The meals and ingredients weren’t as good as other services, but it was generally ok. Fresh Prep I found to be a bit more consistent, and the meals tastier.

Or bovine ebola, to devastate the USA’s beef supply. I imagine that an America that suddenly has no burgers would sober up fairly quick. The massive super farms / agriculture concentration areas make it an easy target.

The USA is simultaneously broadcasting to militaries around the world that America is going to ignore the Geneva convention/greenlight warcrimes, and they’re dismantling the infrastructure that would’ve been used to defend themselves against biological weapons.

Meh. Rogers and the regulators have worked for decades to destroy competition for the big banks, killing Credit Unions across the country. Rogers is literally the regulator responsible for destroying BC’s Credit Union Trade Association – she’s the one that put the wheels in motion, turfing their shared liquidity pool (something that’s suddenly a good thing to have, after SVB went pop, so the regs literally increased systemic risk by getting rid of that pool). The gov makes our population growth entirely dependant on immigration / students, and then says students need to store their savings in a big bank (CDIC insured), not a CU (which are CUDIC insured)-- and then act all surprised that the smaller FIs aren’t growing. The most recent batch of BC regulators are also demanding that industry solve the problem that the regulators created – blasting credit unions for the poor health of the whole system, even though it’s status isn’t the fault of individual CUs, but rather the shit regulatory job they’ve done in the past few decades.

Now they want to whine that there’s no competition for the big banks / not enough smaller FI participants in the industry.

Rogers has essentially failed upwards as a “star woman” in the industry, but she’s a moron who’s screwed up almost every file she’s been put on. She can go fuck herself. So can the rest of Canada’s financial regulators. At this point, they’re terrible and clueless about the industry, clueless about the damage they’ve wrought.

Oh yay, another online poll that can’t be assigned a margin of error.

And the guys conclusion of “higher education” being the driving force is totally unquestionable. Totally not an ideologically loaded puff piece written to broadcast FN interests on T&R day.

Jeez. You’d think the conservatives/PP would take a hint from the response most Canadians have had to Trump and American politics lately. Instead the idiots out there using an American-based tragedy to parrot American-Right wing talking points, and pretending like it’s applicable in Canada, and that Canadians should react like Americans.

The liberals should just go full right-wing centrist. Let the NDP be the left-wing centrists. Have elections be between those two parties, instead of the conservatives… if only Alberta wasn’t so fucking stupid, with their idiot premier and book bans and so on. I’m amazed they haven’t kicked her ass out of office yet. But even if they want to be morons, itd be neat to see the rest of the country completely disregard/ignore the cons given the crap they’ve been spewing the last few years.

Hell, its practically anecdotal evidence of interference by foreign powers. The cons have morphed into the republicans of the north. I doubt that was purely coincidence, it was likely largely funded by American interests. Sorta like how Danielle is an x-oil industry lobbyist, and most of the oil industry in Canada are US based companies.

idk, I’d say it’s more of a problem now because people have easier ways to liquidate their wallets for those sorts of trash purchases, without realising it on a physical / rational level at the time. Like when you had to go in to a store to buy those blind-box card games, it took effort to be an addict, so much that it was more a hobby.

Now, someone’s kid can accidentally wrack up thousands on a credit card online buying lootbox shit.

I don’t agree with attempting to rationalize bad legislation, even if the specific example used by the journalist / source is a bit weak or unclear.

Your bringing in the “KKKonvoy” is a good example of why. I don’t think it’s accurate to draw a parallel between everyone who supported that, and white supremacy. Similarly, I don’t think anyone with a Palestinian flag is a Hammas supporter – but there are many who do, likely enough that the cons would add it to the list. Allowing government / media to dictate what symbols are good/bad, is authoritarian.

In regards to the example used specifically though, there’s a reason for it I reckon. Legislation is often written with different intentions / examples and attempts by politicians to clarify what they mean – which’s likely why they’re using the nazi examples as part of it. The source is noting that it’s how it’s written now but that it can change based on the discretion of various groups. Ie. They hold up a sign saying “We’re against Nazis!” to make people ok with the authoritarian push; later that legislation can be changed to “women’s rights activists are femi-Nazis! Add em to the list!”. And while that may sound ‘crazy’, again, we have a literal contemporary example to the south.

