Canada Post is already one of the world’s most cost-effective postal systems
like this
kbal likes this.
Creating apps like Signal or WhatsApp could be 'hostile activity,' claims UK watchdog
Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK.
Gaza: Return of War, or a New Form of Guardianship? – The Rover
Gaza: Return of War, or a New Form of Guardianship? – The Rover
As the first stage of the ceasefire draws to a close, will Gaza slide into a subtle form of international guardianship?Sarah Emad al-Zaq (The Rover)
‘Everything is hanging by a thread’: Holding the line for Vancouver Island’s ancient trees
‘Everything is hanging by a thread’: Holding the line for Vancouver Island’s ancient trees - Ricochet
As RCMP crackdowns intensify in the Walbran Valley, forest defenders say the fight is about stopping old-growth logging before it’s too lateBrandi Morin (Ricochet)
Alberta’s assault on trans youth has federalism problems the notwithstanding clause can’t avoid
Alberta’s assault on trans youth has federalism problems the notwithstanding clause can’t avoid - rabble.ca
The Alberta Legislature has finally wrapped up its fall sitting. And what an extraordinary sitting it has been—in all the worst ways.Charlotte Sheasby (rabble)
I'm no slouch when it comes to understanding legalese, but even I could have benefited from a streamlined, simplified, and to the point write up.
I'd love to share this discussion on the topic with friends and family, but I don't know one who would force themselves through that as I did.
Here you go courtesy of ChatGPT.
Summary
Alberta’s United Conservative government has repeatedly invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield controversial laws from Charter scrutiny—first to end teachers’ strikes, then to restrict transgender youth’s access to gender-affirming care, limit social transition in schools, and bar trans women and girls from sports. Critics argue these moves reflect an authoritarian trend that sidelines constitutional checks and balances and limits judicial review.
Despite the notwithstanding clause blocking most Charter challenges, legal advocates see a new path through federalism. Organizations challenging Alberta’s ban on gender-affirming care plan to argue the law is ultra vires (outside provincial authority) because it functions as criminal law, a domain reserved exclusively for the federal government under the Constitution Act, 1867—something the notwithstanding clause cannot override.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, particularly R v Morgentaler (1993), the argument is that Alberta’s law, in its pith and substance, seeks to prohibit a morally disfavoured medical practice, imposes penalties (including fines and imprisonment), and arises from moral panic rather than health regulation. Such features align with criminal law, not provincial health regulation.
If courts accept this analysis, Alberta’s gender-affirming care ban could be struck down on federalism grounds—showing that even aggressive use of the notwithstanding clause does not place provincial legislation beyond constitutional limits.
like this
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown, Th4tGuyII, magnetosphere, HorikBrun, Benign, ammorok, Atelopus-zeteki and NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
This post has been placed under an Omega Google Security Watch List - Memetic threat & incitement of violence against citizens. Unregistered visitors may be subject to Amazon Enhanced Employment at the next available fulfillment center.
Quote of the day: Trust in the Bezos as he labors for you.
Delivering swift and terrible justice to the gaggle of sociopaths and bigots that have channeled our collective wealth into institutionalized misery is cool and good.
But the wealth building doesn't come from taking a few bourgeois fucks out back to the wood chipper. Real wealth means building real infrastructure and bureaucracy that can sustain and improve the lives of your neighbors. I see a lot of progressive-ish folks who cheer guys like Luigi and whatisface the Charlie Kirk guy, then frown at the state bureaucrats in the AES states of Cuba and Venezuela and Sankara-era Burkino Faso. They lose track of the fact that the folks running the literacy programs and maintaining the train lines and working their way through the medical schools are doing 1000x more for their comrades than some vigilante in a western hellhole who got his lick in.
Sociopath: Traits, Diagnosis, Treatment, and More
A sociopath is someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Here are the symptoms, treatment options, and how to cope.Tim Jewell (Healthline Media)
IMO the main argument against UBI is:
"I think all the money would go to landlords because I don't know what elasticity is but nonetheless feel qualified to speak about economics."
