine that their low till, zero till, and high-cut headers (leaves taller stubble) are even better at keeping the soil and capturing snow over winter than a row of trees every few hundred metres.

I was completely out of school before the peanut bans kicked in. A good thing, too, as I basically lived on peanut butter. Still do. :) Even when I was working and packing my own lunches, it was either leftovers or peanut butter sandwiches. Food of the gods (or demons, I suppose...)

How about Saskatchewan as an example? With Alberta, we are the butt cheeks of Canada, yet in Saskatoon, you can go to the city hall website, click the accessibility button, and get the site served in 19 different languages. Yes, they're just using Google Translate, so there are no Canadian Indigenous languages, but it's a start. In addition, I think those languages and more are available for in-person service through an interpretation contractor.

There are plenty of efforts to prevent languages from disappearing. I have no problem with Quebec doing things to preserve their French, but I'm not sure it should be via removal of other language services.

On the other hand, I have no language I'm trying to preserve, don't live there, and haven't visited in decades, so I'm willing to let them make their own decisions.

Oh yeah, it has a lot of holes! Despite the effort I put in, I should have called it what it is: back of the envelope analysis. The only reason I did it was to satisfy my curiosity regarding the initial statement, then felt compelled to share it. :)

I doubt they let the logs dry at all, but the only caloric content I could find for logs assumed air-dried to 20%. I don't know enough to consider other methodologies like carbon content, etc.

My 100 km was intended as a rate of energy consumption, not an actual hauling distance, but I didn't make that clear.

There's no way cutting down a tree, shipping it and processing it requires a tree-worth of fuel.

Let's fact check that:

(TLDR: it seems you're right)

(Note on gross vehicle weights. I found everything from 80,000 kg at the high end in Canada and 80,000 pounds consistently in the US. That wide range, especially the huge difference between Canada and USA, makes me somewhat suspicious of the following calculations. But I think it still works out in favour of the original assertion.)

1 m³ of diesel contains 38.68 GJ of energy.. That means 38.68 MJ/litre.

Air dried logs (20%) moisture have 14.7 GJ per tonne. That's 14.7 MJ/kg.

Ballpark empty weight of a semi truck and trailer is 35,000 pounds (15,876 kg).

Canadian maximum weight limit for semis is 80,000 kg. I've seen numbers varying from about 35,000 kg to 80,000 kg, depending on jurisdiction, trailer configuration, and permits, so I'll use the biggest number.

That leaves an estimated payload of about 64,000 kg. That amount of wood contains about 940,800 MJ of energy.

Average fuel efficiency is 39.5 L/100 km as of 1999. That's 1,527.86 MJ.

The payload contains over 600 times the energy required to haul it 100 km. Obviously, there are considerations of actual distance, round trips, logging equipment hauling and use, etc. The numbers can change dramatically based on actual payloads, too, but it seems the lumber has "energy to spare" so to speak.

True enough. One of the teenagers on the school bus I rode required canes because of her bout with polio.