doylio

Totally agree! Isn't an argument against the carbon tax though, but an argument for more transit development

There's been a slight downtick in recent years, but it's still up +10 years from 1970

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CAN/canada/life-expectancy

While I think the student protest are misguided, this seems like a good development. People have a right to (peacefully) protest, and universities shouldn't forcibly remove people that aren't hurting others or damaging property

It's not the simple unfortunately, because of 2 factors:

1. Our boomers are a very large generation, larger than the millenials

2. Life expectancy has increased so people live much longer (with high medical costs)

In the 70s - 2000s we had a large generation of in their working years paying for a small generation's 5-10 year retirement

Now, we have a small generation in their working years paying for a large generation 15-25 year retirement

And this is not something we can solve by just "taxing the rich". The numbers are so huge that taxing Canada's richest people is a drop in the bucket

I can't believe the carbon tax is getting such bad press lately. IMO it's one of the best policies to come out of the current government. Everyone is upset about high gas prices, but the forget that they get a big rebate at the end of the year. This means for people with fuel efficient cars, the tax is minimal, and the gas guzzlers pay a lot. Encourages better use of limited resources.

It's anti-tech propaganda. The same is happening with crypto. Certain groups don't like it, so they try to convince the public that it is bad for the environment so it will be banned

This isn't a good situation, but I also don't like the idea that people should be banned from using energy how they want to. One could also make the case that video games or vibrators are not "valuable" uses of energy, but if the user paid for it, they should be allowed to use it.

Instead of moralizing we should enact a tax on carbon (like we have in Canada) equal to the amount of money it would take to remove that carbon. AI and crypto (& xboxes, vibrators, etc) would still exist, but only at levels where they are profitable in this environment.

This is a bit of a fallacy. In a normal market, the rent for a home is less than the costs of home ownership (mortgage + maintenance + taxes) and that saved money can be used to purchase other assets.

Until the real estate mania of the last few years, if you followed this strategy, you would not be any worse off than the person who bought their home.

I personally would much rather have equity in more fungible assets than a home. Owning a home ties you to a specific location, and can't easily be sold in an emergency. Plus it's not a very diverse portfolio if most of you wealth is in a single property

Humanity:

It would be very stupid to set up a system where you have to give the porn site your ID. Better to just have an attestation that this user is over 18 years old.

There even ways to do this without the government knowing which site you visited with zero knowledge cryptography. But that would probably require everyone to get a Yubi key or equivalent, which might be hard to swallow

It seems to me much more likely that the porn industry is financing studies that say there is nothing wrong with porn use. The means and motive make a lot more sense going in that direction, as they don't want to be seen as the new cigarettes

I agree some are problematic. The first one is based on brain scans, which is hard to refute. And there are many more like it

The porn industry has a vested interest in suppressing this, and billions of dollars to spend muddying the waters.