To be fair, there are a significant amount of staunch conservatives who are really unhappy with how friendly Ford is with Trudeau.
It's actually a little humerous for me because I hear both sides of it IRL. I know very few people who are happy with Ford, but I know many people who are unhappy with him because he is too "far right" and even more people who are unhappy with him because he is a "conservative in name only"
The Ford government is the most corrupt in Ontario history. They have committed billions of dollars of graft that we know about and likely many billions more that we don't. They are popular because they throw us a few crumbs so that the dumpth are willing to forgive the fact that they are robbing us blind.
How some federal employees are pretending to work using 'mouse jigglers'.
FTFY.
This happens everywhere that managers are more interested in warming chairs than actually being productive:
If you measure your employees by their work done, this isn't an issue; if they're getting what you think should be eight hours of work done in four, you promote them, pay them more and/or give them more responsibilities.
If you measure them by the percentage of hours they spend warming a chair, they'll...warm the chair.
Yeah, so maybe the public service needs to take a look at say "if we have two people warming a chair for 60% of their work time, maybe we should fire two and have the third only warming the chair 10% of the time"
This behavior is more a response to the notion that a work day should be 100% productivity at all times, but that's not how most jobs work nor how human beings do work.
I get paid to do a certain job, if I'm given 6 hours to do a job and finish it in 3 and then do nothing for the next 3 hours that's not me being lazy or taking advantage of my employer.
As a tradesman, my boss would fire me in a heartbeat if i took those 3 hours. Instead the customer still gets charged the 6 hours qouted price and I'm expected to go do more work or put in some time around the shop with the extra time.
By your example are you expecting your employer to still only pay you 6 hours of work even if the job ended up taking 8?
If I do a job efficiently that doesn't mean my boss should then get to then extract free labor out of me. It's why hours alone are a poor way of judging labor value, and it results in a vicious cycle of demanding more and more productivity from workers with them getting less for it.
I think the work day for most types of work should be shortened with no reduction in pay because it's been proven that many industries can reduce the work week to 32 hours with no drop in productivity, and in fact it comes with savings for the business (ex. less time running facilities and services, better use of resources).
If a customer is provided a quote before hand then that should just be the price, if the contractor can't provide what was promised in the time frame they themselves gave then that's on them.
There needs to come a point where the workers themselves start receiving the benefits of their own efficiency -- when time is created it should be workers who get that time back for themselves, instead what we see is that the CEOs syphon up all that extra time for themselves and either work less or convert it into money for their own pocket.
This article reads like AI wrote it. It repeats itself very early on the nature of offences, then it reads like the introduction to actual journalism before stopping cold.
I've been saying this for a while now, but AI articles read like bad high school essays. "State your thesis. Write a paragraph that echos your thesis. Say something that may or may not be related to your thesis. Finish by repeating your thesis."
There are probably enough school essays in most AI training sets to represent a measurable percentage. (Although there is probably a much larger percentage of pornographic fan fiction with subliterate spelling and grammar, so maybe we should be glad that we're only getting bad high school essays.)
Everyone who would see some difference by using a mouse jiggler should use one. If your supervisor is tracking mouse activity they can get fucked. If your machine auto-locks after a fixed number of minutes it can also get fucked.
Often you can get by just starting a PowerPoint presentation, alt tab away, and let it run in the background. It'll keep the computer from locking and you don't need to install anything that might look suspicious.
Employment is a mutual arrangement - never be concerned about looking suspicious. Be prepared to explain your choice honestly and stand by the actual work you're producing. Asses-in-chairs style management is toxic and you should push back against it.
Depends on what kind of input logging your employer is doing. Some of them are monitoring keystrokes and mouse activity, not just whether your system is locked or asleep.
