Based on the summary it sound like they didn't lie, just didn't point out their own inability to deal with it in their own ridings
Wow, really appreciate these points. I was mostly thinking about teaching people how to budget, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century.
It seems kind of ok, everyone agrees that they should be teaching some finance basics. I guess I would.jave preferred to see what outcomes this has had in other places (rather than just trying random experiments on our students). It'd be nice to see if Doug could pass this test himself.
The police illegally surveilled her? This doesn't seem good at all. She was voted in multiple times. This is almost opposite of what you are saying.
This is bad.
Point of a corporation is to make money. Point of a "limited liability company" is to prevent losses on the company side from financially damaging the owners. LLC's do not (and should not) protect owners from criminal acts.
This shit happens all the time. Look at car settlements, it starts at the top. I'm not against a whistle blower framework at all, but it seems like executives get all the pay and none of the culpability (see headline).
Executives, focus on executives.
Sometimes home owners will sell their house after retirement for something smaller, live off the difference, then sell that house and use the money from that for long term care, or inheritance.
There's also the obvious: they worked for something, possibly quite hard, why do they have to pay the price for others? Presumably they've been paying taxes all along, and have already been contributing to the greater good.
I guess my feeling is, it's not so simple to just wreck housing prices. I absolutely feel like corporations, and probably some ultra wealthy don't work that hard and get most of the rewards (or aren't even people), like if the money has to come from somewhere there is a clear set of people who could afford to lose some wealth, and not materially effect their life; and that's not necessarily single dwelling home owners.
I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).
I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert
In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.
this is normal enshittification, we just move on to the next shit.
I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:
see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.
if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).
but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.
In my experience only kinda, and by convention (up is on), and three-way switches break this (indicator becomes the light itself).
besides the example i gave actually harming people, and them not being in prison, to go from "people who don't help society" to murder is kind of a stretch isn't it?
you realize it's possible to neither help nor harm society.
i am canadian, are we limited to examples only of canadian's who harm societies, C suite of loblaws isn't in jail are they?
I know halifax has some shit history that i didn't learn in school -- i think i mostly learned about black history from american sources, and my own reading.
untrue, many examples first one that comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family
Finally some good news! Although I'm sort of surprised this didn't exist already
- You are free to not spend money there
- If you took this logic and turned it around, i could see an argument saying the moment you stop helping society why should we let you exist
I agree that in the best interests of having a pleasant place to live, or elected officials should force them to sell at not so great a profit. I feel like "they shouldn't be allowed to exist" is a poor way to put it.
We might live better if this were true (maybe not), but it is not at all their job. Neither is it our job to serve them.
oh yeah, not saying it's a good thing at all...
What to do when you find a bug?
I think i've found a bug, but i'm not sure the protocol for where to submit it.
The bug:
This comment: https://old.lemmy.ca/comment/3118239
- clicking "load more comments" shows nothing.
- clicking "view the rest of the comments" shows comments on post, but without this reply
For the regular view: https://lemmy.ca/comment/3118239)
- clicking "show context" shows a sibling comment
- clicking "View all comments", shows all comments but either my comment or the sibling comment.
- clicking "1 more reply" returns nothing
I think the parent comment (and replies to my comment have been deleted. Maybe this is intentional behaviour
Actually this might be the bug: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3886