There's been a huge turnover this year, with people quitting the committee out of protest for an absolute lack of oversight into how Google will be using the "smart data" and piss-poor management by the city.
From what I can gather, some politicians want to add a "success" to their career with zero care about the long term consequences. I'd like to see every politician involved in this put their entire net worth into the project so that they have to care about the long-term success. People simply don't care about other people's money.
I'd have loved to see Kathleen Wynne go bankrupt over the hydro projects.
But why would you want to do the credit card company's work for them? That regulation is in place purely because of political bribery by the credit card industry.
The consumer-friendly thing to do is to charge proper rates for things with higher processing fees, like credit cards, and not subsidize them by punishing everyone else.
>But why would you want to do the credit card company's work for them?
I'm not sure I'm following. The reason you'd do it is because you want to pay for a small purchase with your debit card. Like if you run into a gas station and buy a soda and a bag of chips but don't have cash on you.
>That regulation is in place purely because of political bribery by the credit card industry.
It's in place because it was determined that people shouldn't be subjected to a minimum purchase amount for paying with their own money through their debit card. (As opposed to paying with borrowed money through a credit card.)
>The consumer-friendly thing to do is to charge proper rates for things with higher processing fees, like credit cards, and not subsidize them by punishing everyone else.
Again, I'm not following. We're talking about minimum purchase amounts. What's punishing someone else?
Canada Post went on strike early winter as a pressure tactic because it knew the company would suffer going into the holiday season. Ultimately, that only screwed over the customers.
It would also seriously stymie innovation. If I risk having to refund an item when I push out improvements, I'm never bothering to push out improvements except bug fixes.
I'm also incentivized to release a new model every month with ANY improvement in order to limit my liability to a smaller window of revenue.
The current system isn't perfect, but it could be much worse.
What's worse that thousands of pieces of throwaway hardware that don't get updates? How about thousands of enterprise systems where the security updates are hidden behind support contacts?
> when I push out improvements
No, if your software has a security issue, it's refundable. Write good software.
> release a new model every month with ANY improvement
Good, but that doesn't remove your liability from your last model.
>No, if your software has a security issue, it's refundable. Write good software.
There are 0 companies that can provide consumer software on the lifecycle consumers have come to expect without any bugs. You write software. Are you willing to claim that you can just "write good software" and never ship anything with a security issues?
Because otherwise you're advocating for consumer tools that use nasa's release cycle. Which like, that's cool and all but I don't want to rely on hardware from 2012 or 2005 running software that was developed from 2010-2014 and has just finished its verification process. You're advocating for a world where we just got the verifiably bug-free Nokia 3310.
And that doesn't even begin to discuss the clusterfuck that would be open-source in this situation. Am I liable for heartbleed because I use OpenSSL? Are the openSSL devs?
Same bullshit argument was made about GDPR and we survived that... there's just too much money to be made by outsourcing your shitty code's security bugs onto the customer.
GDPR is basically "you are liable if you are actively exploited and data is stolen". You're saying that a company is liable if they ship bugs, which the GDPR absolutely doesn't care about.
What? No, you have to have a DPO, provide clear language on what you do with data, who it's shared with and no intrusive prompts having opt-in by default just to have a few.
None of those things have to do with the actual security of your code/data storage. They're procedural.
The GDPR focuses on procedural liabilities. You're asking for application level liabilities, which like I've said 3 times now, are a whole different ballgame.
Since you're so deadset on this, I'll just ask again: Who is liable for Heartbleed or for Meltdown? Who gets sued, and for how much, and why?
It’s not “just sugar.” It’s mostly fructose, the worst sugar, known to stress the liver like alcohol. And unlike most other calories it does a poor job of triggering satiation.
The fruits we buy in the supermarket (or hipster organic farmers market) bare little resemblance to the less sweet and less palatable fruits that humans would have eaten prior to cultivation. Through an ongoing process (over multiple millennia) of artificially selecting for higher sugar content, we have turned nature’s fruits into the equivalent of candy bars.
Awareness that fruit is not a pure health food is good. "Equivalent of candy bars" may be overstating the case. Raw fruit at least delivers its sugars in a matrix of fibers which change the absorption profile, induce satiety, and even provides a natural limit on how much you can consume, among other benefits.
