Subscript5676

You missed an important word for the part about traffic

… can sit in traffic for 30 seconds less than before (temporarily) …

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’d be a slight recovery in tourists at all, especially if the negotiations appear to be somewhat smooth.

This chat with my colleagues about the situation down south and what they’ve been doing with regards to the state just sort of revealed to me that while there are people like us on Lemmy that are repulsed by what’s happening there, there are also people who have closer ties to the US or have frequented the US who try to find ways to tell themselves that they themselves should be fine crossing the border, as long as they get rid of things on themselves that would upset the orange down south. For those with family, I get it. But for those who’re still doing it for leisure, it’s rather clear from the way they’re putting it that they prioritize their own lifestyle over politics, which, tbf, we all have different lines that we draw on that.

Sorry for making a comment that seems impossible to reply to, but I just needed to get that off my chest.

Oh he knew. But he’s also the kind of person who would know how to put up an image when he needs to, and I’m sure he knows how to not prod at tigers (even if it’s just a kitten pretending to be one). There’s some sliminess in him and he knows how to slither his way around things that are potentially dangerous to get what he wants, though at least he doesn’t go around hurting other people.

I have a colleague who said he feels fine going down there for whatever cause he thinks he’ll pass with just how white he looks 🤷 Some people…

Maybe just like how we won’t have their bike infrastructure there (at least in the short term), we won’t have their Fairphones :’( (at least in the short term… I hope)

Sorry, I can help it…

* smacks roof of car labelled The Left

This bad boy can fit so many punches in it

In that case, okay, I see where you’re coming from with the previous comment. But yeah, it’s always good to question claims of some 4D-chess-like move a government is doing, cause often times, we’d actually know what’s happened, and so would the party on the other side of the table.

I will also say this to clarify, cause I think it seems like we have different definitions: when I said pro-X, I only meant it in the sense that you actively do things that benefit party X. I noticed that it’s used interchangeably with “action benefits party X,” but context doesn’t always make it clear.

And I’m only saying that calling what we see right now a bend of the knee might still be a bit early given that this is a situation that’s still ongoing. If the events are to stop right now, and we essentially get nothing else on top of getting Trump on the negotiating table, then heck ya it’s a capitulation. You call it optimism, I call it seeing it for what it is putting aside my pessimistic view on it. But yes, I agree that we shouldn’t need to do what Carney did.

The questionable bills, and general de-regulation / removal of environmental reviews, are in line with US interests at present, which are backed by tech giants wanting to take more control / have more autonomy. The continued (over) reliance on US tech services is also clearly not in Canada's best interests, given how the US has been leveraging their near monopolistic status in that realm. Many of our newly elected government officials got in on a promise of standing up to America's authoritarian bullshit, but once in power have basically complied and made similar authoritarian steps.

This is a very charged take of Bill C-5 and it makes it hard to agree or disagree. Might just be a me-thing, but anytime people use very charged words or takes, I just have the tendency to retort, because while they aren’t possibilities you can disprove, there’s also nothing to prove them. We can entertain the possibility, but I do wonder if we’d just be focusing on the wrong problem and make constructive conversations impossible to make.

Uhh… Did you reply to the right person/comment? I don’t see how your comment connects to mine here. But I’ll reply to your comment anyway.

I don’t disagree with your comment, but I am definitely a bit more hesitant to label Carney as anything (the word “neoliberal” has so many competing definitions it’s essentially a nothing-burger with only some bad flavour attached to it to make it a punching bag by all sides these days). First off, it’s pretty clear that Trump’s moves are done in favour of the US tech oligarchs, that we can agree on.

Carney’s recent moves have basically burnt through his political capital extremely quickly, though I can’t say all of them align with or benefit the US, not even the pipelines he’s been eager to build, especially cause most of the O&G companies in Alberta are mostly owned by foreign companies (source), not necessarily all by the US. And Carney’s government hasn’t done that much with about 2 months in, but none of them have been pro-international trade per se. Cutting the carbon tax is definitely pro-business but it was done more so to appease the right more broadly than just businesses, though I guess if you consider the fact that O&G companies are mostly foreign-owned, then you might say it’s pro-international-trade, but since we’ve barely decarbonized our economy and society by much (doesn’t help that Ontario and Alberta have such strong conservative provincial governments), and the costs are passed onto consumers anyway (though consumers get that rebate), cutting the carbon tax does essentially nothing for businesses at the expense of consumers. Internal trade barriers is, well, internal, and its consequences can be a toss up for businesses in general: those with the resources to operate across provinces may be able to give smaller players a hard time.

