Climate change is going to influence everything in our society for the worse: politics, economics, living standards, everything, including the amount of resources available to use for research.
Cite the numbers that make you pessimistic.
If you don’t have numbers, then keep your crystal astrology bad vibes to yourself until you have something to back them.
I’m fucking sick of leftists acting like being moody and pessimistic is a valid political stan stance that does anything.
My grandma was born pre world war 2, she was literally born during the rise of fascism, then lived through her family getting conscripted and some killed, having to flee to the country side during the bombing raids, then through years of post war rationing.
She then travelled around the world during the 50s, raised a family during the 60s and 70s, and enjoyed a long, happy, fruitful, and fulling retirement / art career from the 80s, through the 90s, and 00s, and just passed away this year.
And there was zero chance she regretted being born.
Climate change is the only true existential reason to feel that way.
Everything else is just over focusing on a short term dip. On average things are getting better over the long term. The British Empire collapsed, and so will the American one, and the world will keep on turning and progressing.
Hell kids born these days may have legitimate cures for most forms of cancer by the time they’re old. We won’t.
Lol I was going to say, you don’t actually have to change the name, you just have to say it the right way for it still lto apply to parenting.
Creeping decline in quality due to capitalism + using Canada as their identity created a strong backlash from others who identified as Canadian but didn’t identify with creeping decline.
Them selling out to a non Canadian company, and continuing to use Canadian identity to market themselves, then provoked even more intense backlash.
It’s not just the reaction to being attacked by the undead, it’s the reaction to being attacked by an undead friend.
I’m basing that on my experience contracting there ~ 1.5 years ago. They’ve added new control systems to address things like the GDPR, but they are all still designed to be fully productized parts of their developer framework so that developers don’t have to think about them and can still move just as fast with product / feature development.
And while their product market had a little bit to do with it, they quite frankly have buggy software in production for less time than most major SAAS vendors or contract built systems.
Meta’s philosophy has bit them before, but they at least do it better than anyone else. Other companies hear the Meta philosophy and their CEOs take that as an excuse to underfund development to the point of constant errors and shipping broken products.
They don’t seem to realize that the reason that Meta can operate that way is because they are / were relentlessly focused on figuring out why things broke and then building out new products and systems to let them keep working fast and breaking things without their being a big downstream impact.
They have incredibly robust testing, monitoring, and alerting systems in place for all of their products, including newly developed ones. They found it faster to work in a giant monorepo and share code, but they actually monitored and recognized when it scaled too big and was slowing development down and had teams building out custom version control software and virtual disk utilities to fix this (Microsoft did similar with Git when they moved Windows development to it), and when Meta found that coding in raw JavaScript and HTML was creating scaling difficulties with their app, they built React. Same thing with their customized version of PHP on the backend.
I don’t think Meta’s impact on the world has been positive, and I don’t think they should move fast and break things from a product design and ethics standpoint, but from an engineering standpoint, I do have respect for how they have executed that philosophy, and think that literally everyone else who tries it fails because they view it as a way of cutting short term costs, instead of as a way to identify and build and fix long term infrastructure.
For a while about 10 years ago I started reading the globe, the national post, and CBC, pretty much every day, and I honestly mostly liked Andrew Coyne. I didn’t completely agree with him, but he made nuanced points, and came out pretty strongly against some of Harper’s dumber moves.
This column is absolute hateful shite tho.
The Abacus survey that he links to contains the answer, without his inane commentary:
https://abacusdata.ca/most-canadians-side-with-flight-attendants-in-dispute-with-air-canada/
deleted by creator
Not everywhere imports beef from the Amazon.
*American Beef Prices.
The rest of the world is doing fine.
Transit was effective and efficient when those stations were built 40 years ago.
800m is not a short distance, that’s almost a km. If you’re talking about the stations on Bloor, 800m is a radius that stretches all the way up to Dupont.
The idea that you can only build transit networks near hyper dense neighbourhoods is simply untrue, and exactly the kind of short sighted thinking that caused us to underbuild transit in the first place.
Cities like Zurich or Newcastle have population levels of 200k - 300k and better subway and transit networks than Toronto.
The entire reason that Toronto is a pleasant livable city is because we have pleasant housing near transit, everyone rushing to tear that down rather than build more transit is racing to the bottom for corporate developer interests without realizing it.
It means continuing to race to the bottom, building an unpleasant future where the average home you can live in is a shoe boxed sized condo.
We will not fix our housing issues by turning Toronto into Manhattan, we’ll just tear down all the relatively dense and pleasant town homes and semi detached housing and replace them with shitty condo towers, meanwhile the suburbs will still sprawl endlessly with 100ft wide lots.
The way to fix housing without racing to the bottom is to build out transit networks to all our low density areas so they can naturally densify, not to replace our nicely dense neighbourhoods with hyper dense towers.
I do not understand why so many people on the left think that getting rid of all planning regulations and letting corporate real estate developers do whatever they want is somehow going to work out this time, and definitely not lead to our current situation of having massively built out housing that is so shitty no one actually wants to live in it.
That’s not an excuse to have a false and misleading headline.
What’s your gripe with more than three windows?
Window management is usually not a complaint of Windows…
No, Krafton’s explanation was clearer and plainer spoken.
Krafton may be lying or misrepresenting the situation, but their explanation is both simple and believable, if not necessarily the truth.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Louis sucks ass as a YouTuber. He likes to hear himself rant. That’s literally his only quality.