Tout investissements comporte des risques de perte.
Ça on le sait. Mais quand la société prend le risque en question, on s’attend à ce que la société puisse bénéficier des éventuels profits! Hydro est un bon exemple.
Ce qui n’est pas normal c’est quand la société assume le risque, mais que c’est le privé qui ramasse les profits. Bombardier est un bon exemple de ça.
If the west, especially the US had not invested so heavily in Ukraine, do you think there would be a protracted war right now?
Probably not, Ukraine just wouldn’t exist anymore. How is that better?
If any country is guilty of that, I only know of one country in the world
There are a few countries like that, actually. There used to be other ones, too. The fact that one does it does not excuse the other. And no, it’s not okay that one does it “because they’re the good guys” either (altough I don’t think many people outside that country think they’re the good guys, really, I certainly don’t).
I still don’t understand why it was such a big deal…
I get that blackface is an issue in bigger productions because yeah, they should really cast a black actor instead of putting makeup on a white one, but this was (as I understand it) a high school play where an actor of the correct race was probably not available (I know it would’ve been hard to find where I went to school), and even then, it most definitely wasn’t a paid gig, so the issue around stealing jobs is completely moot.
Is it insensitive? Oh yes. Is it actually hateful towards black / brown people? I don’t think so.
“They should learn the value of hard work” is on a completely different level, IMO. As if they don’t work as hard as anyone else.
Air temperature is strictly in celcius in Québec. I have no idea what it means to set the thermostat to 70F. Is it hot, is it cold, who knows 🤷
Well, yes. But when all your friends are already on Facebook Messenger, good luck getting them to install Signal only to talk with you. Network effects are important; a messaging app has no use when you have nobody to message on the app. Supporting SMS was taking advantage of its network effect, and I don’t think their network was big enough to be self-sustaining for most users (it wasn’t in my case, my only contact in there is my wife).
I wasn’t actually quoting this, but yeah, I think that’s the point. Supporting SMS was helping adoption by promoting a seamless transition for users. Dropping it feels like prioritizing #2 to me. (All this comment thread about opsec, compartimentalization, activism, etc is really about #2, IMO)
Well, I happen to disagree. I’m a privacy-conscious person, but I’m not an activist. Most of my contacts in real life (i.e the people I need a messaging app to talk to) are non-technical, and not really privacy-conscious. They’re not going to install a different app just to talk to me. The big draw of TextSecure (before it became Signal) was that they could just set that as their default SMS app, and it’d magically start to send encrypted messages if the other end was also using TextSecure, and they had to change exactly 0 of their habits.
I guess it depends on how you view it:
I thought the goal was 1, but turns out it was 2. All my contacts are now back to Facebook Messenger…
Signal had something good when it could simply be your default messaging app on your phone, and it’d transparently send either encrypted messages, or plain-text SMS. Now that they’ve removed SMS, they’ve just turned into a worse Whatsapp (because nobody is on it). Network effects are important in messaging apps.
Ça dépend t’es où… À Montréal ou dans les autres grandes villes, je suis d’accord avec toi. Mais dans d’autres villes comme Trois-Rivières, qui vient d’y aller all-in avec encore un autre power-center à la 10-30 (ils l’ont même appelé 40-55), faut densifier avant que le transport en commun puisse avoir du sens.
Et dans mon cas, j’habite dans un petit village de moins de 1000 habitants. Le transport en commun ça arrivera jamais ici. Au moins tout est assez proche dans le village pour faire tes commissions à pied (et le monde marche vraiment beaucoup, même l’hiver), mais souvent faut aller dans le village voisin alors là ça prend un char. Les autos électriques c’est une excellente option pour nous.
Je vois ça comme une solution de transition. Ça va prendre du temps avant qu’on puisse réduire l’auto solo et défaire les erreurs d’urbanisme des 60 dernières années (et mêmes celles des ~10 prochaines, si la tendance se maintient). En attendant, on doit faire quelque chose immédiatement pour réduire les GES, et l’auto électrique est une solution applicable beaucoup plus rapidement que de revoir entièrement notre façon de se déplacer.
Comme on dit, don’t let perfect (l’élimination de la voiture) be the enemy of the good (l’auto électrique). On va y venir, faut continuer à faire pression et à orange-piller nos élus, mais en attendant faut pas chier sur les solutions à court terme sous prétexte qu’elles ne sont pas parfaites.
La subvention sert à accélérer la transition, parce que veut veut pas, il y a quand même encore une bonne différence de prix. Le fait d’avoir une subvention rend la différence plus faible, alors le choix est plus facile. À mesure que la différence va diminuer (et mettons que les moves des fabricants automobiles ne sont pas tellement encourageants à ce niveau, juste à voir ce qui arrive à la Bolt), la subvention va devenir moins nécessaire.
On pourrait aussi jouer sur les taxes à l’achat, comme la Norvège, mais je crois que légalement c’est plus complexe.
The real cheat code is to work for a US company (and get paid in USD), yet live in Canada (and have expenses in CAD).
Casse-Croûte St-Caz a une excellente poutine à St-Casimir. Le fromage est frais, les frites sont un exemple parfait de la bonne frite de petit casse-croûte, et la sauce a un petit quelque chose de légèrement poivré qui donne un bon petit kick à l’ensemble. 10/10 à mon avis.
Disclaimer: Je suis parent avec les proprios, mais elle est vraiment bonne, leur poutine.
I think you could probably argue that ethical veganism is a deeply held belief that humans are not inherently superior to other animals, and that said animals also have emotions, etc.
This would address 3 as it would definitely govern one’s conduct and practices: not exploiting animals in any way.
I would also argue that it addresses ultimate questions about human’s place in the living world, partially addressing 4.
Also, looking at federal law (https://www.justice.gc.ca/fra/sjc-csj/dlc-rfc/ccdl-ccrf/check/art2a.html), looks like “liberté de conscience et de religion” should be interpreted widely:
So Ontario’s interpretation here is potentially unconstitutional, especially if their decision hinges on something as minor as what a belief system has to say about a Creator.
EDIT: Not a vegan at all, but I can understand the ethics.