Government funded news are not inherently unbiased. But hypothetically let’s say it is unbiased. The whole reason why a bailout is needed in the first place is because not enough people voluntarily watches these news. Is the next step to ban all other sources of news and make government news the only source of information? That doesn’t sound like a great path to venture down to.
Another main reason why I took off my hat back then was because I was a broke college kid with garbage internet speed and my only computer was a laptop. Torrenting shows sometimes means I need to have my laptop on for days. Now I have an entire homelab setup with a dedicated VM on one of my servers for torrenting and I can afford fast internet. I was pleasantly surprised how efficiently I can torrent when I got back sailing recently.
For me it’s just more power efficient to run a VM on my TrueNAS for this purpose if I need to download very large files over night. It also speeds up file transfer / storage.
If you’re not using the wifi functionality perhaps putting the device in a Faraday cage would prevent anyone from accessing it.
To me the entire article seems to be establishment propaganda that tries to convince people that the current system is working fine and we just need to dump more money in it, which is not a real solution as we don’t have infinite money. Keep in mind a reform doesn’t mean we automatically turns into the US overnight. It might not even include any private component at all. But any reform that cuts waste will impact the various interest groups benefiting from the waste and inefficiencies in the current system and that seems to be what is article is defending against.
See here the problem is when any kind of healthcare conversation starts in Canada the US always gets brought up as a sledgehammer to shutdown any further discussion. I live in the US and nobody thinks the US system is the solution for anything. But there are dozens of working examples in Europe and Asia that are worth learning from. Canadians need to look beyond this continent.
Thank you for the explanation. To me it still seems to be a case of expanding the terminology beyond it’s original meaning given the context. The situation today is more of a country occupying part of another country while laying siege on another part of the said country. If this can be referred to as apartheid I don’t see why it can’t be used on most invasions and occupational wars in human history. Furthermore, I’m too young know what people thinks of South Africa back then, but as far as I can remember South Africa has been seen as a single unit in my lifetime. Hence, referring to Israel as an apartheid state in my mind has the implication of Israel somehow has the right and responsibility of ruling over Palestinian territory. Treating the citizens of an occupied country poorly is bad but shouldn’t automatically qualify as apartheid, even though I agree there are some resemblance in practice.
The case with Israel proper is more interesting because you can make the case that there are some apartheid elements such as the fact only Jews enjoys the right to automatically become Israeli citizens which isn’t available to other ethnic groups that currently resides in Israel. However to my knowledge Israel proper isn’t what most people think of when they make the case that Israel is an apartheid state, even tho imo it makes a more compelling case per definition.
Asking a genuine question regarding the apartheid terminology here. When someone refers to Israel as a apartheid state with regards to Palestinian civilians it always doesn’t make sense to me. Because for that to be true, one needs to consider Gaza and Westbank to be Israeli territory, which I don’t think is a concept that anyone who makes this claim agrees with. To me, that’s like saying North America is an apartheid continent because Canadians and Mexicans don’t get the same rights as Americans in America.
What this guy did is irrelevant to the question whether he should be honoured in parliament due to his past as a member of the SS. Because he was not found guilty of war crimes that’s why he’s allowed to live peacefully here in Canada till this day. However, to be honoured in the parliament there has to be evidence of him done overwhelming good. Not committing war crimes as a former Nazi does not meet that threshold for him to be there.
You don’t need to convince me that not all members of the Nazi party are necessarily evil, I never said they are and I don’t care. The question at hand here is whether the individual should be honoured by Canada as a nation.
The problem I see here stems from the fact that the parliament is supposed to represent all Canadians. Honouring a former member of the SS is inconsiderate to those who have suffered from Nazism as well as their descendants here in Canada. Maybe it’s appropriate to honour him in Ukraine as someone who contributed to Ukrainian independence because many there sees Nazism as a lesser evil than Soviet oppression. However I don’t think that’s good enough of a reason for it to be considered appropriate here in Canada.
In 10 years the West would probably consider India to be too powerful and needs to be contained just like China is today. This may eventually push India to form a close alliance with China and Russia (assuming those two hasn’t collapsed) and the West will have a much bigger problem to deal with than the China Russia alliance today. This is very similar to how China was used as a counterweight to the Soviets during the cold war, and now is forced to ally with Russia to counter western containment measures.
Canadian currently living in the US here. The problem is that these high skill jobs usually pays close to double in the US after taking forex into account. More than enough to pay for the extra cost for healthcare. Not to mention our healthcare system back home isn’t in it’s best shape at the moment. If some of these folks don’t like their red state politics, they can easily move to a blue state instead of Canada where they’re likely to get a massive pay cut.
Because it works, has okay configurations out of the box, and I just don’t really care enough about the points mentioned in this article to make the switch. I only use it for cases where I don’t expect privacy like government websites. As soon as you open an account there they got all your info anyway.
I use Brave as a secondary browser mostly for government websites because sometimes my firefox privacy settings breaks them and since many of them are poorly designed a technical issue over your account may result in hours on the phone to resolve.
“Strong opinions loosely held”
Implying you should have the courage to fight for what you believe is right but not hold onto them once you’re proven wrong.
I learned this as a company culture thing from one of my previous employers and not sure if there’s another source for it. I did not like that employer very much in the end but this quote has been stuck with me since and I live by it.
fedora 38
Except this is shopify’s customer’s data and not their own so the CRA should have to obtain a warrant before they can do that. If they’re allowed have free access to customer data just because it’s tax related then there’s nothing stopping law enforcement agencies to bypass the court system and obtaining any customer data on a massive scale, since they can always make up bogus reasons like “fighting crimes” or “monitor terrorist activities”.
pixel 6 pro in order to use graphene os
Well you still haven’t addressed the most important problem that I’ve mentioned which is the fact currently no one seems to want to watch these news and that’s why they are asking for government funding in the first place. Consumers clearly wants corporate news for whatever reason. What’s the point in funding something that no one wants? This is a chicken and egg problem, if most people in the country actually wants unbiased source of news then they will seek for such sources over the biased ones. As a result advertisers would change their behaviour to favour news that’s more unbiased. Unfortunately people has voted with their viewership that they don’t actually want unbiased news, but ones that are scary, outrageous, or tells them exactly what they want to hear. I can’t see how adding more government funding to the equation is gonna change people’s behaviour.