adamiscool8

Sounds great, hopefully Library & Archives Canada will be more reliable stewards than the Canadian Media Fund who inexplicably decided to abandon and delete their 5 year "pilot" effort to preserve memorable Canadian film and TV content.

>The Canada Media Fund previously operated a YouTube channel called Encore+ in collaboration with Telefilm Canada, Deluxe Toronto, BroadbandTV, Bell Media, and Google Canada. This channel was uniquely dedicated to licensing and making freely available older Canadian content, particularly series and films without an existing streaming service presence or physical home media releases. On November 17 and 18, 2022, official platforms announced that after more than five years of availability, the service (now considered a pilot project) was to shut down on November 30. All media was wiped from both YouTube channels on that date, and the Twitter account and Facebook page with lists of content and discussion were made unavailable.

It means you can strike "some of the most" from my comment and the point remains unrebutted.

>The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.

While that can be your truth, it may be worth re-evaluating because it is not reflecting reality, then:

> In August 1963, Gallup found considerable public opposition to the now-famous civil rights march on Washington in which King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. The poll was conducted about two weeks before the march, at which time 71% were familiar with "the proposed mass civil rights rally to be held in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 28." Of those who were familiar, only 23% said they had a favorable view of "the rally"; 42% had an unfavorable view of it (including 7% who predicted violence would occur) and 18% said it wouldn't accomplish anything. [0]

[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/103828/civil-rights-progress-se...

— or now:

> What is also clear is that sympathy with the movement is no longer at a point where the minority, which has been categorized as being on the fringes, is grossly overshadowed by the majority. A sizeable minority of Canadians (37%) agree (16% strongly/21% somewhat) that while they might not say it publicly, they agree with a lot of what the truck protestors are fighting for [1]

[1] https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/nearly-half-say-they-...

>The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war

War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime.

>The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:

The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly:

* I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1]

In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act:

* §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act.

Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time:

* Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2]

And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3]

>Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?

The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold.

[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc...

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-...

[3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...

>“We do not need allies more devoted to order than to justice,” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Respectfully, it is insane to not recognize the discrete similarities listed, and moreover, how many genocides have their roots in purported "public health measures".

Sure, and at first the Canadian government didn't force indigenous children into residential schools - it just withheld resources and services and used a monopoly on violence to make resistance untenable. Believing that's acceptable behaviour from your government, is certainly... a position.

In any country people are personally and directly affected by subjugation measures directed at their ingroup, I don't think that's particularly controversial.

Point stands regardless, but it is relatively affluent to it's surroundings here: https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/

>Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?”

>Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though.

>Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro.

>Mac: I think I am.

>Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication.

>Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication?

>Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.

Yes, everyone in all of Canada who disagreed with the ruling elite's opinions at the time saw themselves strong-armed and targeted by both legislation and vitriol from public officials. The greater the perceived threat to destabilizing belief in the elite opinion from any subset, the more severe the measures taken - as we saw, including unreasonable wartime actions to force compliance.

Is it no longer the most expensive part of downtown? Obviously there are rich suburbs.

A distinction without a difference. The ruling elite doesn't have to survey the population. They sandbagged the population into alignment with their own opinions, then strong-armed holdouts and specifically targeted them along every possible vector (social, legal, economic, etc.) for their adherence to wrong beliefs. I shudder at how much worse this could get in a fully cashless society.

The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in some of the most affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.

This is the milquetoast approach of most Canadians - a major factor in why Canada, in it's current state, is rather cooked.

Their actions were Charter-protected freedom of expression and the freeze was a Charter-breaching unreasonable seizure.

>Justice Mosley ruled that “the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration” [0]

[0] https://www.aclrc.com/blog/2024/2/1/federal-court-rules-that...

How does this compare to or improve on applying something like SHAP[0][1] on a model? The idea in the first line that "we currently don't understand how to make sense of the neural activity within language models." is..straight up false?

[0] https://github.com/shap/shap

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value#In_machine_learn...

Brood War :)

What drug doesn’t have any potential side effects? The solution is criminalizing public disorder, ideally with a rehabilitative bent. Not wasting public time and money on criminalizing drugs and pursuing possession charges.

If not familiar: https://learnxinyminutes.com/

Funny, I was going to comment how refreshing it is to see a raw Excel data dump instead of insights tortured to whatever agenda by a data science team. Regions and genres would be nice though.

So Bob Lazar was right after all, the aliens might have naturally sourced moscovium for their anti-gravity generators! [0][1]

[0] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AIPC..699.1230A/abstra...

[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/element-...

Imagine the gate agent has called Zone 1 and Zone 2 who are almost finished processing. You, looking at your Zone 3 ticket, start queuing but the gate agent asks you to go back to your seat as your zone has not been called. Do you defer to their authority on principle or trust your own expertise? I think the logical endpoint is rules and obedience are evaluated in context rather than with an authority bias heuristic.

Canada is captured by real estate investors, bureaucrats, and the Century Initiative [0]. So rather than developing national infrastructure and tier 2/3 markets across this giant landmass (like China) to create affordable places to incubate entrepreneurship, they ramp up immigration into "mega-regions" driving up living costs, making everyone risk averse and entrepreneurship untenable.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative

Not really. It doesn't tell us anything except the opinion of a partner. Has S23 resulted in more successful startups, happier founders, higher valuations than W19, S20, W20, S21, W21, S22, and W22? There's no elaboration.

Tweets are often rich media and aren't designed to be one line, but Twitter has a Lists function that does basically this if you're willing to make manual groupings of users by topic.

It has potential. No one should be forced to try things, but if people make an informed choice to become test subjects it’s not something to discourage.

>This is as professional as a certain former US president suggesting we should shine strong light into the body or inject people's lungs with disinfectant. It's not a "hypothesis" it's just you being stupid.

Ultraviolet light treatments introduced into the tracheas of five critically ill COVID-19 patients appeared to be safe and associated with a reduction in the respiratory load of SARS-CoV-2—the virus responsible for COVID-19—in all but one patient, according to a study conducted by Cedars-Sinai. [0]

Maybe people should be trying wild stuff on themselves. Granted they shouldn't make sweeping recommendations from it. But moving fast and breaking things solves more problems than waiting for scientific consensus. Planck's Principle and all that.

[0] https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/reduced-viral-loads-se...

The problem with that line of thinking, to me, is we have state apparatuses fully and ever-increasingly capable of manufacturing crises to compel individuals in ways that would otherwise not be acceptable. On top of that, I see a qualitative difference between a compulsion of labor or rations impeding bodily autonomy in a superficial sense, and the compulsion of injections (or lobotomies, or sterilization) which seems to strike a deeper and more serious infringement on bodily integrity. Given those factors, I think it's very crucial that societal decisionmakers err towards preserving individual independence and are not misleadingly guided towards other ends.

Schooling is mandatory but schools are not. That process is maybe arguably risky, but also not irreversible.