What would be the standards for getting an asset seizure? Would it be the individual or governments job to prove the asset? What would be the rules for conflict of interest? How does due process work? Who gets the money?
Does a mayor just get to seize assets rather than balance their city budget? Does the federal government get to pick and choose who gets inspected? If the taxpayers refuse to send bombs to Israel or Saudi Arabia, can the president run down a list of people who haven’t been inspected yet? Can somebody park the wealth in the Caribbean and do wire transfers multiple times a day? Since most of the wealth is imaginary numbers, what the fuck is a bureaucrat supposed to do with Nvidia stock inflated to the moon? Do we just dissolve companies where the populace cannot comprehend how it benefits the economy/society? Or disagree on the companies value? Taxpayers strongly believe both sides of AIs value (or potential) to the economy.
Civil asset forfeiture is bad regardless of who it happens to. We could fucking just prosecute them instead for corruption and pass more taxes for a bigger return of money. Make screwing over billionaires a sport on how to squeeze away all the profits they want to skim from the top.
Taxes. The answer is taxes and actual audits. We've been doing that sort of thing for a very long time, it's just that the rich assholes have had access to the tax code.
A full audit every year, and then you simply tax any wealth over the 500M mark. It's that easy.
I think the commenter above you is implying that if everyone knew that 500M was the cap, then every bubble would pop and the market would crash.
I think it's a good idea. If you can't survive the rest your life on 500M then you're doing things way too lavish for any society to support.
(And that doesn't mean you couldn't invent and work and make more than you spend, keeping your worth at 500M indefinitely)
A full audit every year, and then you simply tax any wealth over the 500M mark. It’s that easy.
If, hypothetically, those audits ended up costing more than the additional tax revenue they yield, resulting in overall tax revenue decreasing, would you still want to do it?
When you put it like that, the liberal brain implodes.
Don't ask me exactly how or why, it just does, they become emotional and irrational at that point.
Maybe pictures of dragons sleeping on piles of gold would help, stories about how they only leave them to terrorize nearby village folk, occasionally abduct a young girl and steal her away to a mythical island, for god knows what purposes.
why it would be wrong to take everything from the rich except, say, 500 million.
It's wrong because theft is wrong. Just because the thing you're stealing is something the victim can do without, doesn't magically make it not theft.
So theft it remains, and wrong it remains, because theft is wrong.
Pretty simple, really.
Theft is what happens every day in every working relationship. Value is always and exclusively derived from labor. If someone has capital worth 500 million, that means they have the labor value of 500 million. Did they earn this value themselves? Of course not, it is the value of our labor that they have stolen.
But even if that weren't the case, this argument is roughly on the same level as “drugs are illegal because they are prohibited.” Always remember: in the Third Reich, it was legally forbidden to hide Jews. But it was legally permissible to kill them. What the law says must never be the basis of morality. And on top of that, the law is simply something that is determined as such. It can just be changed. In your words: we can easily define it as “not wrong.”
Value is always and exclusively derived from labor.
That's a ridiculous statement (re "exclusively"). As an extremely simple/obvious example that refutes this: the best cashier in the world's skills are worthless unless a store already exists for them to cashier in.
It's absurd to think the worker is entitled to 100% of the value their labor produces. Both employer and employee come together for that value creation to be possible. Neither entity alone can create that value, so they both deserve a portion of the result of their symbiosis; neither side deserves 100%.
"Profit = theft" is a moronic notion.
this argument is roughly on the same level as “drugs are illegal because they are prohibited.”
No, it isn't, at all. I'm talking about morality, not legality. Total straw man on your part.
the best cashier in the world’s skills are worthless unless a store already exists for them to cashier in
Nevertheless, without labor, the store will not generate any (exchange) value. If you think the store itself has value, that value was also created solely through labor. Exchange value is created solely through labor. After all, labor is ultimately what is exchanged. Anything that did not require labor has no exchange value.
