vivekd

No your statement is incorrect. We do have safe supply in Canada. The CBC even wrote an article defending our safe supply program.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7071004

And this is a part of my problem with all this. I live in Toronto's downtown core and the explosion in drug issues since these policies came into effect is something I see and live with. And it's the same in our other major cities.

And too often the response from the proponents of these policies is outright misinformation, accusations of moralism. As someone living in an area where I am watching a drug problem spiral out of control, this is frankly infuriating.

This is my city and I see these people with addiction as neighbors I want to help. But these policies don't appear to be helping them. It looks to me like it's making things worse

If it's so good, if it's so helpful, why are there tent encampments full of people with drug issues popping up. We have shelters so it's not an issue of lack of shelters. Why are there so many more people high or doing drugs on our streets, why are overdose deaths the same or higher

Without the moralism, harm reduction is a vague term. Here in Canada the government has been pushing safe supply as a part of harm reduction. We still get the same number of overdoses but our cities are now filled with tent encampments and people with addiction issues. It doesn't seem to have helped with anything it's just made things worse

I don't deny that there are some forms of harm reduction which are proven to be effective. But I also think it's a vague weasel word for just give them drugs or just make it all legal. Which is not a good policy as we have seen here.

Ironically just using vague terms like harm reduction without putting forward a specific strategy is a sort of moralizing of its own

>For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time,

Im sorry but this is one of the saddest things I've ever read. As a Canadian of this was my experience of Canada I would be doing everything I could to get out. Thankfully it isn't yet, but things definitely are not looking good and I am worried about the future

Plastic is only cheap because it's a byproduct of oil. It'll stop being as cheap and plentiful if we stop producing oil and we'll naturally move to cheaper substitutes

Although I don't think oil use is going to end anytime soon

Well front page of HN right now is an article about how AI aided in the development of a new antibiotic

I mean maybe not the single most important development, but definitely a very important technological development with the potential to revolutionize multiple industries

I think even the worst climate change is something we can survive. And there's no question we can survive without fossil fuels - there are more expensive alternatives.

Running out of stuff like copper or sand I don't think we can survive. But like with fossil fuels no serious researcher thinks we are even close to running out of that stuff.

You're just not following the point - for example we could make laws requiring all cars to have pedestrian safety monitoring and driver attention detection. That would be safer.

We don't because of cost.

With airbags we're just used to legislation for them but the same argument applies. It's not enough to say a recall is safer we have to measure the cost vs actual safety of the existing airbags

It's a strange thing with people and existing safety laws vs actual safety. For example I've advocated barriers with automatic doors at Subway and train stations to prevent pushers, jumpers falls etc. this would increase safety but no one wants to because of the cost

That's what I thought initially too, but reading the article, it seems like it's just requiring age verification for accessing adult material. If we are concerned about censorship - I have to say that ship has long ago sailed. I don't have a problem with blocking porn or steps preventing kids from accessing porn

Why is there even a debate? What's the goal here get 100% of the population of the world to vote in some climate measure?

Isn't that the most ridiculous possible approach to solving the climate issue?

If you think the current system is motivated by the public good our values are so different there's no point talking. This is the system that gave rise to the corporations and abuses some claim to hate.

But if you agree it's not a system motivated by the public good and want me to join you in pretending it is and helping it grow while it doesn't serve the public good, our values are still too different.

I think the start is fix the system first to make it about the public good. Once we fix it then we can grow it and give it all the unlimited power and influence you want. But we can't do that because a large segment of the population has an ideology that prevents legitimate criticism of the government and will defend any aspect of it

You're getting lost in words not touching substance. I can distill it to this - If private contractors did warrants we'd be better off because there are no ideologically driven zealots who will defend and excuse it if they had weak security like a signature and nothing else. Thus they would be forced to have a basic workable security system. This can be extrapolated to every other area

How would google lose money if stalkers broke into my Gmail? No it's because in every other area besides government we have standards of security because government is the only place where people tolerate, accept and even defend massive security lapses

There's a large group of the population that has an ideological frenzy to defend government no matter what so they're able to get away with terrible lapses like this

You don't need a standard procedure followed all over the world. You just need some authentication procedure that's better than an easily forgable signature. I gave a few examples of the top of my head in the parent.

This is why I would rather have profit hungry corporations manage things than governments. Because with government there's always a legion of people rushing to excuse and explain away even the most serious examples of ineptitude and mismanagement.

