BlameThePeacock

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

BlameThePeacock ,

Nah people would find the next thing to hate each other over easily. Skin, language, clothing, it does not matter. We always find a way to separate them from us.

BlameThePeacock ,

Most religions actually say not to be an asshole to other religions, people just ignore it.

BlameThePeacock ,

All you have to do is look at Japan to see the future for most western countries.

They speedran this whole situation a few decades ago.

BlameThePeacock ,

Japan's population skyrocketted, and land prices got extremely high, it took another two decades before population started to decline.

Doesn't matter if it was births or immigration. We're seeing the population increase and land going up.

Soon we'll see immigration cut off as people get mad, and the population will take a decade or two before it starts declining.

[US] I'm hesitating launching my own business because I'd lose health insurance for my family. What are my options?

I have everything pretty much ready to launch full time. Time, skills, customers, support from family. But I'd leave my current job behind and with it my family's health insurance for the foreseeable future. I can't afford any of the options I've seen. It's the one thing holding me back. Any ideas for affordable health insurance...

BlameThePeacock ,

System working as intended in the US.

Tieing healthcare to work wasn't an accident.

BlameThePeacock ,

I still don't agree with this. What benefit to Canada by sending him back? It's not like he's going to re-offend.

His wife will be forced to abandon Canada after getting her citizenship to stay with him.

He committed a crime and he served his time. Let him resume his life. Maybe he can add something positive back to Canada however small it will be in comparison to our loss.

BlameThePeacock ,

For most types of crimes, I'd agree. This one just doesn't make sense though, there was no intention or malice behind it. It was an accident because he wasn't paying enough attention, the particular intersection was shit for sightlines, and he lacked the education and experience to handle it.

Other immigrants are not going to look at the deportation and go "I'm going to pay more attention while driving a semi-truck in rural areas" because of the deportation rather than the 8 years in jail and massive guilt of killing people.

BlameThePeacock ,
  1. Do trucks with PR cause more accidents than citizens? Do you have a source for your accusation here, or are you just making it up?

  2. I give a fuck. Why have immigrants at all if we aren't benefitting from them. We picked him ahead of others for a reason, who's to say the person we replace him with won't be worse?

It reminds me of something I learned. A good boss doesn't fire someone for making an accidental costly mistake, the damage is done, you may as well keep the person who has learned the lesson really well because they're less likely to do it again than a new person.

BlameThePeacock ,

I wonder how many years of Cons in power it's going to take before people who switched to vote for them realize that the Cons won't do jack shit about the affordability crisis either.

BlameThePeacock ,

It's not the parties that are the issue, it's the people.

If we want affordable housing, we need to absolutely tank home values, by as much as 80-90% in some markets.

Most people simply won't vote for a party or a policy that does that, because most people (and especially most voters) own their home and aren't willing to give away literally hundreds of thousands (or in some case millions) of dollars even if it helps other people.

BlameThePeacock ,

I've done the complete opposite, we upgraded and bought an excessively large house 4 years ago.

The plan is to have our three kids continue living here upon finishing school and contributing to the household budget through at least part of their adulthood so they don't need to worry about extreme housing costs. There is enough space (and separation) for them to even all have partners living here with them, especially if we build a small accessory dwelling unit in the extra land we have.

Given how much we paid for it, and how much we've paid off, even if they're contributing only for the equivalent of a room rental (and they get more like a suite each) it would allow us to pay off the remaining mortgage very quickly and then we could even drop their cost more.

It hurts us now by costing an extra $2000 per month, but in terms of an investment in the children's future it's going to end up saving them each probably $1500 or more per month compared to a starter unit when they'd normally want to move out.

If they do eventually move out, we can downsize. If they don't, we can just stay a multi-generation house (which is actually what our house was built as) and why it's so big in the first place.

BlameThePeacock ,

The exact same situation is happening in most (if not all) first world countries, regardless of if their government is left or right leaning.

The effects are global, so national policy is going to have only small effects upon the greater trends.

BlameThePeacock ,

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The biggest problem isn't landlords, it's normal land owners.

Around 65% of residential properties in Canada are owned by the people who live in them.

These people expect government policy to allow their property value to increase, and would vote out a government that tanks their home value.

So that's what governments deliver, and prices keep going up.

BlameThePeacock ,

You blame the homeowners not for owning, but for supporting policies that maintain their investment.

