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

CanCon isn't the answer until it pushes actual content instead of writers and production staff.

If Dick Wolf had done things differently, he could have made Law & Order in Canada without changing one thing in the scripts and had it labeled CanCon.

On the other hand, if he had decided to make a Law & Order actually that takes place in Canada without changing anything about the various writers and staff or production facilities, it couldn't have been labeled CanCon.

I'm all for trying to build the industry, but I think it's more important to reflect who we are.

I'm not sure how this is going to shake out, but if I were to bet, I'd say it'll fracture on haves/have-nots and powerful/disenfranchised.

So situation normal?

Neither of those provinces were anywhere near as being off the rails as they are today. It wouldn't have been an easy time for the nation, Quebec, or any of the provinces, but we'd have got through it.

It wouldn't surprise me that, by now, the Maritimes would at least be trying to hook up with Quebec or the US. I have no basis for that beyond the likelihood that they would be very isolated otherwise.

Is it too much to hope for that they also realize that going ever harder might be the wrong approach?

I agree. It's just part of the cycle.

I think it's quite clear that, in that case, the server is the face of that business. What happens if instead, the person is working in the back room keeping the books?

Absolutely not. What business is it of mine who you work for?

I disagree. If I'm a welder in the back of the shop, nothing I do on my own time reflects positively or negatively on my employer as long as I leave my employer out of it. That some busybody wants to make it my employers business is unreasonable and unfair. And that goes double for the employer who decides to make it their business.

Fair enough. As I said, I can see room for exceptions, but the more control your employer has over your free time, the less free that time is. I'm not interested in going back to the days when a person could be fired for driving the wrong make of car.

They could start by focusing on profits instead of margins. I don't care if your margins are 50% or .005%, if you're extracting billions in profit, you have room to reduce your margins, preferably through some combination of price drops and increased wages for everyone who works in the actual retail outlet.

It also says when (while she was not at work).

My opinion is that really shouldn't matter what you've done, if you weren't on the clock, your employer has nothing to say about it.

I can see exceptions when you are misrepresenting yourself as acting in an official capacity or if you are clearly "the public face" of the company (like an on-air personality or public spokesperson). On the face of it, none of that applies here.

I'm not sure, but I think one of the objectives of vertical farming is to contain the water cycle as much as possible, limiting the amount of external input.

And it doesn't even have to be the people running the platform or instances having a profit motive. Usenet, for example, started falling apart long before anyone tried to monetize actual hosting. Spammers alone were enough to destroy it.

Anytime you create easy enough access to a large enough group, people will try to exploit that access for their own gain. Obviously, platform and instance operators are best positioned to do so, but exploitive account holders can do plenty of damage on their own.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think Lemmy has any hope of survival as a truly global platform.

I've been through this a few times: Usenet, Digg, Reddit. They started off small and stayed mostly civil even though there is a wide range of opinion. Then they start growing rapidly and people see an opportunity to "get their message out", whether that's spam, personal aggrandizement, a political message, or whatever: exploitation vs participation. After a while it becomes just too much for some people, so they find somewhere else to congregate.

As they leave, that platform becomes ever more useless, leading to more migration. The platform eventually becomes useless even to the exploiters, so they figure out where everyone went and follow them.

And the cycle continues. I think that the cycle can only accelerate as "exploiters" become more proactive in following "participants" to new homes. That implies an eventual breakdown of the whole concept of global discussion communities. Are we seeing that already on Lemmy? I don't know, but I'm registered on 4 different instances, each with their own primary focus, and there has already been a bit of federation/defederation drama on every one them.

I think the only way to break the cycle is to figure out a way to eliminate exploitation. That may well be impossible, at least on any platform that has global reach, centralized or not. As far as I can tell, those who would exploit a system have always found ways to do so.

The rest of us have to perform our jobs with competence, why not the police?

The rest of us have to follow the law, why not the police?

Where's Sylvester when you need him?

They also had a pretty big turnout for that march against trans thing. Twice.

"Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to … promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks," the agreement states.

Poilievre's insistence that this is meant to "impose" a carbon tax on Ukrainians is also hard to square with the fact that Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011.

" ... cooperate bilaterally ... [emphasis added]

He's not cranked out of shape because something might be imposed on Ukraine, but because it risks imposing something on Canada. But he can't very well come out and say that in relation to a war-torn country, so he has no choice but to lie.

We seem doomed to always follow the process without skipping steps. The first child welfare organizations were modeled on the existing animal welfare organizations.

On my worst days, I think that the real reason certain people want to ban recording what goes on in animal agriculture is because legally requiring the humane treatment of animals tends to lead to legally requiring the humane treatment of humans.

I respectfully disagree that I've fallen for anything. I came by my views over several decades of discussion, debate, and activism. That doesn't say anything about whether I'm right or wrong in my characterization of the problem as being one of human nature rather than a technical or even sociological problem.

I have never stopped taking what action I can take to minimize my personal contribution to the problem. Nor have I ever tried to sway others away from their own action. I may be misguided in my efforts, but I now focus on getting people to see that we must recognize our human cognitive failures and fight to overcome them. I may have the wrong approach in that, but I don't see anyone else doing anything to address that foundational problem.

I reduced my focus on nuclear power, passive heating and cooling, public transit, and walkable cities nearly two decades ago when I realized that the problem is not lack of solutions, but lack of action. And not just action, but action at all scales from the local to the global, by everyone from individuals to companies large and small to all levels of government in all countries.

This is not a debate about publicly funded healthcare housing, neither of which has a deadline. This has a deadline. We can argue over the precise nature and timing of the deadline, but we cannot have any reasonable disagreement over its existence and its consequences. Unless and until we have accepted the need for action, we will not -- cannot! -- act, at least not effectively. So that is where the battle must be joined, in convincing people of the need to overcome their natures so they see that action is both necessary and possible.

My contention, and I'll be very, very happy to be proven wrong, is that the time remaining to forestall disaster has run out without yet having convinced anyone of the need to act. That, of course, does not mean we should do anything other than redouble our efforts in that direction in the hopes of avoiding ecological and civilizational collapse. But that doesn't change my claim that our only battle is our battle against our nature.

I don't know how to phrase your missing 4th option, but it is an option and it is missing.