There are sometimes better choices than an apple, but an apple is definitely better than a candy bar (or most breakfast cereals, granola bars, etc).
I admit "Equivalent of candy bars" is definitely overstating the case, but it's hard to accurately state the case in a world where meme-grade sound bytes have the most impact. Absent sufficient nuance, the "fruit is healthy" message is borderline dangerous advice.
I hope people don't take this kind of simplistic advice on such a complex topic. Actual fruit, although it tastes sweet, is impossible to eat in quantities that are as harmful as junk food. They also provide tons of fiber, vitamins, anti oxidants and other beneficial nutrients. Some fruits are sweeter than others (pineapple, for example), but for the most part the vast majority of people would be better off if they ate more fruit.
If you're talking about certain fruits in certain contexts, I agree with you in principle—if you are educated about the nutritional reality of fruits, you can certainly include them in a healthy diet. But I still maintain that absent sufficient nuance, the "fruit is healthy" message is borderline dangerous advice.
Without nuance and education, "fruit is healthy" translates to "fruit juice is healthy."
Without nuance and education, "two serves of fruit per day" translates to "I'll eat a fruit salad and a glass of orange juice for lunch at my sedentary desk job."
Protip: chop up a large broccoli and sauté in a wok with olive oil, salt, pine nuts and chili flakes for a few minutes. Finish by squeezing half a lemon on top. Serve alongside a modest serving of protein. That shit is a meal, and damn tasty.
I love how people jumped from "fat is evil" to "fruit is evil". As if Americans, and yes it is always Americana, were invested in making everything extreme always.
I guarantee you that you can eat tons of apples, oranges and other fruits every day and not get fat.
Also, you can't live off vegetables only. They just don't have enough calories to keep you going whole day. And you do need some amount of calories to perform and survive.
There's so much wrong with that post that it's hurting my brain.
I don't know how you got from "fruit is bad" to "you can only eat vegetables" but that must have been a sweet trip. You do know there's other foods, right? Like plant oils, meat, dairy, and chocolate cake.
And if that wasn't hurting my brain enough, you think vegetables don't have calories? So you've never heard of the potato, have you? Or carrots, sweet potato, beetroot...
"If you want nutrients, eat vegetables." meanwhile fruits are bad. Are you supposing me to assume that he meant "vegetables and bacon, but keep off fruits"? That would essentially make keto only not-bad diet.
You cant sustain on carrots and beetroot. You just cant, caloric density is too low. You would have to eat too much volume of it. But, go ahead and try that. Eat only them and no nuts, no oil, etc. Observe how much active and performing you are after few days. Vegetarians don't live off vegetables only either.
Vegetables are very low on calories. That is literally why they are recommended for diet - but eat a lot of vegetables advice is not nearly the same as as "everything else is bad, eat vegetables".
Probably about the same but at least the spoonfuls of pure table sugar (sucrose) don’t come with pretensions of healthfulness.
And without the huge quantities of citric acid, the table sugar is less hyper-palatable. The associated acids make fruit juices almost perfectly engineered to maximize consumption. (The recipe is so perfect that Coca-cola uses surprisingly similar ratios.)
Actually, the flat lining investment from the Chinese in Vancouver and Toronto is partially due regulations put in place exactly for that purpose. Additional taxes on non-primary properties and vacant properties were aimed at curbing this.
The train takes 2 hours to travel 100km. Cars can do that distance in one hour, despite having to cope with traffic. That's pretty appalling. Good public transit should be faster than a car along its main corridor.
Apart from geography, those other factors are reasons, not excuses. Lots of people here look down on public transit and associate it with poor people. That's a problem to be rectified.
> if you're doing SEO beyond making your page lightweight and useful to people, you are a part of the problem.
This is, unfortunately, an overly simplistic model. Everything can be manipulative if done to an extreme extent.
There's no individual thing that you can easily draw the line at. The question is where do you draw the line, and what combination of factors is ban worthy.
There's been a huge turnover this year, with people quitting the committee out of protest for an absolute lack of oversight into how Google will be using the "smart data" and piss-poor management by the city.
From what I can gather, some politicians want to add a "success" to their career with zero care about the long term consequences. I'd like to see every politician involved in this put their entire net worth into the project so that they have to care about the long-term success. People simply don't care about other people's money.
I'd have loved to see Kathleen Wynne go bankrupt over the hydro projects.