Even the rent as equity shouldn't be significant, the actual house depreciates over time and requires repairs to keep it's value. The most important change needed is to make it so that owners NEVER benefit from the value of the land increasing. This can be done in a number of ways, from regular property taxes to applying capital gains to property value.

BlameThePeacock , (edited )

Respectfully, fuck you. You're desperately under-educated on this topic. 65% is near a record high ownership percentage, and if you count people instead of properties the number is even higher (owners have higher average family size)

The vast majority of the remaining 35% is made up of dedicated rental apartments, which of course are owned by investors, any rental by definition has to be an investment.

The thing is that people don't even really want the ownership rate to be higher than that. There are a thousand and one reasons why someone would want to rent instead of own, from being a student, to living in a care home, to even freeing yourself up to be able to move for your career or romantic life. Renting is usually a lot easier than owning. Even when homes were dirt cheap, ownership never went to 80% or anything.

The current problem isn't the percentage, it's the cost.

What we really need to do is control land values, they can't continue going up if we want affordable housing. We have to implement policies that drop land values, primarily by taxing land use. It's the only possible route to affordable housing.

BlameThePeacock ,

"lowest" 69 -> 66.5%

It was 60% in the 90s, when houses were last affordable (3x household income)

I disagree that the market will crater(though that depends on your definition of crater); even Japan which went through this same situation decades ago never even saw prices drop in half from their crazy high peak in the 90s. They're only down about 25%, but they did get as low as around 45%. While those may seem like very good numbers, it wouldn't even come close to making things affordable (3x household income)

Between population growth, and many of those boomers dying and leaving the properties to their kids, there just isn't a way for the whole thing to crater. It may drop a bit, but most likely it's just going to level off and stay unaffordable.

BlameThePeacock ,

If checkout is 11, you need to be able to clean dozens of rooms before check-in. You can't have 20 cleaners come in for an hour, so you have 5 cleaners come in for 4 hour shifts instead.

BlameThePeacock ,

There doesn't appear to be any significant number of trees within a couple kilometers of Bonnyville, it's all perfect square farm property.

What is a good eli5 analogy for GenAI not "knowing" what they say?

I have many conversations with people about Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Copilot. The idea that "it makes convincing sentences, but it doesn't know what it's talking about" is a difficult concept to convey or wrap your head around. Because the sentences are so convincing....

BlameThePeacock ,

It's just fancy predictive text like while texting on your phone. It guesses what the next word should be for a lot more complex topics.

BlameThePeacock ,

It was more the fact that Trump got elected while being not-so-secretly racist that emboldened them. They saw there would be fewer consequences due to it being more normalized, so they could be more open about it.

BlameThePeacock ,

I live in Canada, and I want to live in Canada.

Therefore the title is clearly wrong.

BlameThePeacock ,

This is a very important distinction. Even socialism and communism can use currency to track value.

BlameThePeacock ,

Every Tim Horton's around here will give you a ceramic mug if you ask for it to stay, but the default is to go.

BlameThePeacock ,

Keep drilling boys.

Ignore the flames, it's all a Liberal plot.

BlameThePeacock ,

I'm Canadian, I don't think I've ever paid to go to a park... Though I've only been to two national parks they were both free.

This must be only for the famous tourist parks.

Plenty of natural beauty for those of us that love here for free.

BlameThePeacock ,

The plan they rejected was made by Egypt and.. Qatar (maybe)

Definitely not one of their own proposals.

So your argument here is false.

BlameThePeacock ,

There are materials possible that will completely change the world.

Theres probably a room temperature superconductor for example.

The number of possibilities is effectively infinite though, since its not just which atoms, but also how they're arranged.

BlameThePeacock ,

I only check it once every two weeks, so it wouldn't affect me negatively.

BlameThePeacock ,

I don't agree with this. Clerical error or not, I don't care, she's Canadian. Give it back to her now.

Also, WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY WASTING TIME REVIEWING 30 YEAR OLD CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS?

Get your shit together Immigration Canada.

BlameThePeacock ,

China keeps pushing, how much longer do they think they will get away with it.

Western governments are already trying to distance their economies, once that reaches a tipping point there may be some serious consequences.

BlameThePeacock ,

Corporations don't have a share. Corporations have shares. Shareholders own those shares.

That being said, the single biggest drain on most advanced countries lately has been real estate. The value of which has been increasing far more rapidly than corporate profits.

It's land owners who've been taking too much for the last few decades, as was predicted would eventually happen in the late 1700s and early 1800s by early economists. It happened in Japan 30 years ago, and look where they are today. Tiny homes, overworked, declining population...

