abff08f4813c

Hmm... well that's disappointing. I know the IRS in the US does this (as per https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor ) was hoping Canada was made of stronger stuff.

Wife would be the biggest factor in all this I think, so yeah.

That said (noting for posterity), you're right - it is pretty challenging to emigrate with a criminal record. But it's not impossible. See for example https://www.cicnews.com/2023/12/three-ways-to-overcome-a-cannabis-conviction-before-coming-to-canada-1240675.html#gs.i5eu5j

If you got the 13 years due to possession of cannabis in the US for example - that's not a crime in Canada, so you'd have to disclose it but it wouldn't pose an issue in moving (assuming you otherwise were eligible and passed all the bars in getting here).

For things which are also crimes in Canada, sometimes you can apply for criminal rehabiliation - so in your case, eight years from now, you'd be eligible to apply for that (five years of good behaviour and no crimes after your sentence/probation/restriction ends).

The article explains,

without verifying what turned out to be sham documents.

In other words, they did have to do the same thing, but instead of spending lots of time and money on the real thing (which was impossible for them anyways because - you know, they're scammers) they did it for free with tools like photoshop.

Now, the lack of verification is probably a new thing post covid - if someone had tried this back in 2011 I'm guessing the CRA would have attempted to verify, caught that they were sham documents, and serious consequences would ensure.

It's a separate process as per https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116982 and https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148896 - this resolution is in the UN General Assembly, whereas vetos apply to things that get sent to the UN Security Council.

When the USSR tried to use it's veto to end the Korean war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly/_Resolution/377/(V got passed to provide authorization to allow the UN members to continue fighting in support of South Korea.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency/_special/_session/_of/_the/_United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly

Is this the same news as described in https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spain-friars-killed-injured-monastery/ ?

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it's used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 ("Getting additional peers from IPFS API")

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don't recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can't be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole/punching/(networking )

There might be ways around that though.

Consider that when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly/_Resolution/2758/(XXVI originally passed, for example, the US was not able to veto this.

Makes sense to me. What's the use of have a member in an organization when can't follow the rules set by said org?

Agreed. The current party is trying to be a coalition that brings in folks from as far right as neocons like Dick Cheney to as far left as Andrew Yang (UBI) along with super progressives like the Bern.

I've said before that it naturally makes sense for it to split up based on that. I guess without systemic and constitutional reform, the new parties would have to cooperate and agree on e.g. a single candidate for President (maybe a multi-party group primary?)

But if we had a primary this year I feel like a candidate would have been chosen who could have won, so anything that forces primaries to occur (and allow voters more choice) is a good thing.

At first glance, "the right call" makes me think spatially in terms of direction - i.e. always call the phone number on the right side of the page, instead of the left side.

(Obviously they mean the correct call to get the correct help, but it's still funny).

But they still are actively refusing to acknowledge the American working class exists and are struggling.

The Bern is smart and usually right about these kind of things.

That said, I'd argue that even in the campaign this year some steps were taken in the right direction, e.g.

We have not even brought forth legislation to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, despite the fact that some 20 million people in this country are working for less than $15 an hour

But then, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/23/politics/federal-minimum-wage-harris-trump/index.html

Whoever told Kamala to brag about the economy to anyone that isn’t a millionaire needs to be the first person to never work in politics again

I can see this as being a calculated risk - take credit for something that sounds good - but yeah they forgot the maxim "it's the economy, stupid!"

We need a popular vote of registered Dem voters to determine DNC leadership and party platform

Better yet, a reformed system so that a third party who implements this has a legitimate shot at the highest offices.

If we keep giving leadership to whoever gets the most donations, they’ll keep ignoring the working class because it’s easier to get money from the wealthy.

Perhaps I defeated myself here - I came here to justify the Dems but if I'm saying we have a better shot at reforming the US constitution than we do at reforming the internals of the Dem party, then I've really done the opposite.

Still, if they can convince him to keep the US in the agreement, that's better than the alternative. Though my hopes here are not high.

Alas, they'd have a seat at the table anyways, considering how large and global they are - they could for example push through their ExxonMobile Canada affiliate, or through one or several of their European ones.