Even more, you’re focusing on an example fairly late in an article cautioning about authoritarian creep, but the subject of that example is fairly tertiary to the point of the article.

Well, I mean, the states is pretty close at this point to declaring things like the pride flag as hate symbols. Heck, our own Canadian government is already incredibly wishy washy on the Palestinian flag. A law that says it’s illegal / jailable to wave a flag with symbols the government doesn’t approve of, is dangerous – especially when you view the current conflict not as a left vs right thing, but rather as an authoritarian vs individualism/egalitarianism thing.

Something like Carney’s “national projects” bills, which allow the govt to ignore various rights claims / environmental issues – lots of liberals justify it by giving Carney the benefit of the doubt. But that legislation isn’t set to expire / be reviewed until sometime midway through the next govts term. Will those people who supported Carney still think it’s so great if those powers end up in the hands of PP’s Trump-style conservatives? Or have the liberals intentionally tried to set it up as a gift to the conservatives, so that the liberals can then run a “shock and dismay!” campaign for the next cycle, a game of political shenanigans that treats Canadian’s rights like a game piece? Who knows.

We’re seeing a very clear example of the government redefining what’s “hate speech” south of the border currently. It’d be silly not to learn from the US’s folly.

Legislation brought in by the current liberal government, while appealing to some liberal supporters, would likely make them scream if the powers were instead given to the conservatives. But the bigger problem in some ways is that both of those parties are aiming for increasingly authoritarian approaches.

Well, the noise he’s making doesn’t rule out having a fab site in each province, or a few even. Also, the work they’re describing in terms of streamlining the bureaucratic side, would likely be working towards the backyard suite option etc. He explicitly mentions working towards sorting out municipal roadblocks, if I remember right? The real question mark for me is what price point propping up the industry with gov investment will bring overall – like right now, many of the ‘decent’ sized prefabs I’ve seen start at like $200-300k. That, ontop of the really high land cost in the metropolitan areas, means its likely still outside the reach for most locals working local jobs. You’d either need to use inherited land and redevelop it, redevelop it for higher density, and/or build outside the major metropolitan areas (it’d be interesting to see if they got housing back down to reasonable levels in many of the small-medium sized towns/cities, if we’d see a migration of people… I’d be in favour of that, just not sure how it’d play out).

Like personally, I have a parent who’s likely to move into a home soon, potentially selling his property in the lower mainland. If there were an “easy” option to instead redevelop that property (cause the house is ancient/not great), and drop down a few modular units for the main resident + 1 or 2 renters, I’d happily drop some money on that, prolly be able to convince my siblings to kick in too as the combo of main property + renters would eventually be some passive income to pay down any loan required to finish it off even quicker. I think that’s the sort of ‘shift’ that Carney’s approach would generally encourage, or that they want to try and encourage, as it opens up additional housing space. The question is whether they can get it to a price point that it makes sense to invest in it, especially as many people are fairly tapped in terms of financing these days it seems.

It’s trickle down housing affordability… I’m sure it’ll work this time!

Kidding aside though, I’m personally a bit curious to see how it works out – I’m cautiously optimistic simply because it is, ultimately, a different sounding approach than anything I’ve seen in my few decades of voting. Personally, I’d love the idea of getting a customised eco-friendly sustainability oriented pre-fab home that I could plop down on some land somewhere for a reasonable price – I’d likely trade in my vancouver condo for it if I could at this point.

Like even the idea of having the opportunity to have a say in the design of your home, would be a huge improvement to the current setup for home owners, especially those in Strata. Like older buildings are often a bit more affordable upfront, with higher maintenance costs due to the age. They’re also often way behind in terms of general amenities (shared laundry is still a thing, in a $600k+ vancouver condo building!), and security/climate preparedness features (lobby cams/key fobs, earthquake resilience, fire resistance, AC, Heat pump options, solar panel options, floor drainage in bathrooms, etc). If people had an affordable way to get decent sized ‘new’ units with modern amenities, it’d likely go a long way to improving the overall quality of life of many Canadians… so even if I’m skeptical Carney’ll get us there, I’m still going to be cautiously optimistic as he seems to be aiming in that direction, even if his approach is a bit heavy in leaning on the private sector to fill this gap

No, I don’t. My take on the greens isn’t about them winning a majority, but about them trying to rebuild their party after suffering numerous years of eroding support. At a time when an eco-oriented platform would’ve been persuasive to more voters, the green party imploded with DEI stupidity. It still hasn’t recovered, and in my view likely never will.