What happens to those who are severely disabled while in prison?

For some reason began going down a rabbit hole thinking about this. Let's say you are blind, and reliant on a guide dog, but end up in prison for a non-violent crime like possession of illegal drugs. Are you allowed to keep the dog? No, right? But if you are entirely reliant on the guide dog to perform daily tasks, how do you...

BlameThePeacock ,

A lot of the time, they just suffer without the aid they need.

I varies a lot though, depending on where and what your disability is.

Wheelchairs do exist in prisons. Wheelchair users often use the ground floor cells.

People with guide dogs generally don't need them in the restricted environment of a prison because they can simply memorize the layout like they would their home. Guide dogs are for more dynamic situations usually.

Serious mental disabilities often end up in mental institutions instead of prisons, they're often found not criminally responsible for their actions.

BlameThePeacock ,

You hear about this in the news all the time for mental illnesses.

https://leaderpost.com/news/crime/court-finds-regina-man-not-criminally-responsible-for-killing-his-own-mother

Dude tried to get help four times, failed, killed his mom, was found not criminally responsible and "The judge ordered that Raefe be sent to a psychiatric hospital. Such a setting will be his reality for the foreseeable future"

It also happens in terms of people with diminished capacity, but they're often found unfit to stand trial in the first place. Here's what happens with that in Canada for example.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/reports-publications/mentally-accused.pdf

BlameThePeacock ,

Sexual assault, yes. Rape, no.

He removed her shirt and bra and kissed her without consent. No intercourse (including the standard variants thereof) occurred. She protested, and he drove her home.

That's basic sexual assault based on the legal definitions (there are two higher definitions for using weapons or causing bodily harm) and there is no legal minimum for basic sexual assault (of an adult)

BlameThePeacock ,

I'm not making excuses, I'm being specific and correct. Rape (which isn't defined in the Canadian criminal code) has a very clear definition understood by the public (and defined in law elsewhere) as requiring penetration of some sort.

You're actually defaming him (and therefore guilty of libel under Canadian Criminal law) for accusing him of something which is not true and could harm his reputation further.

In your opinion, how many years of jail should be given to someone who kisses another person without their consent? Or does that part of this situation not warrant jail time? Should there be a mandatory minimum for any form of sexual assault? How many years then for the more serious offence of removing someone's shirt and bra without their consent?

BlameThePeacock ,

He attempted to have an affair. The fact that he stopped when she protested and drove her home instead indicates he didn't attempt or intend to rape her. He still absolutely committed sexual assault though which is why he was found guilty. Consent for any sort of sexual encounter needs to come first, not during or after, and removing someone's shirt and bra definitely requires consent.

When dealing with situations like this, it's important to be very clear and precise. There's unfortunately a lot of actual rapes that occur, and they shouldn't be muddied by situations where someone calls rape when it isn't leading to people downplaying real rapes.

It's the same reason I don't like seeing people put on the sex offender list for public urination just because it happened near a school (even if there were no youth there at the time) or like the case of a man that got put on the list just a couple years ago for writing a short sexual story (completely fictional) simply because it contained teenagers who weren't 18 yet.

BlameThePeacock ,

If writing fictional stories about teenagers having sex should result in being a sex offender, why is George R. R. Martin allowed in Canada?
Game of Thrones (the books) have multiple graphic passages about the rape of minors, Sansa was 12 years old in the books. Even in the show, which aired in Canada, she was still underage.

Your logic is flawed, writing fictional stories shouldn't be a criminal offense, and even with it being illegal in Canada it isn't applied equally.

Rape is sexual assault, sexual assault is not always rape.
Just like an apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

Words matter, and yours aren't correct. They don't align with legal definitions in countries that define rape, with the common dictionary definitions, or with the common public understanding of the word.

BlameThePeacock ,

The law is very pedantic.

and I'm not making an argument, I'm just clarifying terminology.

BlameThePeacock ,

This isn't an Israeli proposal.

Hamas has accepted an Egyptian-Qatari proposal, which Israel is examining.

This isn't some sort of completed deal yet.

BlameThePeacock ,

You should find out who regulates doctors in your province and call them. If these are true, the doctor needs to be investigated immediately.

In the meantime, a second opinion on the new situation is probably in order. If it can be done via tele-health that would be the easiest, if not get her to brave the lines for a walk-in clinic.

BlameThePeacock ,

No corporation pollutes except to produce goods or services for human consumption, or for other businesses that provide goods or services for human consumption.