Both employer and employee come together for that value creation to be possible
What does the employer bring to the table? Exactly one thing: the means of production. But even those were created by labor. So the capitalist didn't contribute anything either. He just has capital. Everything of value, the entire economy, every invention, every mashinery, every computer, every commodity, was created solely through labor. Capital is the parasite that appropriates a large part of the value created by society without doing any work itself.
Neither entity alone can create that value
Yes. The worker alone creates the value. He does not need the capitalist. But if the means of production were in his hands, he would not have to work for free for the capitalist's profit.
“Profit = theft” is a moronic notion.
You grew up in capitalism and have internalized capitalist ideology. That's why it seems natural to you that we allow an entire group of people to do nothing (except rig politics in their favor) and still accumulate most of humanity's resources. But in fact, it's a huge scam against me, you, and everyone else who has to sell their labor to survive.
No, it isn’t, at all. I’m talking about morality, not legality
Yet your argument is: It's wrong because it would be against the law ("theft"). But that's merely a matter of definition.. And it's not theft to take back something that belongs to you.
Yet your argument is: It’s wrong because it would be against the law (“theft”)
No, your assumption is apparently that the word "theft" has an inextricably law-based definition. It doesn't—stealing's immoral, that's all there is to it.
it’s not theft to take back something that belongs to you.
Agreed, but irrelevant, as you're talking about taking, not taking back. It doesn't belong to you just because you decided it does.
Either way, it's a question of definition.
It doesn’t belong to you just because you decided it does.
And it doesn't not belong to me just because you decided it doesn't. What is “belonging” if not a legal status? However, my assertion is that in our capitalist society, we have established a legal system whereby even though you and I produce things, they do not belong to us. Instead, under threat of punishment or, alternatively, the threat of starvation, we give them to another group that has contributed nothing at all. What do you call that? Robbery! What the capitalists call property, they took away from us first. You need to get rid of that neoliberal mindset and stop fighting for their interests and against your own.
another group that has contributed nothing at all
This is what you've arbitrarily decided is the case, though, not the reality.
But what does the owner class do? They buy company shares and wait until the money generated by our work lands in their accounts. Let's take a look at a simple calculation: I buy shares in an index fund with 2 million euros. Conservatively estimated, this yields a 6 percent return each year. That means that on December 31, I look at my account and see that 120,000 euros have been transferred to it. But where does this money come from? You earned it with your labor. I didn't contribute anything. Yet your annual salary is probably significantly lower.
Now, of course, you could say that I then use this money to make investments and, for example, buy additional means of production with which wage workers can produce goods and services. But remember: this money was only generated through your work. So why am I the one who is now investing in order to profit even more from it later? Why don't we organize society in such a way that those who do 100% of the work are not also the ones who own the company? Or that the means of production are generally socialized. Profits are distributed fairly, investments are decided democratically, and everyone can participate.
In other words, capitalists are only part of the value creation process because of the way ownership is structured in our society. Not because they contribute anything. Again: everything that has exchange value only has it because of the labor that went into it. Every store, every factory, every commodity. Just everything. We created it all. But it belongs to others.
You and I belong to the vast majority of humanity who have to sell their labor to survive. That's why we have to stick together, comrade. Because there is another group that not only doesn't have to work and lives off our labor, but also accumulates incredible resources and influences politics according to its will. A few super-rich people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos own more than the poorer half of humanity. How can we allow this to happen? We would all be better off.
One of the issues is that their value isn't fixed. A billionaire as relatively little in the way of liquid (or liquidatable) assets. Their company might be worth billions, but, by taking it, you will destabilise it. Its value will plummet.
In order to access that money, you need to syphon it off more slowly. Think of the goose that lays golden eggs. Cutting it open won't get you a glut of gold. The counterpoint is that you still need to collect the eggs!
In my opinion, we need a tax setup that forces individuals to regress to the mean. (Default is the rich and poor both move towards average when they are of average performance).
