wampus

Not knowledgeable enough? Look up equalization payments then. Quebec gets the majority of equalization payments, and has gotten such for literally decades, because they're considered a "have not" province. Like last year (2024) they got around $13 billion (52% of the total amount handed out) -- from Western Canada, as the region that is historically termed "have" provinces (every province except BC, Alberta and Sask got money, those western provinces just 'lost' billions to support the rest of Canada). That money is no strings attached, which allows Quebec to do stuff like offer additional social supports, and then the people of Quebec get to look down their noses at the West, and say crap like "Why aren't your education options cheaper? Peasants!". Maybe they would be, if we could keep our tax revenue, rather than being forced to support Quebec.

Even more insulting, those payments are a result of the Constitution. If Quebec doesn't want to sign, fine, don't give them the Western province's money. Or how bout those Bloc folks take a principled stance and just hand the money back to the West. They don't agree with the constitution, but seem perfectly content to reap the benefits from it. They're good with Canada so long as they can sponge.

This isn't a new issue from the Western provinces. It's been ongoing for decades. Even as recently as 2018, with Kenney and Moe in Alberta and Sask, when the formula was last renewed at the fed level, there were releases about how pissed the west was with it -- the feds renewed it without consulting the provinces, and without any changes to address the issues the west has with it. I'm guessing you're from back east, which makes it entirely fitting that you're completely ignorant of the issues on this side of the country.

As for the resentment long term, imagine a bunch of kids at a party. One kid loses a game and throws a tantrum and refuses to play with the others any more. The other kids bend over backward to try and get that kid to calm the fuck down. The kid refuses, even after everyone's tried bribing him / treating him better than every other kid there. He keeps disrupting things and being a pain in the arse. He takes other kids toys and plays with them, while mocking those kids. Who would want that kid back at the next party. Continuing to spoil them, just re-enforces their negative behaviour. Sure, there may be "reasons" to be a spoiled little shit, but at some point Quebec ought to grow up and look outside their own border. Resentment cuts both ways, and based on the realities of 'today', Quebec's got a lot less to complain about than western provinces.

Like I listened to some of that debate yesterday. The gall of that Bloc guy being all "Carney hasn't called me to consult on what's best for Quebec, he can't be trusted" is just lunacy. And that's the sort of narcissitic self-centered dipshit that Quebec supports. Like if the fed was to consult anyone about Quebec's provincial interests, it would be a meeting with the premiers, which is what happened. If some minority leader in the house, who refuses to treat national issues as national issues, wants to throw a hissy fit about how the people dealing with a crisis aren't directly consulting with them in their self-aggrandized role.... that leader should be tossed the hell out. Asking a national party, during a national crisis, with national support, to come bend the knee for some minority party with (quite literally) an anti-national agenda, is beyond 'not helping'. And saying that stuff, and broadcasting it to the whole country, should be embarrassing for the people he represents. But people in Quebec are likely to be all "he stands up for us!", similar to how dumbass Ford was able to get back in just by draping himself in a f'ing flag to distract people from the damage his govt does on the whole.

Sure, though that's part of the problem that the States is whining about. US taxes paid for the service, which lots of other nations/foreign companies used.

Things like Libraries require taxes to operate. You'd likely be annoyed if you were struggling, and then found out your gov was using your taxes to pay for a bunch of foreign countries to have libraries. And then you find out that those foreigners are able to use those libraries to make good money, which they don't use to support their libraries, cause the States is already covering it. So you're paying taxes, and struggling to do so, so that EU companies can reap profits and live comfy.

And yes, charge a fee. That's basically what I've said, no? That there's a value add, and that there are 'professionals'/companies using it who aren't paying for that value add. So something like a fee for frequent pulls against the vuln feeds, to replace whatever funding the US gov was giving, would make sense to me. though I suppose this has now been kicked down the road till next year.

Canada's a young enough country that there were still a bunch of bitter Quebecois who remembered losing against the British, and they had such giant rods up their arses that they decided to take it out on the rest of Canada by not signing a piece of paper, and having a militant separatist group go bombing English speaking people (and then whining about martial law when the govt took action to stop it). And to try and appease the pampered province, Ontario continues to compete in National "French Language" debates where each politician spends a TON of time trying to convince Quebec they'd give the best sloppy bj with tons of financial perks as lube. Financial lube that they take from Provinces in the West, who they ignore. Quebec then tells them all to get fucked and votes for the Bloc anyhow. And while telling everyone to get f'd, they still get more benefits than any other province. They're a spoiled child in this sense.

I wonder why there's often talk of Western alienation, hand in hand, with Quebec separatist movements. Like the last time the Bloc had a 'real' referendum, there were movements in BC/Alberta half-jokingly asking if we could vote them out.

Like here's an Idea, we're having a french language debate -- that's totally fine and Canadian. But that shouldn't require it to be a whole debate focused almost entirely on Quebec and Quebecs local issues. The Bloc guy, despite his attestations, is not some king representing "Quebec": they deserve to have a broader conversation, and Canada ought to treat the language's reach as "National", not "Just this one niche pocket". Ask questions about how the politicians will help British Columbia during that French language debate. Ask another about Alberta. How will Canadians voting for the Bloc, benefit people back West? Make that Bloc guy stand there for 10-15 minutes explaining to voters that a vote for him, is a vote to tell every other Canadian to get fucked, because he has no real plan or care for Canada as a country. And then when he's in power, treat ridings that go bloc like they treat most minority party ridings out west -- shift funding to the provinces that actually support the federation. Or at the very least, let them keep their tax revenue, instead of sending it to Quebec as "equalization payments".

The current format of those debates is divisive, and elevates the bloc more than it deserves.

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?