Every gallon of gas burned is to power a vehicle to move you, or the goods you purchase.

Every natural gas line leads to a house, of a business that sells things to houses.

Theres no such thing as a corporation without consumers, we are where the buck is created, and where the buck stops.

BlameThePeacock ,

The reason why the top polluters in the world are oil and gas companies is because you buy oil and gas directly to drive your car or heat your house, or you buy electricity generated by oil and gas. The metals in your vehicle? Mining companies pollution. The food on your plate? Agricultural companies polluting. Even the shirt on your back burned bunker fuel to get from Bangladesh to your house.

If you think you aren't directly responsible for corporate pollution, you're a fucking moron.

BlameThePeacock ,

You're thinking about this wrong, you choose your lifestyle.

You simply aren't willing to give up your lifestyle to avoid emissions. It's clearly possible to live a less polluting lifestyle, there are billions of people polluting almost nothing compared to Western averages, their lifestyle just doesn't have as many conveniences as yours.

There are North American people who have chosen to live ultra-simplistic lives who pollute almost nothing as well.

That's a choice YOU make. It may not feel like you made a choice, but you do so every day by not changing your behaviors.

BlameThePeacock ,

You realize there are people in North America who do not own cars, right?

I made ethical consumption choices by looking at my three largest personal (and family) pollution sources.

First is Home heating/cooling. If you rank pollution sources, this is the single largest for most north American people. Now here I got lucky, my area uses almost 100% hydro electric power, so I switched to using a heat pump from a natural gas furnace. Now I no longer directly burn fossil fuels, and my grid is almost 100% pollution free as well. If I had not lived in this area, I would have chosen to install solar panels to offset my energy use as much as possible, and possibly participated in a green energy purchase program. It costs more, but the whole point is that if this were easy, it would already be done. You need to give something up to reduce your pollution, and in this case that thing you're giving up is some extra money.

Heat pumps are a no-brainer in this category, Smaller homes pollute less, multi-family homes with shared walls pollute less, homes with better insulation pollute less. There's choices here for everyone. They just either cost extra money, or give up some of your lifestyle.

2nd most pollution, transportation, I bought an EV a few years ago, which while it does have pollution for production over it's lifespan will have significantly fewer emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Again, my electricity here is almost 100% green, or could be in almost every area.

I wasn't willing to go car free because of how far I live outside of a city, and I accept the pollution that results from my choice here. When I lived in the city, I used to have a bus pass AND a car, and I'd frequently leave the car in the driveway to take the bus for many trips.

Transportation can be addressed in so many ways, moving closer to the things you need, mass transit, EVs, etc. Again, Money or Lifestyle costs.

3rd most pollution, food, I cook with significantly less meat than average, we aren't vegetarian, but we almost never eat beef(which is a massive pollution source even compared to other meats) and our portion size for meat from pork and chicken is more for flavor than nutrition. A single pack of bacon in a lentil/vegetable stew covers 10 dinner servings, compared to a single 5 person breakfast, and I bulk out the protein with the lentils. We eat tofu 4-5 times a month, prepared in various ways, etc. Using less meat actually saves you money, alternative protein sources like beans, tofu(which is beans), and lentils are FAR cheaper. We also buy a lot of our produce from our local area(less transportation pollution) and preferably with less fertilizers (heavy pollution source)

Overall, does it cost more money or reduce your lifestyle to pollute less? Yes. That's the choice that consumers make.
You want to have no pollution AND keep your lifestyle the exact same, but it doesn't work like that. Pollution makes things cheaper, that's why companies do it. They wouldn't bother if it was more expensive. Nobody is sitting in a boardroom going: "Man, this coal costs far more, but we need to fuck the environment a little harder so lets keep using it"

BlameThePeacock ,

The pressures are not real, they're entirely social constructs.

The easiest fix is for the government to just tax carbon emissions, like Canada, and turn turn the cost way up. The market (Corporations) will change very quickly if it's cheaper not to pollute.

Will it hurt people? Yes. Costs will go up, but pollution will go down. That's the tradeoff.

BlameThePeacock ,

It's not arrogant, people absolutely cast off social norms all the time. That's how we drive change in our world already.

Remember segregation? We started out of that with people ignoring the rules (on both sides) despite the significant cost.

It's dead simple to stop eating meat from a social perspective, vegetarians are extremely common these days. To add to that, there's no social cost at all for simply reducing meat consumption. None of your friends are going to complain about you serving carbonara instead of steak when they come over.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines