Well said, and you touched on one of the things I like most about Behhaw, that people are actually willing to put effort into writing with sufficient depth to address complex topics authentically, and others are willing to read everything and respond in good faith, even when they disagree.
I browse Beehaw's somewhat-curated-by-defederation /everything quite frequently, too, and I rarely ever have any snarky replies to my comments. It's lovely. Granted, conversation threads are generally quite small, but I don't need an endless firehose of content, so that's not a problem.
I don't have any other Lemmy accounts to compare, but I didn't enjoy reading /everything from a Lemmy app that pulls from it's own feed instead of your logged-in instance feed. On Reddit, I mostly enjoyed smaller niche subs, and very few of the popular ones.
That's terrible, but so are the treatments this article is suggesting. ABA is abuse.
Behaviorism, in general, has lots of research supporting its efficacy in changing behavior, but completely ignores the mental health effects of the trauma from the behaviorist interventions.
This might be made more clear with a thought experiment from Dr Becky Kennedy's mostly-unrelated parenting book, The Good Inside. (Great book, btw. Highly recommended for all parents.) I know a 100% effective treatment for any childhood behavior: when the child engages in the behaviour, lock them outside in a cage overnight. It will take at most 3 treatments and they'll never exhibit that behavior again, guaranteed!
Aside from the hypothetical example obviously not passing ethics review, that's literally how behaviorism research is conducted: the only thing they measure is efficacy in altering behaviour. That's a really low bar.
ABA is "effective" because children are being conditioned to avoid being abused.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I'm still not sure why a 100% inclusion rate is a problem. (With various exemptions for primary residence sales and small business sales, maybe with a $1MM lifetime maximum? idk, just making up a number.)
Are they concerned that people just... aren't going to invest their capital to earn more money if they'll be taxed on the profits? Or is this just a global "race to the bottom" that they won't invest in Canada because they can earn more if they invest elsewhere?
Maybe something like: 50% inclusion up to $100K, 75% inclusion up to $1MM, then 100% inclusion thereafter, and add a mechanism to spread capital gains over several years so people making single-lifetime large capital gains aren't treated the same as people earning millions every year.
That would still incentivize small-business creation and startups without letting multimillionaires off the hook.
Very good video overall, except I don't think he made it clear initially that there's a primary residence exception on capital gains tax, so people might be confused that this tax will affect them when it won't. Similarly, the 1¼ million lifetime small business sale exemption should have been introduced earlier, imho.
Like, the example could have been a $2.6 million small business sale instead, then it would actually compare the old $1 million exemption with the new $1.25 exemption, and the old 50% incision rate with the new 50->66% inclusion rate to get a more accurate "apples-to-apples" comparison.
Napkin math:
Old capital gains tax: about 1 million is exempt, so paying 50% capital gains on remaining 1.6 million is 800K income, at 53% is about 424K tax.
New capital gains tax: 1.25M is exempt, so include 50% capital gains on next 250K, then 66% on the remaining 1.1M. Total capital gains income is 851K. 53% tax on 851K is only $27K more, for $452K, which is a 6.6% increase.
Vs. getting increased services over your entire lifetime from the ultra wealthy paying closer to their fair share? Even a small business owner selling a $2.6MM business comes out way ahead.
Also, do we really want to give doctors a pass for incorporating to shelter their income against income tax for their entire lives then say that's a problem when they're asked to pay closer to their actual fair share income tax when they retire? Really?
And we're worried about people selling their multimillion dollar vacation properties paying more tax?
Anyway, I get the video is trying to be "balanced", and it's close, but it's still biased toward the ultra wealthy.
The new rules aren't even strong enough; the CRA calculates the mileage rate every year, yet BC is letting companies get away with paying about half the CRA rate. Why? Tips should be just that—a tip, not required so they can cover their vehicle costs.
If people can't afford to pay minimum wage + mileage, then they shouldn't get service. Go pick it up yourself, or make a frozen pizza or something. Or take public transit or a (regulated) taxi.
