I think the important difference here is nobody in the US gives a single shit about whatever the hell this is. Someone may have decided to send this guy but I’d be amazed if even 1% of the US has even heard of Intervision and doubly so if even half of those that have heard of it care enough to even watch it.
He’s trying to imitate Putin. Probably go about as well as it has for Putin as well.
Ah, now that I check it again the actual article title is different from the title posted on here. I was referring to the title on here.
This title and article confuses me. After reading the article it seems like there were a few lanes of traffic that were originally normal road lanes, but had been converted to bicycle only lanes at some point, and they are now talking about converting them back into normal traffic lanes. Where is the law in this? This sounds like a civil engineering exercise not a legal one. Did someone sue the government over this? The article title made it seem like the government was trying to ban bicycle lanes, but the article paints a very different picture.
Edit: I’m talking about the title of this post that says “Canadian judge rules law to remove bike lanes is unconstitutional, cyclists have a right to safety”
Edit 2: did the article title change after this was posted? If not this post seems to be violating the rule that the post title must match the article headline.
Wouldn’t reevaluating the road system to meet pedestrian needs better be a far saner response than trying to mandate everyone wear special clothing? Maybe convert a few of those roads from vehicle to pedestrian only and explore options to provide better lighting on both.
What the shit is this? This reads like psychotic ramblings, like the time cube guy or TempleOS. I’m like 90% sure whoever created that site has schizophrenia.
In a normal military this would be a pretty big deal, but Russia has long used the strategy of “keep throwing bodies at them until you win”. That’s also likely the reason their navy and air force are a joke as that strategy doesn’t work so well when you have a finite number of craft to send those bodies on. There’s a reason that Ukraine’s tiny well trained military has been able to use guerrilla tactics to wipe the floor with Russia’s military.
So unfortunately this is likely to make little if any difference, Putin will just find a new piece of meat to stuff into that uniform and then kick him towards the front line. What does make a huge difference though is every time they manage to destroy a piece of Russian hardware (be that a boat, plane, tank, or artillery) as Russia has a very hard time replacing those unlike their practically unlimited supply of cannon fodder.
The platform is a tool, and like most tools it can be used for both good and evil. I agree it’s making the problem significantly worse, but hyper focusing on just the platforms while ignoring the people using them doesn’t seem like the right approach either. I don’t know how to preserve the positive aspects of platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Youtube while also preventing them from being abused to spread hate and lies. I feel like there must be something that can be done to at least improve the situation a little. The various “community notes” features I don’t think were a terrible first step, although they’re also far from a solution. It’s a complicated problem with a lot of potential pitfalls, but one I think is going to be critical to solve and soon because the problem isn’t going away, as long as we have an internet it’s here to stay.
TL;DR: of that whole thing boils down to “the problem is too hard to solve and all the solutions are worse than the problem so don’t even try”. I don’t agree with the premise because if we accept it, then democracy is doomed.
We can not have a functioning society when we can’t even get a majority of the citizens to agree on basic aspects of reality and half the people are convinced the other half are lizard people that are putting mind control drugs in the water supply. A functioning democracy requires an informed and educated populace, and unchecked propaganda, disinformation, and conspiracy theories lead to the opposite of that, particularly when you have a wealthy group that profits from spreading it.
You’re both right which is the real conundrum. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that conspiracy theories and propaganda in our hyperconnected social media fueled internet are incredibly dangerous and rot the foundations of democracy. Democracy can not survive if these kinds of things are left unchecked. By the same token however any mechanism that immediately springs to mind to combat them is ripe for abuse and easily subverted by fascists and totalitarians. I honestly don’t know what the solution is, only that we desperately need one.
Bold of you to assume the MAGATs (including the felon in chief) are smart enough to understand the implied threat/warning.
That does raise an interesting question though. What would happen to those treaties if Canada decided to officially become fully independent of the crown? I don’t think anything is really stopping that from happening other than there not really being a significant upside for Canada.
Also side question, is the king (and I guess the entire royal family) considered a citizen of Canada and all the other countries that apparently never really got their independence from England? That’s got to be incredibly weird for someone marrying into the royal family. “Congratulations you married a royal, here’s your new citizenship to a dozen different countries most of which you’ve probably never set foot in before”.
Well, I suppose that’s kind of like the ultimate veto, “you suck at this so much you’re all fired”. How many times has that actually happened?
As an outsider looking in this seems very weird. I guess the king of England is also technically the king of Canada, but I’m failing to see why that matters even if it’s incredibly strange. I know in England the monarchy is almost entirely symbolic with nearly all the actual governing done by the PM and Parliament. I would assume Canada is the same. Does the monarchy have any actual power in Canada? I believe in England they have a (incredibly rarely used) veto power over parliament but that’s it. Is Canada not the same?
So tipping is complicated in the US. There’s a strong argument to be made that tipping culture in the US has its roots in racism as tips were seen as a way to discriminate against black people in a way that couldn’t be easily proven. The overwhelming majority of wait staff in the US receive non-livable wages with the expectation that the majority of their income will come from tips. As such for many people tips represent a significant percentage of their income. For many tips are not “extra” for doing a great job but instead represent part of their salary that they count on but which can be arbitrarily withheld for any nebulous reason.
This is why not tipping a waiter in the US is not just a statement that they didn’t do a great job, but is an active statement that they did a terrible job. In other countries it’s the equivalent of complaining to a manager about the service, but in the US this can be done in a much more direct far more impactful way without actually having to articulate why you’re upset with the service or even interacting with anyone directly.
To be clear, I am not claiming any of this is good. Tipping culture in the US is terrible and many, perhaps even a majority of Americans would be happy to see it gone, but it’s something of a systemic problem now and doing away with it would require a strong unified approach that in the current political climate seems unlikely.
Sounds like this is less about weakening the US, Trump has that well in hand all by himself, and more about strengthening China and Russia.
They’re being overly sensitive, in most contexts guys is considered a gender neutral term these days. English is just dealing with the slow loss of gender from the language and it’s reached the point where there are so few instances of gendered words left that the ones that are stick out and feel a little awkward. Or like in the case of the parent post where people fixate on the linguistic fossils left in the language and decide to take offense by intentionally interpreting phrases in anachronistic ways rather than modern usage.
It’s the same in the US as well.
Also what the fuck is a “tariff investigation”? It’s hard to believe he’s shying away from saying he’ll raise tariffs again, he’s certainly threatened it often enough, but maybe the TACO title is starting to bother him. Maybe he’s trying to figure out a way to threaten tariffs that won’t look so obvious when he inevitably backs down.