We also need to force companies to follow a power law. A few big companies, with the number growing as you move down. A tax setup that punishes forming big conglomerates, and so encourages more medium and small companies would be optimal. Have it adjust based on the overall industry. This both keeps industries competitive, and syphons money from those most able to bear it.
There is a huge difference between knowing what is needed, and how the fuck to implement it however!
Killing the goose blindly is just self destructive. We want to them to be able to die, but we need to reduce their size first. That way better options can take up the slack.
Answer me this. Collapse every company worth more than $1B simultaneously. What would happen to the quality of life of those at the bottom? It would be...bad.
You massively underestimate the complexity and fagility of the systems supporting you right now. Food, power and good production would basically collapse.
The biggest problem is the megacorps, they are too big to fail and so need to be broken up. The best way to do that is to make it financially in their interest to shatter themselves. Power law taxes would help both so it now, and keep companies from growing to that level. It also controls the speed of the change, so the supply lines we rely on remain functional.
As of 2024, 806 people in the US control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population.
If every one of those billionaires has 10 billion dollars, thats equivalent to about 165 million people who each have ~49,000.
(EDIT: Each of) those 806, ten-billionaires then have ~204,082x as much wealth as any of those 165 million people.
However, I believe I can solve this problem for a fairly low cost.
Assuming each ten billionaire has approximately 10 close friends/relatives...and we want to just be super duper sure the problem is solved, so we'll buy 100 of those uh, investment options, per social contagion vector...
That works out to a total cost of around ~$310,000.
Split between those 165 million people, that's one fifth of a cent, per person.
Does anyone want to guess what my special purpose investment vehicle to achieve said disruption of the malignent social contagaion market is?
Uh... pinatabroker?
Failing that, your city or town probably has a pawn shop.
They probably feature pinatas for sale, from time to time.
... Just get a legally licensed pinata?
And then learn how to have a pinata party that is fully invite only, and leaves no mess behind, then goes home and back to their business?
The uh, recent bad pinata party that's been in the news?
Dude got away.
The FBI has literally nothing on this person, aside of some basically useless, shitty footage, of a POI, not even a suspect.
This person is ... pinata party capable, and just... at large.
They have no idea who he is, where he is.
Shit.
Well ok then, add another 0.
5 whole cents per pinata partier.
Shame that everyone's so broke these days, eh?
Also more facts, a bit shy of 1/10 Americans are millionaires.
So the distribution of wealth for the lowest class is horrendous. Almost 1/10 actually want this system and are arselicking the billionaires because they too are -illionaires.
Also also, a typical US family of mom dad kid1 kid2?
Yeah, turns out they need to be making $140k ... to just get by.
yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-l…
I've been saying similar things as this guy for about a decade now... I'm also an econometrician, just signifcantly less pedigreed...
Ok so yeah anyway, only about 27.5% of households, or roughly 36 million of them, make that much.
So... just a tad more than a quarter of basically people are even capable of financially, safely, supporting a family.
Gee I wonder why birth rates are going down.
Part 1: My Life Is a Lie
How a Broken Benchmark Quietly Broke AmericaMichael W. Green (Yes, I give a fig... thoughts on markets from Michael Green)
The definition of trickle-down economics is incongruent with the image that’s being displayed. If the second image shows that it’s a Piñata being hit (matching the definition of piñata economics) the first image should show trickle down economics as it ‘should’ work, which is that the top glass spills over to the next glass and so on.
Yes I’m autistic, how did you know?
The first image is how trickle down actually is. None of the money actually "trickles", but pools at the top, or in this case gets siphoned to their tax shelters.
The only trickling that happens it the rich practically peeing on the rest of us.
Yes, I agree that’s how trickle down economics works in real life but I looked at this meme and was like ‘it don’t make sense’.
If the caption was something like ‘how aspirational capitalists think trickle down economics works’ and showed a picture of the imagined way trickle down economics works and the second image was the one in this meme with the caption ‘how trickle down economics actually works’ it would make more sense.
I loved this game as a kid and my mindset has only gotten more violent towards them.