I have some sympathy for those with disabilities who can't drive and need to deal with abysmal public transit wait times, but their disability doesn't trump gig workers' rights to the minimum wage.
In Canada, I've never bothered with a VPN. Nobody in Canada has ever been successfully sued for torrent downloading of media, and BC courts have thrown out mass John Doe cases as a waste of the legal system's time.
Even if it does go to court, there's a principal in Canadian law that damages can be at most three times the value of the good (for punitive damages). For BluRay that's, what, $50? They don't want to go all the way to a judgement to set the legal precedent of a $150 judgement.
Even if courts go beyond treble damages, there's a maximum fine of $5000 for non-commercial infringement. Even that isn't with their legal costs to pursue.
So non-commercial piracy is de facto legal in Canada.
I mean, they can try, but market forces are outside their control.
I don't think the US wanted to have their housing market collapse in 2008 (?), but it happened nonetheless.
It would suck, psychologically, to "lose" 30% of my house's value in a downturn, but it would be better for the economy if that happens. And, really, now that I'm a homeowner, all that really matters is the difference in house values when I go to sell/buy. So a downturn might actually be "good" for me, since the differential between this first and a "better" house would be smaller.
Right now, boomers are selling in hot markets to find lavish retirement, transferring wealth from the younger generation to older on massive volumes.
I don't know the terminology, but so long as the torrent is active, you're uploading. If you selectively download files, then you can only upload the chunks you have downloaded, obviously. Is that "seeding" if you aren't a "seed" with 1.00 availability? idk.
I'd still count that as "seeding" since you're running the torrent for upload only, but idk if there's a precise definition somewhere.
Anyone who's on a variable rate mortgage and hasn't increased their monthly payments significantly is going to be in a lot of trouble when they go to renew.
This might actually lead to housing prices dropping significantly.
I don't think that's an issue. Downloading a partial is a problem on private trackers since there are so few users, but on a public tracker, someone downloading a partial is just making the swarm a bit more robust: they are sharing connections details to other users in the swarm and are able to partially seed part of the content.
Hit & run torrent users are the bigger problem; they add nothing to the ecosystem. But, for example, if there's a "complete early roms for all systems nointro unzipped" torrent, and someone only downloads and seeds the SNES section, then the swarm gets the benefit of someone sharing that section of the content.
You could even get a situation where there are no "seeds" but 100% availability, with different people sharing different sections.
I'm not fully looped in to why Anna's Archive did what they did, but their massive 1TB+ torrent zips are pretty useless for most purposes. I'd be happy to download a partial and seed books in, say, a particular genre, but I'm not going to seed a partial of a massive zip file that's useless to me without the full archive.
I don't think this will affect housing, yet. Not much, anyway. This rate decision has already been widely anticipated and fully priced in to mortgage rates. The language used by the BoC sounds very similar, too, so I don't think there's any signal to the market that will change expectations significantly.
People on variable-rate mortgages will get a bit of relief, I suppose. But that won't move the needle much on housing prices.
As a Canadian, that sounds even worse to me, lol. Elected judges? That's insanity. Judges should never be making decisions based on political expedience.
Judges should be chosen by people who are experts in the law based on their knowledge and experience.
In Canada, I suppose it's loosely political, but it's several steps removed from direct political appointment. The PM and cabinet appoint someone to be the head of the judiciary, confirmed by the Governor General, and Supreme Court judges can be held accountable by the Senate and House in cases of misconduct.
Electing judges would make it worse, not better, imho.
The best solution I've heard for the US wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, it's to make the Supreme Court position last 18 years before becoming a Justice Emeritus (or whatever) that's mostly ceremonial. That takes away the incentive to stuff the judiciary with young judges, and adds stability that each presidential term is 2 justice appointments on a slowly rolling basis.
To add to the other comment, CBC framed this in a very pro-Zionism way. The headline could have been "UofM valedictorian called racist for denouncing genocide".