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

Hacksaw OP ,

With the trucker convoy sticker and the anti-trans save our children sticker, I'd say the ods are is horrible.

Hacksaw OP ,

I saw it on the 417 between Ottawa and Montreal. This picture is in Ottawa.

Hacksaw OP ,

There were at least 50 of these flags across 30 or so cars that I saw. But yeah, those aren't HUGE numbers so if they organized offline and distributed the flags among themselves it could be about anything.

Hacksaw OP ,

Adanac strikes again!

Hacksaw ,

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

Hacksaw ,

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink's first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. "I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard," Arbaugh said. "I cried." He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information..

Hacksaw ,

This was a known problem that they didn't fix on the animal models before moving to human trials. They learned nothing. All they did was scrap someone's brain. But I'm sure it's no big deal, he was a cripple right, he should be happy to be part of this /s

Hacksaw ,

That's just untrue. There are a lot of options between "give up" and "proceed irresponsibly". After all the animals they've scrapped why are the human subjects having the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS that were identified in the animals. This is Musk's typical "fail fast" strategy to advance research faster, but in the medical field the failures damage real humans.

Completely irresponsible!

The FDA regulatory failure with neuralink is as bad as the FAA's failure with Boeing.

Hacksaw ,

Yeah, housing can't be an investment AND affordable. Investments have to grow faster than inflation. Affordable things can't do that.

That being said it's hard to blame "homeowners" because the goal is to make more people into homeowners, it's kind of backwards to antagonize the goal itself.

Certainly though the current perception needs to change, you don't buy a house as an investment, you buy it so that you get to keep your "rent" as equity, and you get to lock down your "rent" over 25+ years so that it effectively gets cheaper in relation to your income.

Hacksaw ,

Everyone is out here defending landlords saying things like "there are good and bad landlords AND tenants". Just the fact that 99.4% of rent is collected ON TIME shows the problem isn't tenants. If 99.4% of landlords were "good landlords" we could have a "both sides suffer" argument but we're at least 50% away from that.

Hacksaw ,

Damn, you'd have to be completely brain dead to still believe anything is more efficient than single payer healthcare. The US has the worst outcomes for the highest cost in terms of life expectancy. Same with roads, utilities, schools etc... the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.

A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it's atrocious. An unregulated market has never produced good outcomes on any scale larger than the board of directors.

If you're seriously summarizing the libertarian agenda then I can't believe any one over 14 could hold these ideas unless they were VERY sheltered from reality.

Hacksaw ,

If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/ef0befec-1f44-41ff-8f85-4a1b42fc2e4f.png

Hacksaw ,

Wow, you seriously still believe that corporations compete with eachother in the healthcare sector despite the fact that most insurance companies have a "network" specifically so that they don't have to compete with eachother? How is healthcare a competitive market that drives towards efficiency exactly? The more you privatise healthcare the lower life expectancy you get and the higher you all pay!

Hacksaw ,

Exactly. To me all the basics of life, the bottom tiers of Maslow's pyramid can't be privatised. Healthcare, utilities, education, infrastructure, social safety nets, you need those things as a PREREQUISITE to participation in the market. The market can't provide its own prerequisites. If you don't provide these things you simply cannot have a competitive free market in the first place.

Hacksaw ,

If you listen to online libertarians they seem to believe everything is on the tables. Utilities have already been partially privatised and they've successfully impressed the classification of broadband as a utility which would have improved service, accessibility, and price at the cost of corporate profit.

Hacksaw ,

Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.

The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it's hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).

Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they're close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system

Hacksaw ,

That's fair.

It's very frustrating seeing someone argue for disproven theories (like the government is less efficient than the free market in arenas most countries have socialised) using easily disprovable statements (like single payer healthcare would be more expensive to US citizens than the private system you have now). Especially when those ideologies can only hurt everyone.

I do apologize for the tone since you have been respectful and I have been less so. You don't deserve the rudeness but your ideas don't deserve the consideration they get in civilised society either.

Hacksaw ,

Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It's the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we're obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement "we're obligated to help eachother"

I don't understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government's monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?

The whole "government monopoly on violence" is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What's the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally "the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws", and "the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people" and "apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them". I'm in no way saying that it's working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it's certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We're closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I've seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.

Sticky trick: new glue spray kills plant pests without chemicals ( www.theguardian.com )

The insect glue, produced from edible oils, was inspired by plants such as sundews that use the strategy to capture their prey. A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies, while bigger...

Hacksaw , (edited )

It's not because they're gross, it's because they eat our food. And we grow monocultures so it's a perfect breeding ground for pests. Also if you read the article the new pesticide is physical and doesn't harm large predatory insects.

Hacksaw ,

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

Hacksaw ,

I'm not fighting you. It's just you're acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn't because we need it to protect our food source.

I'm not even saying that there isn't some possible alternative, I'm just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It's how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It's in the research phase too, so it's not like we're committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You're not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn't harm bees is already a massive improvement.

Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that's better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.

As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don't know why that was contentious to you. We don't kill bugs because they're gross, we kill them because they eat our food.

Hacksaw ,

It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️

In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!

Hacksaw ,

Using sustainable practices "they only eat a little" is totally valid. The way we farm now.... A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.

I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can't tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I'm not an accelerationist so I'm not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.

Hacksaw ,

I like what you're saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That's even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.

I'm personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can't happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don't think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the "middle men" jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don't think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don't think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can't get certain things most of the year? I think we're too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.

I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway "ew bugs" comment.

Hacksaw ,

Oh my god YES. Don't accidentally snitch on someone doing you a solid.

Hacksaw ,

Montreal is a long way from having the kind of culture where they can have no garbage cans AND no litter. Let's just put some garbage cans in problem areas and reduce the trash problem.

Hacksaw ,

LMAO, that's a MADE UP job. It literally doesn't exist. The amount of mandatory safety training from working in any factory environment excessedes that. That's before you can start learning how to use the production software and automation that the company uses to measure productivity. Finally you have to do the actual task and learn the processes and exceptions that have made it so that the job isn't cost effective to automate in the first place.

Now that's a big company environment. Big companies are the only ones with the economies of scale required so that your can even have employees that only do one thing. At a small company everyone has to wear many hats and there is no such thing as an person that does only one job "you could learn in 10min"

It's easy to imagine "unskilled labour" when you make it up in your head. What sucks is when you then use it to dehumanize and underpay real humans because of your made up fantasy of unskilled labour.

Hacksaw ,

Yes, when you dismiss everything these jobs require as "not skills" then anything can be unskilled labour. Yeah of course working safely in an industrial environment isn't a skill, even babies can do it, that's why conservatives everywhere are trying to bring back child labour!

Broken teeth and infected gums: 46K claims filed so far with Canadian Dental Care Plan ( www.cbc.ca )

Massive cavities, mouthfuls of broken teeth, bleeding gums and abscesses — they're just some of the serious dental issues Dr. Melvin Lee has treated in less than two weeks of providing care under Canada's new public dental insurance plan.

Hacksaw ,

I doubt it. The provincial governments already run massive "health insurance" programs in Canada, this would not have been an impossible task to add a small dental program that only covers a fraction of the population to that.

Private "health insurance" cannot be cheaper than public. You have expenses which are the cost of people going to the dentist. And you have revenues, which are paid for through taxes. The only math that changes is that private insurance also adds profit for shareholders on top.

This is purely about privatizing Canadian healthcare.

Hacksaw ,

That's fair.

It's funny, conservatives seem to be able to make Canada shittier no matter what. We try to get dental care in the provinces but they'll stop it's implementation. So now we have to pay extra to get the private sector to fund it, and they win again since we just privatised some of our healthcare.

Hacksaw ,

They won't win burger or sausage or anything like that. You can already put what you want in those, breadcrumbs, vegetable protein, fruits and vegetables, various flavours and spices, and it's still a burger/sausage.

The milk I get. Milk was highly controlled in terms of what adultrants were allowed, so when they say "we can't even add extra aspartame, but they can make the whole thing out of oats?" They get a lot of traction. Now why they wanted to add aspartame I don't have a fucking clue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/03/06/173618723/can-milk-sweetened-with-aspartame-still-be-called-milk

Hacksaw ,

That's very true.

I'm just saying that Milk is a regulated term that's already been used to stop the milk industry from misbehaving so it's easy for the milk industry to use it to keep out competitors. Burgers, sausages, and other highly mixed foods aren't regulated the same way and I don't expect the meat industry to have any success on those fronts outside of rogue states like Florida.

Hacksaw ,

Well it was originally designed to stop the dairy industry from putting weird stuff in milk, so there definitely a need because they kept trying to put weird stuff in it.

Hacksaw ,

Being a regulator is like being a teacher. There is one kids who keeps putting crayons in his nose so you make a no crayons in your nose rule to stop him and it works great until this one kid uses crayons in nostrils to make amazing pictures for a talent show and suddenly the first kid says "hey I thought you said no nose crayons, why is she allowed crayons now"

The main problem is that it's actually super hard to have a regulatory definition of "milk" that forces the dairy industry to not put stuff in milk, but also allows up to 100% of the product to be oats.

Vegan steak will be difficult for the same reasons. But I would guess vegan sausage, burgers, nuggets, boneless wings etc... will be very easy to approve since some products are already more fillers than meat already lol!

Hacksaw ,

I know it feels easy to armchair regulate but it's not usually that easy. Like if you keep current milk regulations but then let people add a word before milk to escape the rules (to allow oat milk for example) then the dairy industry will pull shit like "pure milk" and "super milk" to escape the rules. It's a cat and mouse game as soon as you start adding exceptions.

