mymanchris

I thought that only applies to ISPs and not to platforms (Twitter, FB, Threads, etc)

Interesting. One of the primary defenses against attempts to hold platform operators liable for the content on their platform is that they operate like common carriers (e.g. telephone companies), in that they don't curate content, or any curation is the byproduct of algorithmic engines (e.g. you see posts that are currently popular).

They have simultaneously argued that they shouldn't be regulated like common carriers because that would be harmful to the public and not appropriate for... reasons, I suppose.

This admission contradicts the first point and drives home the need for net neutrality like regulations for platforms. Not only are they interfering with the free flow of information, contrary to their whole "freedom of speech for all" branding, they are admitting that it is for purely business reasons (as opposed to moderating community standards or hate speech, which they have resisted and labeled censorship).

Or just hit the strategem button and release. It saves about 1.5 seconds.

My wife and I once had enough saved up to buy a used car from the dealership. The sales manager told us their incentives were structured around financing, so paying cash up front wouldn't count towards their monthly sales figures, and to them it was "useless".

Ended up financing with an open loan and paying it off, in full, on the first payment. Probably lost them ~$1000 in processing fees but they knocked off another $150 for my first interest payment.

Nobody is saying that women are inadequately equipped for those roles, they are observing that women don't choose those roles, even when barriers are removed. It's not a coincidence that everyone is clamoring to bring equity into the C suite and boost women enrolling in STEM programs, but nobody is trying to bring equity to mining jobs, janitorial services, garbage collectors, etc.

In John Wick, when he interrogates Francis the bouncer outside the Russian nightclub, John asks him if he's lost weight. Francis responds, in Russian, "yes, 23 kilograms," but the subtitle converts it to "over 60 pounds." This completely destroys the fact that Francis was using code to tell John there were 23 guards inside.

I don't know. Patrick Stewart seems to have done ok too.

No you're understanding is incorrect. There is a big difference between an expired cheque and a reissued cheque.

If I walk into a bank with an expired cheque, they will not honour it, so there is no risk of 2 people cashing the separate cheques. If I walk in with a valid certified cheque, they MUST honour it, even if someone already cashed the reissued cheque.

You are correct that the recipient could wait ~1.5 years for the cheque to expire and then issue a new cheque, but that's a significant delay and the estate likely wants to close its books before then.

They are not deeply stupid. They are deeply dishonest.

It's due to the capabilities of the wait times reporting system. Alberta has integrated reporting on all acute care sites, updated every 2 minutes, due to having a single organization (AHS) overseeing the IT and reporting infrastructure of every hospital in the province.

It's amazing to me how quickly we forgot that carbon pricing was a conservative policy proposal. It was literally a concession the Liberals made to the Progressive Conservatives in the early days of planning to address "global warming" back in the days of the Kyoto Accord. PC's wanted market solutions instead of regulatory heavy handedness to shape Canada's way forward. LPC preferred cap and trade, but couldn't get it passed, so they agreed to support carbon pricing because it was better than nothing.

Fast forward to today and suddenly carbon pricing is Liberal policy and ignore/deny is the CPC strategy.

They don't want insidious "woke" teachings to enter our school curriculum. Teachings like LGBTQ people should be treated like everyone else, same sex relationships are normal, people of different racial backgrounds can be friends, we should demonstrate respect and tolerance for people of different religions (or non-religious people).

In essence they want the freedom to hate and vilify those deemed unclean by their preferred stone age text that was written decades after the events it purports to describe and has been translated across a dozen or more languages. And they want the freedom to pass that hate onto their children without anyone from the government/school suggesting to their impressionable young children that there are acceptable alternative points of view in a plural society.