House Science Committee Questions DOE Science Chief About Agency Reorganization
Update as of 9:20 pm Dec. 16: Following the publication of this article, House Science Committee Democratic staff told FYI that DOE has not yet determined which Fusion Energy Sciences programs will be moved from the Office of Science to the Office of Fusion, aside from the Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program and the INFUSE program. They also said it is unclear if the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations will continue to exist. The headline of this story has since been updated accordingly.
Basic research in quantum information science and fusion energy sciences will continue within the Department of Energy Office of Science, Under Secretary for Science Darío Gil said at a House Science Committee hearing last week. Gil will oversee DOE’s newly created Office of Fusion and Office of AI and Quantum, which he said will focus on supporting companies to deliver “real” quantum capabilities and fusion power plants.
The hearing focused on the DOE-led Genesis Mission to develop AI, but also touched on major changes to DOE’s organization announced in November.
Gil said the work of the new offices will be “complementary” to the basic research in the Office of Science. “Sometimes people say, ‘Well, are you doing it in tension with the support of the basic science?’ We’re not. We’re saying, because we’ve succeeded in investing in that, we have the opportunity now to create an industry,” he said.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced bills in the House and Senate this week to codify the new fusion office at DOE.
Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) asked Gil whether he supports a one-time $10 billion infusion of federal funds for fusion research and commercial demonstration, as recommended by the bipartisan Commission on the Scaling of Fusion Energy. Gil pointed to the DOE fusion roadmap released in October, which he said “lays out the infrastructure investments that we need to make as a department to complement the $9 billion of venture capital that has been invested into fusion energy.”
Lofgren said the huge amount of funds from the private sector is “wonderful,” but that federal funds are necessary for research that will benefit the entire industry. She also raised concerns about proposals to reallocate funds appropriated to fusion in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which she said would be an illegal impoundment.
Plan for some offices remains murky
The new organization chart does not include several previous offices, such as the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Secretary Chris Wright signaled his desire to shutter OCED earlier this year.
Gil said OCED will not be eliminated but will be integrated into a different office, and that he did not have details on EERE or any other offices outside his purview.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) said he expects Gil to provide projected headcounts and previous headcounts for each office on the organization chart. “We want to make sure that its capacity is there, not just that there’s a place on the org chart,” Foster said.
Lofgren criticized Wright for not testifying before the committee, saying “there must be accountability” for actions at DOE this year, including “the mass firings and coerced departures of dedicated experts throughout DOE, the illegal elimination of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, insanely inaccurate statements regarding the role that renewables play in ensuring the reliability of our electric grid, [and] the widely debunked climate ‘science’ report that the secretary commissioned.”
“I am happy to hear from you today, Dr. Gil, but Secretary Wright really has a responsibility to respond to our inquiries on each of these matters himself,” Lofgren added.
Wright was scheduled to appear before the committee on Sept. 18 but canceled, and was rescheduled to appear on Oct. 15 but could not due to the federal government shutdown, Lofgren and Babin said. Babin added that Wright will testify before the committee early next year.
House Science Committee Questions DOE Science Chief About Agency Reorganization
Under Secretary for Science Darío Gil said the new fusion and computing offices will focus on fostering industries for emerging technologies.AIP
German anarchists: dont be Nazis challenge (impossible)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Is this representative of German anarchists as a whole or is this one or two idiots? Could it be an agent provocateur?
I downvoted the meme because from what I know of German anarchists, this isn't representative of their views and one banner doesn't necessarily mean very much on its own.
However, if there's more to it than this then I'd be willing to change that downvote to an upvote.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Thank you for your polite and informative response. It definitely shows you're posting about politics in good faith and that I should never have been hesitant about the views of an account on the Lemmy.zip instance...
As I said before, one banner does not represent an entire movement. "Over there" implies you're not there, immersed in it, so taking your word for it is pretty fucking difficult and you've provided no credible sources.
