I had read that post already. Even if there are things that she's doing that isn't great, it doesn't really justify a group of people circlejerking hate about them.
joshhsoj1902
joined 2 years ago
From the posts I've seen so far, it feels like the community is stating that they only exist to criticize what they see as a misleading influencer, but to me it all comes off as bullying/harrassment.
If they want to encourage change of some sort they could try and do that, but that's not what the posts are encouraging, it feels like generic woman hate targeted at a single woman.
It's frustrating because this government didn't make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.
But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.
But of course none of that matters these days. 😞
Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.
I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.
But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory... In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it "what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying" and you would want a response.
I'm not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that's roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.
There already aren't gas stations in these remote locations. Why would there need to be EV chargers??
The thought of having rail service small campsites is comical.
If we did move to a world where cities are dense enough that public transit did replace cars for most people, cars would still be a viable rental for when leaving the city.
I'm always confused by these criticisms, do I misunderstand how they work?
Reading this article, this 1.7million is an interest free loan, so taxpayers are only covering the lost potential of that money being used elsewhere, unless something happens whichs exempts them paying back.
For the various EV related plants, the majority of the subsidies are tax rebates. Which means the company needs to setup and actively operating in Canada such that they are making enough revenue in Canada that their paying enough taxes to be able to untalize any rebate. As Canadian taxpayers the tax revenue were missing is purely net-new revenue that wouldn't exist if the company didn't setup here. It's not like we're writing a blank check, we're just saying that if they setup here and start making money, they can pay us less money for the first while.
Neither of those feel like obvious bad deals for Canadians. Am I missing something?
Ok I'll bite. How does Canadian policy cause global inflation?
The only angle that I can think of is that we've had a larger impact on carbon production than most other countries, and at least when it comes to global food inflation, climate change is having a noticable impact. So one might be able to argue that our role in climate change is causing food inflation. But I doubt anyone has actually done any peer reviewed studies on that so it's likely just assumptions at best.
adding that she “generally” doesn’t attend flag raising events.
Feels like the most relevant part of the article.
This feels like unnecessary noise. Yes Shoppers Drug Mart, like corner stores, sell food at a large markup. They've always done this, they know that if you're picking up food there you're willing to pay a convenience markup.
Shifting any focus here gives Loblaws a potential out by just reducing prices at shoppers, which has nothing to do with what we actually want to happen.
I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it's attracting are ones that don't want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.