A practical approach to eco issues, like I’d advocate them to take, isn’t the same as a what a typical ‘green’ approach was 50 years ago. Back then, they could pretend like the world was going to get together and try and to ‘stop’ climate change. Now, it’s practically a given that the environment is going to get worse – Trump’s presidency, and the roll back of eco protections we’re seeing in the states / globally, means that Canada taking onerous austerity like steps to try and limit our country’s footprint is misguided. A government party that puts forward costed, practical and broad-stroke plans to mitigate the impact of climate change will find favour amongst a subset of the population. And at this point, that also means developing things “in house” more, as international politics is increasingly volatile, and likely to continue on that trend in part because of climate change related issues (resources becoming more scarce).

The green party isn’t really viewed, from what I can tell at least, as an eco-friendly / sustainability oriented party anymore – hell, they can’t even sustain their own leadership structure / renew it with a new generation, they just keep falling back to May. If a company were so poorly managed that the CEO kept having to come out of retirement to try and fix things, you wouldn’t put much faith in that company’s ability to function long term. It’s also a condemnation of May’s leadership ability, in that she’s failed to get a successor for so long.

She needs to step aside, and have a solid person step into the leadership role.

The last person they had come in more publicly, was the black jewish pro-palestine lesbian lawyer disaster, who had zero leadership skills. When you hear moderates considering right-leaning opinions on DEI, the green party’s leadership issues are unfortunately a case in point, and very easy to use as a demonstration of the negative aspects of promoting equity above competence. So in getting the next leader, they need to have someone that’s competent / able to lead the party, above all else. And they need to be able to stand up there without May holding their hand like a toddler. Not the right look for a “leader”.

In terms of growth for the party, that’s a real challenge unfortunately, especially given its recent leadership disarray. In traditional models it sits sorta left of the NDP. If you graph out where people are on the ‘spectrum’, the centrist parties get the majority of votes for appealing on centrist issues – fringe parties on the left / right get a smaller wedge to occupy in general, and they’re all somewhat pushed in various directions by the big centrist parties. The liberals have moved further to the right with Carney’s current approach, appealing to more conservatives in general to try and bolster their numbers. The NDP “should” have an opportunity to gobble up more of the left side of the spectrum – Greens too, potentially.

So, honestly, I think the greens would get the biggest boost by playing to their traditional core ideologies, updated a bit to filter out the more fringe elements. Go big on environmental stuff – highlight all the fire devastation lately, and put together clear plans to help people on that eco-disaster front. Acknowledge that climate change is going to get a lot worse, and put forward infrastructure plans to respond to what’s coming. Support the energy sector, including solar developments and nuclear advancement as generally lower polluting options (the party is historically wishywashy on nuclear due to fringe elements, even though most green-movements have since realised its a lot less damaging than other forms). Campaign to turn climate issues into a clear wedge issue, and stake out a strong position as a party known as being eco-focused.

And also, as alluded to above, they’d need to downplay components involving equity stuff. Equity is important, and should still be a concern of politicians, but it shouldn’t be a primary focus nor a constant campaign topic. They should also limit how explicitly/overtly they tie themselves to FN-specific interests, as that’s likely to alienate more non-FN. If they were a right-leaning party, one move to get more votes may even be to explicitly come down hard on FN concerns to gain that vote: like declaring ‘shared exclusivity’ a court-originated perversion of the government’s intention with regards to aboriginal title, with a claim that forcing the courts to align with the ‘exclusive’ intention would simplify land disputes in areas like BC and encourage development/growth (using things like the cowichan claim in Richmond, contested by other FN groups, to drill that home). The greens aren’t right wing, and shouldn’t go that way in their policies, but at the very least they should avoid the topic as much as possible as their stance isn’t likely to appeal to the majority, especially as the green position’s often been crafted to try and appeal to the FN minority demographic. But that’s a big part of the shift they need – moving away from demographic based minority special interest chaos, towards big, overarching, “good for everyone, so everyone should vote for us” things like “not having your shit burn in a forest fire” and “being able to breath outside during the summer”.

Personally, assuming its the local language, I’m fine with the idea.