Here you go, I’ll spoon-feed you the information. You could have just done this yourself, but you wanna engage in bad faith. You can give me my upvote now.
mondoweiss.net/2024/09/the-ger…
The German Left’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide
While the German left passionately supports many international causes it remains conspicuously silent on the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, conveniently overlooking its own complicity in Germany’s military-industrial ties to Israel.Saad Shahriar (Mondoweiss)
Thank you. Was that so difficult? Did it require being a grumpy rude git? Asking for sources for claims isn't bad faith.
Especially in a political environment that thrives on leftist infighting, and the only source provided being a blue check mark on a Nazi platform.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Literally the 4th result if you Google “Zionism German left”. I’m sure you’re a big boy and could have just done this yourself but that would require you engaging in good faith, which you’re not.
Maybe next time you just shut your mouth if you have no idea what you’re talking about?
Literally the 4th result if you Google “Zionism German left”. I’m sure you’re a big boy and could have just done this yourself but that would require you engaging in good faith, which you’re not.Maybe next time you just shut your mouth if you have no idea what you’re talking about?
How To Win Friends And Influence People
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Yeah. Wow.
I've oft had to use "Not my left" to retort to peeps posting neoliberalism or totalitarianism as "the left".
Seeing this, I see I need to start also saying "Not my anarchism" to some.
... But then, depends on which version of a newspeak dictionary one is using for "zionism". :/ Too deep in this Orwellian hole for easy breathing space.
most of the zionist self proclaimed "leftists" call themselves "antideutsch" and just promote us+german allyship, nato stuff and sprinkles of social democracy and extreme islamophobia
and a lot of them flock to the party "die linke"
*checks that is the one in the anarcho-left* ... politicalcompass.org/germany20…
Well, if it's the nearest they're offered... :/
I hope they at least try to tug it even further in the healthy direction, and not just lap it up in defeatist capitulation to party groupthink.
The Political Compass
The Political Compass: a 2-dimensional typology of political opinionspoliticalcompass.org
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
ActivityPub Client API: A Way Forward
ActivityPub Client API: A Way Forward | Steve Bate
The ActivityPub Client-to-Server (C2S) protocol was envisioned as a cornerstone of the decentralized social web, along with the Server-to-Server (S2S) protocol.Steve Bate
Member of far-right AfD party charged with making Nazi salute at Reichstag
Member of far-right AfD party charged with making Nazi salute at Reichstag
MP allegedly greeted a party colleague at German parliament building ‘with a heel click and a Hitler salute’Guardian staff reporter (The Guardian)
like this
YoSoySnekBoi likes this.
He Built a Privacy Tool. Now He’s Going to Prison.
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
He Built a Privacy Tool. Now He’s Going to Prison.
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
Ex-BC Coroner Testifies about Failures to Prevent Toxic Drug Deaths | The Tyee
British Columbia’s shortfalls in its response to the unregulated toxic drug crisis were strongly criticized during the first three weeks of the Drug User Liberation Front’s constitutional challenge.
Compassion club co-founders Jeremy Kalicum and Eris Nyx are in court arguing the criminalization of their club violated members’ Charter rights.
Some of the sharpest criticism came from B.C.’s former chief coroner Lisa Lapointe, who held her position for 13 years before retiring last year.
Lapointe told the court that the province has taken an “issue management approach” to “give the impression positive matters were being taken,” without ever meaningfully evaluating if the money it was spending on the crisis was actually reducing overdoses or overdose fatalities.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/12/17/Ex-BC-Coroner-Testifies-Toxic-Drug-Deaths/
JohnnyCanuck
in reply to acargitz • • •healthetank
in reply to acargitz • • •Sunshine (she/her)
in reply to acargitz • • •nikt
in reply to acargitz • • •Honestly my mailbox is like 10 pizza flyers for every actual letter. And most of those actual letters are just bank statements that I can’t figure out how to switch to digital.
This year I did get a christmas card from a friend though. So that was nice.
eth0slash0
in reply to nikt • • •How to stop receiving advertising mail | Canada Post
www.canadapost-postescanada.ca