All-in-all, I haven’t seen their other moves as being obtusely against Canadian interests, even if we don’t agree with all of them (eg Bill C-5 and Bill C-2), and even if they hurt Canadians in the long run. That said, the earlier border bill is basically an appeasement, given that it was clearly a cop out issue by Trump. This cutting of the Digital Services Tax is another instance of Carney’s government giving up on a policy that is in the country’s interest to try gain what they think is also in the country’s interest with the US, and ostensibly so. So that’s two, but we’ll still need at least a few more of such instances to see if Carney’s gov is pro-US, cause insofar, these were done to get Trump onto the negotiating table by hurting Canadians a little (privacy on the border bill, and putting back on the threat to our media and online entertainment industry). I would hope we’d actually get something given that the sacrifices have been made, and I’d rather we don’t do what Carney did, but we can’t disregard the fact that there’s a potential gain to be made, even if we don’t like how things are going down, and don’t like how we’re negotiating with a wannabe dictator. We haven’t gotten anything out of it though, so patience with Carney is going to run thin.

And let’s not even talk about PP. Just because he’s not elected and we didn’t immediately get Musk-ed, doesn’t necessarily make me feel any better with how most of Carney’s economic moves have been more conservative than what I think is necessary. For example, he said we should have a good energy mix, but he’s yet to announce or even mention any investment or developments in green energy, or anything that would contribute to a good off-ramp for O&G companies (even if we don’t think they deserve it) and making sure we have a healthy amount of green energy generation, and thus only making it more and more necessary to more extreme measures if we want to save our and our children's future.

I’m gonna need some citations or sources for that.

AFAIK, the service tax was not “put in place ages ago”. It was put in force in June 2024, literally last year, and the first payments were expected literally yesterday, on June 30th, 2025. It’s retroactive, but still only goes back to 2022, which isn’t “ages ago”. Source

And what’s this wheat market steal you’re talking about?

This is a very hand-wavy way of discerning distros, but they basically differ by 3 things:

1. the set of the defaults they ship with when installed,
2. the system packages that they distribute through their official package manager hosted on their own package repositories, and
3. the package manager, which encompasses the distro’s release strategy.

Major distros generally manage how a package gets built on their distros, in a way that’s compatible with the rest of their package repository, while smaller players may choose to directly use one of the repositories from the major distros, go their own route, or do something in between, i.e. repackage some of the packages from the upstream repositories. Typically, the smaller distros re-use large parts of a larger distro and give a sort of flavour to the larger distro. In the Linux community, these larger distros end up being called “bases”, and many smaller distros are generally “based on” some larger distro.

Manjaro is based on Archlinux, which, incidentally, is also what the newer SteamOS is based on (SteamOS used to be Ubuntu-based). Whether Manjaro actually provides benefits remains to be seen, cause their reputation has been really bad for several years because of how they’ve soured their relationship with a really supportive community earlier on in their life, and badly handled the distribution and communications of several critical packages. I haven’t followed their news in a while, but if they stroke a deal with the company to work together and ship essentially proprietary software or drivers, you can certainly expect some advantage, at least earlier on, but experience tells us that these usually don’t end up well in the long term.

As far as the handheld market goes, you aren’t wrong: every company and their mother that has a potential to get into this market is now ogling at the chance to gain that market share after seeing the success of the Switch and Deck. Many see the Deck as an underpowered machine and believe that they can offer better specs at lower prices (particularly large companies as they typically already have the benefit of economics of scale). AFAIK the Deck has been unbeatable in terms of market share, but that might be outdated info from several months ago.

Fuck this imperialistic, purely exploitative, and victim-seeking, almost Nazi take.

1. First Nations are part of Canada and they have a say in this country’s future.
2. Prosperity and resource utilization do not have to be achieved by closing the door on discussions that need to be had.
3. This bill is blatantly and clearly undemocratic, and is a threat that can throw this country into the similar shit show that we see down south. If you’re happy to see it passed, I don’t know what to say about you.

I’m hoping this is just your bad take and not trying to parrot some shit rhetoric that’s been coming out of certain talk figures and some less reputable users around here.

That comment is just my opinion (hence the “imo”), cause most of the reviews will just say that the story is meh without explaining why it’s meh. People aren’t pissed about the contradiction between the gameplay loop and the story.

And imo it’s perfectly fine if you’re viewing it through the lens of “it’s just a game in a fictional setting that happens to have a relatable message,” or simply an “idk is there even a story?” Most people play MH, and honestly just a lot of games, with that mindset, so just cause people never really cared over all the old titles, it doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable: it’s just ignored. Now, I don’t really take issue with that (I’m typically a bit of a lore buff) or the contradiction itself: it’s fictional, do what you want, even if it doesn’t make sense or even contradictory; but I do wonder what Capcom’s intention is, spending all that money and time to create some kind of story. I mean, there are so many other settings they could choose, but they went with this.