People who are multilingual don’t always seem to get how it looks/feels for monolingual people – but it’s a way of excluding them from participating in whatever the conversation is. I think back to a camping trip described by an X with her friends, where in most of the group spoke english and chinese – except my X, who only spoke english. Because one or two in the group were more fluent in Chinese, for most of the weekend the vast majority of conversation was in Chinese, which really drove home how isolating / alienating it can be to be the person left out. You’re basically being pre-excluded from a conversation, just to make it easier for communication with someone else – your basic participation is less important than the other person’s ease of communication. My X had no concern about them “talkin bout her behind her back” or anything, they were all friends, but she finally understood how it comes across.

While the majority of the work force may speak another language, the “main” language in a country is to me, meant to serve as a default for business. If I were multilingual, working in a foreign non-english country, I’d expect any business I worked for to require me to use their local language. Even more, when it comes to supervisors/team leads, hearing the conversations can also help you target potential issues – like if you overhear a team member teaching something incorrectly. So there’s a potential business liability type reason to make sure that all team members, especially oversight, can understand what’s getting said if it pertains to the business.

A lot of skepticism on this, but if the government put together a Canadian sovereign cloud, and then fixed privacy legislation so that government and regulated industries had to pay attention to “Data Sovereignty” instead of just “Data residency”, it’d likely be fairly impactful.

Currently our government, medical, financial and so on is all in US cloud services – meaning it’s all subject to the US Cloud act, and not sovereign to Canada. If they put in that regulatory requirement, there’d be a ton of potential business to be had. But any attempt to put in a Canadian sovereign cloud would require that sort of legislation/regulation in order to be viable in my view.

Aaaahahahahaah, yeah, ok man, I’ll believe it when I see it.

These days its more likely that Trump will apologize to Putin, and offer to provide him with more sophisticated Drones that can better avoid NATO defenses – and that the Americans will strongly oppose any actual military action against their new ally. Has the EU not grasped all the crap he’s been doing ??

Eh. I read it as BC not getting much funding for infrastructure from the feds, coupled with copious issues with development and treaties. BC’s population is overly concentrated in the GVRD, with almost half the provinces people living there. Part of the reason being the lack of infrastructure / job opportunities in other regions.

The EV rollback isn’t that surprising, especially with the ‘spin’ on increasing Canada’s competitiveness. All the car manufacturing companies in Ontario are US owned, and they want to maintain market rule-parity with the US so that they’re more ‘competitive’ in the US market. It’s a move to appease the USA, even as the govt tries to pitch itself as moving away from US reliance.

The buy Canada stuff is a sham – we’ve had a full year of our politicians making that sort of noise, while shrugging their shoulders and buying in to US monopolies/control. Ontario tears up a Starlink contract (“oooh! Go Doug!”), and like the same week we hear that Rogers is parterning with Starlink, thus providing a nice Canadian face for anyone that wants to buy the US company’s service. Our govt is totally in Microsoft’s cloud, and completely incapable of moving away from it, and have increased their reliance since all the trade stuff started falling apart.

Idk, not a very optimistic announcement overall from my pov.

You think Canada’s approach is better?! TELL CARNEY. The government’s push for Open Banking and increased fintechs is literally them wanting to bring in all these nonsense variant fintech apps… for reasons unknown.

Like the USA under the current administration / trends? Do allies attempt to annex allies via economic warfare and separatist influence campaigns? And if the states can ‘flip’ from ally to adversary, why not others?

The current global situation means that self-reliance for critical sectors is of paramount importance – trade and globalism is fine for non-critical things, and for general collaboration on broader initiatives such as global warming/climate change (for countries that agree on it). Ferries, as civilian infrastructure, are not individually critical - if they fail for some reason, it’s “bad”, but it isn’t military failure levels of bad. Today we may think of Germany as an ally, for example, but the AFD and far right have significant support there, and it’s entirely plausible that within the span of the sub contract Germany will trend more like the USA is today. It’s also plausible, although still relatively unlikely, that China could expand its borders and push for SK to be absorbed by NK as part of a regional conflict wherein the USA doesn’t bother to support its traditional allies / values.

Additionally, I have far more confidence in Canada’s ability to take on civilian ferries, and their maintenance in the face of global uncertainties, than I do in Canada’s ability to maintain foreign made military vessels with far more complex systems. Ergo such specialties should be built up and maintained in country, by purchasing assets from internal companies.