Would you accept it if Facebook or Google let people login to user accounts via signed letter? So why is a signature enough for a search warrant?

A signature is not an acceptable method of authentication in 2023 for important documents. I don't see how that's not obvious.

Seems like the government's fault. In every other area of even marginal importance we have better and more advanced authentication systems. Yet governments the world over continue to use signatures.

I mean something as simple as a piece of paper with a password that lets you find an authentication info in the court website. An email. Or even an automated phone or email address that lets you authenticate online

These discussions are exasperating for me because I always go where? Where in this world is this strong government that's controlled by the average joe and not by the rich or high born. It seems like some enlightenment era utopian fantasy that people haven't grown out of

That was my initial reaction, I mean was the PSF going to stop sponsoring all conferences in America when Trump won because they think building the wall makes Latino's feel unsafe? Singling out African nations like this does reek of colonial style paternalism

Yes thank goodness those monopolies are gone and our cities are all clean and safe from fires and our sewage and road infrastructure is in top condition

I think he means the Republic (Roman democracy). The non democratic Roman Empire would continue to on for some time after that

I don't think people voted for Trump because he promised tax cuts for the rich. I think it was the other stuff like building a wall and appointing anti abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

I hope no one other than a strange fringe minority believes in trickle down. I haven't seen it argued often. I think most people agree that tax schemes favoring the rich are unfair

I mean wouldn't you fire her? Imagine someone in Ford's board wrote an article criticizing Ford's approach to cars and saying that Mazda was doing a much better job

There's a huge portion of people here that really hate our government. I'm one of them. This whole law was a result of legacy media lobbying for that law, a lot of smaller Canadian media outlets and small content creators opposed it. Everything is like that here, the government is ruled by special interests.

Even this law, the government abused parliamentary process and the COVID situation to avoid having this law debated in parliament before it was passed. They don't care about democracy, they don't care about the rule of law, they don't care about anything, they just do what benefits them and their friends.

I hate Canada's politically connected elite, and honestly prefer facebook

Canadian here, many Canadians oppose this law and have a negative view of the CTRC. Many did not agree with the level of control over online news content that the Canadian government sought with this bill.

This looks like a capitulation for the Canadian government to save face. The goal was to provide continuous money for Canadian media (based on clicks not a 100 mill lump sum to an organization representing all media) and more importantly to give legacy media clicks - privilege their content over other content.

Google and facebook refused, and I think this is Canada's government and their media lobbyists bowing to a watered down money payment to save face after not getting what they actually sought for

Well the debate aside it seems like the culture is moving away from tipping. Younger generations don't seem to do it. So it seems that legislatures are going to have to start accounting for this in their min wage requirements

I checked trust piolt Fresha seems to be doing well and no such complaint. I think the start is we shouldn't jump to conclusions

>We've written to fresha.com's technical support as a show of good faith but we fully expect any reply to instruct her to create an account whose terms of service entail giving up to 20% of her income to fresha.com

I mean you don't know that yet,it could just be an honest mistake on their part. No need to overreact right away

I go cashless for one simple reason, going to the bank to withdraw money and making sure I carry the right change is inconvenient.

I think to get the purported freedom cash entails you'd also have to not have a bank account (which governments can freeze) or large illiquid assets which governments can confiscate.

I don't think having mediums like money is the solution to government overreach. I think the only possible solution is having a popular distrust of the government - which on a positive note is something that is slowly growing around the world

well all tech is imperfect, you can't have perfect tech or anything that works 100% of the time. The question is what is the false positive rate. If getting a false positive or break in the tech once a year or less dramatically reduces drunk driving, it's worth it to me. We already have sensors that help cars release less pollutants which can sometimes fail and cause the car not to drive properly. I don't see why this tech should be treated any different

I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me as qualifing as "true" any statement that says "the law requires a kill switch." This also applies for good laws requiring a kill switch.

I think your statement "up in arms" suggests the conclusion, these fact checkers are rating it as false because they are not in arms about the law. But being up in arms is not relevant to whether a statement is true or false.

I think if the fact checkers were being genuine, they would rate it as true and give an explanation about the benefits of the law

It's easy to find these things in retrospect. It could be that ethical breaches are common and it's easy to ascribe lapses and wrongdoing to someone after a scandal.

For the model to be useful we have to show it can be used to consistently predict scandals and wrongdoing before they happen and before others notice

Eg. Can we confidently use this model to short corporate stock