Milk is one of the longest regulated foods because the dairy industry misbehaves so much. The industrialisation of milk was so bad it caused tuberculosis outbreaks among other things.

I'm not saying there isn't a good solution, there are always many good solutions possible. All I'm saying is not to forget that there is a reason the word milk was regulated for so long. Whatever exception is carved out for almond milk has to be well constructed enough not to weaken the current milk standards, yet broad enough to allow for any variety of plant based milk and that's going to take some serious expertise. Enshrining plant based milks in a well thought out regulation is going to be the best way to stop this whole "only animal milk is milk" stuff. Until then the dairy industry is going to keep using the regulation to its advantage whenever it can to keep others out of the market.

Hacksaw ,

Until then the dairy industry is going to keep using the regulation to its advantage whenever it can to keep others out of the market.

I don't know what's confusing.

1.A regulation was created to control what you can and can't put in the product called "milk" for the good of the customer.

2.The dairy industry used the regulation that was built to restrain them to keep vegan milks out of the market dishonestly using the "for the good of the customer" argument.

3.If someone can fix the regulation to allow both well regulated milk and non dairy milks then it'll put an end to this bullshit.

Where have I lost you? Just because 2 happened doesn't mean 1 didn't happen first. In fact 2 would have been a lot harder if there wasn't regulation controlling the word milk in the first place.

How come liberals dont hate conservatives the way conservatives hate liberals

I constantly see angry mobs of people decrying "woke", "critical race theory", ""grooming"", and whatever other nonsense they made up this week. They march around with guns, constantly appending lib as a prefix to any word they can use to denigrate. They actively plot violence and spew hatred in the open....

Hacksaw ,

A lot of the responses are correct, but there is one aspect being missed.

Liberals don't NEED to hate conservatives. There are real problems in the world that the left is trying to remedy.

Conservatives NEED to hate the left. Modern conservatism (and some would argue all conservatism) doesn't have any moral ideology. There is nothing they're fighting to for. Conservative ideology is the idea that there is a group that the law should protect but not bind and a group that the law should bind but not protect. To push this, an out-group has to be created and hate is the only way to dehumanize someone enough to treat them the way conservatives treat women, minorities, LGBTQ+ etc...

Conservatives hate Liberals because conservatism doesn't work without hate. They hate because they NEED to.

Hacksaw ,

*to profitably retrofit.

Office buildings have too much "inside space". Regulations, and human life, requires windows for residential living areas, so this inside space is "wasted" in office to apartment refits. There are tons of great ideas on what to do with this space in terms of community space, but very few profitable ones. Once commercial rents crashe and these buildings lose most of their values you'll be surprised what becomes profitable again lol.

Hacksaw ,

I definitely think this is a great answer, with the only caveat being that working in a space that doesn't have windows all day is pretty lame. I'd like to see what that would look like.

I believe the hurdle for that might be regulatory. For good reason in my opinion because mixing residential and commercial/retail on the same indoor floor has a lot of unique considerations that I'm not sure have been looked at. Letting real estate hedge funds decide based on profit only will be a nightmare lol

Hacksaw ,

I like this because he uses words conservatives understand so he can reach a broader audience. Negative income tax is a MUCH BETTER name than UBI for the same thing.

I don't agree with everything he says but his messaging is almost revolutionary.

US has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure ( www.politico.eu )

The U.S. is concerned that targeting Russia’s energy facilities will impact the Kremlin’s oil production capacity and drive up global prices — ahead of a knife-edge presidential election where prices at the gas pump are bound to be a contentious topic....

Hacksaw ,

Well it's not nonsense. If Ukraine does something that helps Trump get elected everyone's fucked. He'll immediate stop supplying Ukraine and start sucking Putin off.

The US isn't saying we'll punish you if you keep doing this, they're just warning them that this can have undesired effects.

Personally, I think we should all accept some pain and just do a full trade embargo on Russia and Israel until they put their military back in their countries where they belong.

Afghan girls as young as 16 arrested in shops, classes and markets in Kabul by the Taliban, who labelled them ‘infidels’ for wearing ‘bad hijab’ ( www.theguardian.com )

The girls – who were detained in shopping centres, classes and street markets – were accused of “spreading and encouraging others to wear a bad hijab” and wearing makeup....

Hacksaw ,

You start off strong then move straight to supporting the fucking Taliban, as if that's a reasonable position to take.

I agree, the article is likely highly sensationalized, but let's be clear the Taliban are a piece of shit government with extremely regressive and repressive views. Maybe this shit doesn't happen in Kabul, but Kabul seems bad enough that women can only show their faces and most are even too afraid to do that. That shows you that it's a TERRIBLE place to start with even in the best places. Unfortunately many people don't live in Kabul and it seems that the government isn't going to do anything to stop regional authorities from abusing their power and any young woman they can get their hands on.

Don't travel to Afghanistan. Every dollar that goes to Afghanistan supports religious oppression.

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