If your on windows (yeah yeah windows bad) I would suggest Windows Power tools. It's developed by windows as a 3rd party tool so it's relatively easy to get approval to have it installed if you need it. and it comes with many other useful tools besides the always on stuff
I have held a security clearance for decades, am multiply indoctrinated, and sworn to secrecy for life under threat of prison. The only people crowing about this are ignoramuses and the bad faith politicians using grievance politics to manipulate them.
... rather than advocating for a two-state solution comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Oh, so those are the two states everyone keeps talking about. Thanks for explaining, National Post!
The contrast illustrated here between the reporting on the least salubrious of the groups angry about Israel committing genocide and the reporting on Canada First, which gets a very brief mention, is certainly interesting.
What a nothing burger of an article. I'm so ashamed to be Canadian amidst our government's abject failure (really, it's a refusal) to rescue Palestinians through the asylum program that was proposed months ago.
We are beholden to Israel, so I will be astonished if even 1/3 of the 45,000 actually end up here.
However, Katz later posted on X: “Israel cannot allow the Hezbollah terror organization to continue attacking its territory and citizens, and soon we will make the necessary decisions. The free world must unconditionally stand with Israel in its war against the axis of evil led by Iran and extremist Islam.”
It's been years and I'm still not over the weirdness of governments announcing major positions via Twitter.
As bad as it was to begin with, it should have stopped when Musk bought the platform.
Really though, there's simply no excuse for governments to announce things primarily (or even solely) via platforms that can control that information for their own interests. I doubt the interest of Elon Musk and the interests of Canada align on all subjects.
I don't have a problem with Elon Musk as a person or him owning it -- I wasn't on the Elon hype train back when the progressive crowd was glamorizing him, and I'm not on the Elon-bashing train now that he's making conservative statements and is unpopular with the progressive crowd. My problem is with the platform itself.
Message length
The thing doesn't have the degree of message length limitation that it used to, but it's still really short. Being concise is one thing, but this is at the level that it affects the format of the message.
Informality
Maybe it's just me, but Twitter seems just intrinsically informal. There is virtually no form of communication that has traditionally been more-formal than state communications.
Security
This is the big one.
It really boggles my mind that a state would grant Twitter the status of being the medium for their announcements.
How secure is Twitter? I mean, I'm sure that Twitter's engineers try to keep in secure, but I don't believe that they have the kind of emphasis on security that, say, the people who are on TLS (which would secure a state website) do. What happens if someone compromises a state Twitter account, sends out a bogus message, and then manages to cut access off to the account for a period of time? At just the right time, like coups or something, that could have an enormous impact.
Twitter is a private company. Their responsibilities are not the same as a national government's. Yes, they care about their reputation, and there are bounds on what they'll do. But they were willing to cut off Trump. I can very much believe that under the right circumstances, they'd be willing to cut off officials or governments abroad. And it wouldn't even be sanctions-level stuff, where it's an extraordinary act -- like, they can put together whatever ToS stuff they want, block people all the time. If I'm a government, I absolutely do not want Twitter to be able to cut off my communications. I don't want whatever governments might be able to exert pressure on Twitter -- and I guarantee that in a serious-enough situation, many would be willing to try -- to induce that the communications be cut off. There are Twitter offices around the world. What happens if there's a war on and some Twitter employees are taken hostage? Is the CEO going to say "let them die, keep the communications open"? Where are his obligations going to lie?
How vetted are the employees who have access to various levels of administrative access at Twitter? I would bet that there is a larger pool and that there is less vetting than the kind of people who have access to set operations at say, certificate authority operators or to cut international cable access at major ISPs, which collectively is comparable to the kind of control that an individual -- who may-or-may-not be acting in line with the company's aims as a whole -- might have.
I strongly suspect that there are ways to manipulate Twitter, given sufficient use of bot accounts, to make material from malicious accounts be ranked highly. I've seen disinfo campaigns in the past. This is a problem that search engines share, but Twitter does real-time indexing of all content and I strongly suspect is a lot easier to induce wild ranking changes on.
nationalpost.com
Hot