wampus

Yawn. I think national parties should be highlighted on the national stage: I don't think the metrics provided by the TV consortium for who gets to participate properly captures what a national party is. I think rules/requirements that specifically carve out a 'system' that enables one niche interest from one part of the country, to masquerade as a 'national' party, is disingenuous and insulting to everyone outside of that niche -- especially as the 'rules' were clearly structured to preference/enable the blocs participation. That % threshold of the voting public is a lot easier for a separatist movement to hit in Quebec, than it is in the West due to population density -- its basically tailor made for them, and provides a 'structure' to block other regions doing the same / getting the same preferential treatment for their 'niche' interest parties. At least the PPC and GPC are interested in the country as a national body, and in governing/contributing to the national interests.

They should just change the format. Do an hour long unedited interview with each candidate, with pre defined topics / identical questions, to allow leaders to get their talking points out in a more 'user friendly' conversational way. Allow as many leaders as they want to sit for an interview, post them all on third party news sites to allow them to generate some ad revenue for providing the interview services/hosting (with requirements to host all qualifying candidates to mitigate news agency bias). Let voters watch whichever clips they want. Hell, have local news agencies do similar with the local candidates, so that you can see your person speak on topics of import, and how they would represent your region on those fronts.

They all just try to say their sound bites anyway. And few voters are realistically going to suddenly support a different party based on a one night zinger.

Yeah, but that's sort of the point I was making.... it was a data repository used by "thousands and thousands" of security professionals and organizations. So people who were generating revenue off of the service. I mean, they're professionals, not hobbyists / home users.

I'm not an American, but in terms of everything running like a company/for profit, I'd say that its best if things are sustainable / able to self-maintain. If the US cutting funding means this program can't survive, that's an issue. If it has value to a larger community, the larger community should be able to fund its operation. There's clearly a cost to maintaining the program, and there are clearly people who haven't contributed to paying that cost.

In terms of going back to whatever, the foundation involved is likely to sort out alternative funding, though potentially with decreased functionality (it sounds like they had agreements to pay for secondary vulnerability report reviews, which will likely need to get scaled back). Maybe they'll need to add in a fee for frequent feed pulls, or something similar. I wouldn't say it's completely toast or anythin just yet.

That's nice, but I don't really care. They aren't a national party, nor are they interested in being a "Canadian" national party. Giving them a platform to debate on the national level is in part why they're able to maintain their seat count -- it's the same sort of pageantry that drives dictators to covet meetings with democratic leaders, to trick people into thinking "Oh, they're basically the same", when they're very much not.

The peoples party, and the greens, even if they're super fringe in nature, have more merit for being included in the debates in my view. I'd watch (well, listen to) those debates. I won't bother watching the bloc get up and do its stupid bloc crap. There's talk in the media again about western alienation / succession, and Quebec / Canada's approach to Quebec compared to its handling of Western interests is a big part of what fuels that sort of resentment. The bloc is basically Quebec just giving the entire country a giant middle finger, which is a wonderful way to show support for the country as a whole...

I'm honestly not totally sure what to think about this one, though I recognise that it's a big shift/likely a negative overall result.

Reason I'm humming and hawing, is that there are lots of expensive cybersecurity type 'things' that rely on the CVE system, without explicitly paying in to that system / supporting it directly, from what I recall / have seen. Take someone like Tenable security, who sell vulnerability scanners that extensively use/integrate with the CVE/NVD databases.... companies pay Tenable huge amounts of money for those products. Has Tenable been paying anything into the 'shared' public resource pool? How about all those 'audit' companies, who charge like 10-30k per audit for doing 'vulnerability / penetration tests'.

IT Security has been an expensive/profitable area for a long time, while also relying on generally public/shared resources to facilitate a lot of the work. Maybe an 'industry' funded consortium is the more appropriate way to go.

Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec's provincial party a seat at the table, while impeding access for parties such as the Greens and Peoples. They're basically an example of institutional discrimination that came in fairly recently, with a pretty explicit target/goal.

I have much less interest in sitting through a debate between 4 people, when 1/4 of the time will be dedicated to a guy talking about one province's interests, and where that party doesn't even run outside of that province. Guess I'll just wait for my media bubbles to give me the highlights and hope that it's not too biased.

Hilarious.... so the req is to have someone in the house (or 4% vote share nationally), and run candidates in most ridings. They're getting cut because the elections folks think they are in violation of the latter there.

While still allowing the Bloc to participate. A party that's never run a candidate outside of Quebec. A party where every second of time they're givin on a national stage, only speaks to one province's interests, in a 'national' debate. Who's been in pretty well every national debate for decades now.

Still a ton of wiggle room here for the province, which is a bit annoying. Over reliance on products from companies like Microsoft is rampant in the gov -- tons of gov stuff is in US cloud products. While alternatives exist, it's very likely they'll exempt 90% of their entwined supply chains due to 'cost' or other out-clauses in this announcement.

It's vaporware until its commercially available.

I'm curious -- I've looked at this a little in the past, but paused once the payment requirement showed up. Doesn't feel like it really matters at all about using a VPN or otherwise to try and hide my identity, if there's a charge on a credit card that proves I use a torrenting service... ? How are people sorting that out, or are we all just pretending you can't get tracked through a payment?

Lots of people seem to think it's either or, and it really shouldn't be, in my view. (I'll note I'm canadian, since it seems to matter to some these days).

The argument that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to protest is to me somewhat valid, but with a bunch of reservations. Peaceful protests, publishing op eds, (obviously) University papers, online posts, and other 'regular' forms of expression I'm totally in agreement that they should be allowed to express themselves/participate.

But we've also seen cases in Canada where our immigration levels got so high, that we literally had CCP organized protests in favour of a detained Chinese CCP Billionaire, as well as the tearing down of "peaceful protests"/awareness things in regards to HongKong and the crack down the CCP did there. We've seen large, organized groups of Indian students -- their messages of "go get free food" being amplified by foreign controlled social media -- draining our food banks dry, the loss of that social support helping to fuel class conflicts and increased animosity towards Indian people as a demographic. We've seen 'protests' leveraged by foreign powers to sow discontent and animosity intentionally, and/or to control the narrative around news stories.

And that's really no surprise: one of the stated methodologies of authoritarian regimes, for attacking democracies, is to basically sow civil unrest through the amplification of contested issues/topics. They'll amplify/fund controversial right-wing and left-wing viewpoints in order to cause internal conflict. They'll hype up race conflicts. Like how the majority of people are totally fine saying both "Hamas is bad" and "Israel's genocidal actions in gaza are bad", but somehow it's always framed as just a 2 sided thing where you're on one side or the other, is great for authoritarians: why fight a democracy, when you can make it fight itself. If we're accepting Students/people from authoritarian regimes, we have to be realistic in acknowledging many of these people will share the regimes beliefs, and will be actively working against our governments / peoples. They aren't the stereotypical refugee seeking a better/freer life, but rather people with malicious intentions and a desire to disrupt.

So I'm fine with such people having visas and non-permanent citizenship revoked if the person's involved in criminal activity (violent protests), and/or if they're a primary organizer/instigator/funder of such things, or (as was the case with some 'student' groups in Canada) they're actively coordinating their protests with foreign embassies/agents. I'd also be in favour of increased scrutiny of people from such regions when it comes to long term stays / partial immigration (where they don't renounce their former non-democratic country). Lots of countries also expect singular citizenship, I see no particular issue with western democracies at least requiring that their citizens not support/be registered citizens of authoritarian dictatorships. If you want to live in an egalitarian/democratic country, you shouldn't be supportive of authoritarian autocracies/dictatorships.

And again, similar to the note about 'one side or the other', in terms of free speech, most folks generally recognise that there are some reasonable restrictions / repercussions involved with it. Hate speech, explicitly calling for the killing of some group of people or what have you, clearly not a 'right' for most sane people -- at least, not one that wouldn't come with consequences. In the same way that the left is fine boycotting Musk for his Nazi salutes (he's free to express himself as a Nazi, and other people are free to take issue with that / not support him because of it), foreigners explicitly challenging the existing norms of society should be prepared for potential consequences if they do so in a manner deemed inappropriate.

Appliances.

Yes.