Part of the reason is likely that farming equipment is bloody expensive. A new combine harvester can cost nearly a million dollars, and there aren't a hell of a lot of used electrical machines on the market yet. Each farm will have several machines that currently run on gas or diesel. How many can the average farmer afford to replace how fast?
In the McCarthy era, whatever the average person said usually didn't make it past the actual people they said it to (and those people's gossip buddies, possibly) unless someone had an axe to grind and wanted to get them in trouble. Today, anything you say has circled the globe ten times, been indexed in multiple systems, and fed to someone's AI assistant before the hour is out. Yet another way in which technological change is a mixed bag.
That they didn't have enough technicians trained in this to be able to ensure that one was always available during working hours, or at least when it was glaringly obvious that one was going to be needed that day, is . . . both extremely and obviously stupid, and par for the course for a corp whose sole purpose is maximizing profit for the next quarter.
Depends on how lousy your family is, I think. Actually, it sounds kind of like a stereotypical teenager of years past: never talking to parents and blasting loud music all the time.
The US is just as toxic as China these days. Give them nothing until they come on bended knee offering concessions that their congress is willing to enforce, because without someone in the loop who can prevent Trump from going back on his word, any agreement with them is worth less than the Sharpie it was signed with.
Whether it's a failure or not depends on whether they're living in yurts by choice because it's their traditional way of living, or they're doing it because it's cheap and they can't afford anything else. (There are probably also some sanitation issues—I don't think most yurts have running water, so public infrastructure would have to make up the difference there.) And you do need some minimal qualifications for assessing that: talking to the people living in the yurts would be a good start.
Ironically, we probably could get the US to pay for it, if we didn't mind making trade relations with them even worse, by lying about what's going in the opposite direction.
The original article contains some statistics by party, and yes, there is a correlation between voting Conservative and not wanting to fund Canada Post. Other correlations: rural people tend to support funding Canada Post, people who seldom or never receive mail tend not to. (The rural and Conservative tendencies are going to pull in opposite directions for a fair number of people.) I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there's also a correlation with income brackets, but they don't seem to have collected that information.
Oh, I wasn't suspecting the excavators of a hoax, I was suspecting the people who put the thing there in the 18th century. There were a whole series of "Vikings in the Americas" hoaxes in (mostly) the 19th century, although this would be early for that type of thing, and all the runestone-specific hoaxes I'm aware of were down in the States. The choice of runes for this carving was almost certainly deliberate—by the 18th century, the Latin alphabet would have been dominant in most of Scandinavia—but there's no way of telling whether it was intended to be deceptive.
There are reasons I went to Seamonkey for a couple of years, then to Pale Moon (which is divergent enough now that I expect it to keep chugging along even if Firefox folds—most of Mozilla's patches are no longer relevant to its codebase). I'm interested to see what Ladybird will bring to the table, though.
In general, no. In this specific context, they may be trying to grind the union down by forcing them to vote on one unsuitable offer after another until they ratify one because they're tired of voting or because of government pressure, instead of attempting real negotiation. I don't think it's going to work, but they may be trying.
Declaring work-to-rule rather than a full strike was a very smart thing for the union to do here—it reduces the other side's options for applying pressure. Can't have the government order them back to work when they're already working. Which, I'm sure, is why they did it.
Author admits smartphones are ubiquitous, and doesn’t at all consider, in a hypothetical situation where everyone unanimously agreed to stop using them, where all this e-waste will go?
Pretty much every single smartphone in use right now will be ewaste 20 years from now, and most of them will be within 10. So we have that disposal problem already regardless. Hypothetically, if everyone were to get rid of their phones, we'd at least stop creating even more future ewaste.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines . . . but they're not even trying.