They have an NGO, some directors and a lawsuit they are working on for constitutional challenge against the mandate by one of the Constitution drafters.
1,043 karma · joined January 6, 2021
Polarized in every way imaginable.
Without that regulatory backing, it would be dead under a year.
There is however evidence of many false claims, later walked back, just like the assault at the shelter, which as it turns out, was: 1) verbal assault 2) did not involve anyone from the convoy. Conveniently that claim was spread by a charity mostly funded by the City of Ottawa (10mil), of which 9 mil goes to salaries and only 450k to groceries and 850k to programs.
Disgusting.
As for the residents of ottawa, living in the nation capital, and not expecting boisterous protests is plain privledge and entitlement. That’s what you see in the mirror every morning: privilege and entitlement.
Calling a strike an insurrection is an insult to millions in Canada who have fled actual wars. It’s also an insult to every socialist that supports the right of workers to organize and strike, that you want to now shutdown with martial law.
Disgusting.
Oh, truckers can find another job if they don’t like the jab? So you can move to another city too.
Just like the jab, nobody forces you to live in Ottawa, it was YOUR. CHOICE.
and what do they say?
Welcome to the concentration camp.
Is it just the creep factor they want to avoid, by making you do the performative act of installing the tracker yourself, and thus "consenting"?
Therefore, we must install it right into your car, preferably at the factory, so you cannot remove it easily to make sure the spying data we get is of the highest quality.
They just want to spy on you, and with time control your car remotely, and they'll come up with all sorts of pretzel logic to justify it.
Spying. There are no other reasons.
I don't think I'd support doxxing every construction worker and ruining their future lives, and it wasn't even a political protest.
If we start villifying protests, democracy is finished, and we are back into the feudal days. Which seems to be the trend these days anyway, so perhaps it's all moot.
e.g. would Americans donating to Amnesty International in Canada be considered an act of political interference? Seems like a stretch. People donate to charities of their choosing globally all the time, in fact, quite often to NGOs/charities that disagee with their local governments on quite a few things.
What is the CSIS act, and it's "political protest protections"? Seems really weird, you'd expect the fundamental right to protest in a democracy would be constitutionally enshrined, rather than "protected" under some law. This right is presumed, and the constitution simply recognizes its existence, but maybe in monarchies this is different, and rights are bestowed on the subjects by the monarch?
It seems to me, that if you need a law to "protect" the right to protest, you might be living in a country that isn't quite a democracy.
Also, you could sign-up for the antipode service, for only $50 a month, which will reply on your behalf to such AI-generated postcards.
Soon, we'll just have chatbots congratulating each other on birthdays and such.
Isn't life wonderful? /s
People make the argument "it will boil the ocean". Is this not the claim, roughly speaking?
..but why is it renewables cannot service reliably and inexpensively just 1% of demand?
I have no problems with renewables, but interplanetary civilizations subsisting on windmills is just fantasy.
Amazon hasn't been profitable on paper for decades. Tesla took until 2021 to make a profit.
You'd underperform terribly if you were to wait until they make a profit, as markets are forward looking and you are paying attention to trailing indicators.
Profits today for an organization size of Amazon is execution of a plan put in place 5 years ago.
If you are about to dive into value investing: Berkshire made most of their money from Apple, which was a side bet made by a hired portfolio manager, not Buffett himself.
What does Putin (and many others) gain, if he no longer has to do that for international trade?
Criminals usually lead technology adoption, as they don't have any moral or legal constaints, real or imagined.
Just announced he will back Bitcoin mining in Russia: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/putin-backs-bitcoin-min...
How did CO2 become such a big focus?
Seemingly to detriment of all else, including persistent pollutants or neonics, etc? Like those very real problems happening today, vs 2100.
We were told renewables are cheap and plentiful, but it turns it they cannot even power 1% of the demand?
Why do reneweables scale so poorly?
If it becomes the global reserve currency, and remains accessible to everyone - the world would end up on a disinflationary Bitcoin standard.
In a disinflationary/deflationary environment the cost of borrowing/interest rates goes up, thus the leverage that is fueling asset inflation is removed. Blackrock doesn’t buy single family houses cash, they have access to the fed discount window.
During the gold standard we’ve had prices stable for hundreds of years in some examples, so at least we’ve seen that historically prices can be quite stable.
Today, land has become the primary saving vehicle and that’s less than ideal.
Personally I’d love to see land demonetized as an asset via Georgist taxes.
We’ve been promised apocalypse by now several decades ago, and literally nothing changed.
CO2 is just a misdirection away from actually dangerous things such is persistent chemical pollutants we dump into the ocean by millions of tons that cause widespread hormonal disruption or outright toxicity.
that is happening today, not at some unspecified point in the future. So weird nobody seems to be concerned about that.
Another is a 2018 paper on “mining very bad mmkay” from an author who lunched his own proof of stake coin and now has undeclared conflicts of interest measured in billions. Presented as an impartial credible source.
The entire “lecture” just appears to be an ideology piece for those that enjoy Malthusian doom porn.
Which is fine, I guess, if you go to a Jesuit academy instead of Stanford.
He just can't help but keep repeating the word carbon carbon carbon carbon e-waste carbon carbon, but is seemingly unable to utter the forbidden 'nuclear' word at all. Could be a California thing, I suppose. They seem to prefer rolling blackouts to advancing technology for mundane everyday things like energy, as it appears.
Another, totally unbiased and very academic reference is to a blog named: LAWFARE, specifically an article: "How to Start Disrupting Cryptocurrencies: “Mining” Is Money Transmission". Absolutely no agenda here, nuh-uh.
He then proceeds to cite a 2018 paper on decentralization of mining, from IC3, which is headed by Professor Gun, as a supposedly credible source on bitcoin and ethereum mining. Professor Gun launched his own coin around the same time the cited paper was published, and at the current market rates his conflict of interest is measured in single digit billions at the very least. Good for him, but does not make for an impartial research reference, would you cite Peabody Energy on benefits of coal, do you expect them to say it's terrible?
This lecture is simply just DR peddling carbon alarmist dogma and malthusian doom porn for your consumption.
You've literally just read an ideology piece with references conflicted in billions and you believe it's accurate and well researched.
If this is what passes for expensive "education" at a high-ranked university in the US, many more things I found rather puzzling about that country are immediately clear.
The early internet was a unique time and place. Crypto reminds me of that today, and really the only place that does.
Bitcoin just demonstrated renewable energy cannot scale in practice.
If only 1% of the electricity demand cannot be sustainably and economically be supplied by renewables, some serious re-thinking about strategy is in order.