I think you're on to something.
I also think there's a difference in where the network effect kicks in for different types of social media. IMHO, Lemmy has just enough activity to not feel empty, and even then I wish there was more comments to interact with and more niche communities. With Pixelfed, I feel like as long as there's enough interesting posts it makes sense for people to visit regularly.
That's why I refuse to play with people who are bad sports (bad losers/winners). I understand people who don't enjoy competition, but that doesn't sound like your story. I enjoy healthy competition, but that person sounds like someone who just enjoys winning, and that's just toxic.
As much as I'd like to be able to swap batteries, that's irrelevant to this issue. Even when the battery is replaced the issue persists because it's a software issue.
TBH, that sounds even worse, and I am saying this as a fan of big government.
I assumed we were talking about US
Well, the article's about Greenland, but I guess Ameri-centrism is par for the course.
I’m pretty sure Canada has it’s own systemic problems.
Sure, but I don't think our donation rules are big systematic problems. Our rules don't allow donations from foreign sources or companies, and include pretty reasonable limits for individuals (plus 75% of political donations are refunded next tax year). We have definitely had donation scandals, but they've almost exclusively been because people are breaking the rules.
I think this is partially because the question is very vague. I generally support PR and wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Canadians do too, but I think if you compare the current system to just "proportional representation", it allows respondents to imagine their ideal system that fits within PR.
I remember answering this survey, and thinking the results would be drastically less favorable if you describes a specific system, like for example, MMP. Similarly if you added more details, like would their be less local representatives, or would parliament have to expand significantly?
A non-serious campaign could use those funds to enrich themselves/others even with approved activities. They could pay for staff, buy signs, etc. and all those people & businesses would make money doing legitimate work for a campaign whose only purpose was to employ those people/businesses.
Depends on which current system you mean. I'm Canadian, and while it's not perfect, it's a pretty good system.
The contract was for 100 million
For 15,000 connections. That's not bad per capita (especially when you consider these are remote places).
Just give out a series of domestic research grants and build it here.
They also do that where appropriate: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-connects-making-high-speed-internet-accessible-in-every-community
It's a trade off of costs vs made local. You do have to be careful that a company isn't just a reseller of foreign technology, or is just set up to absorb government grants.
There may be additional subsidies required to build the satellite network but who fucking cares - it’s an investment.
SpaceX has estimated it's constellation is costing tens of billions of dollar. That's from the company that already has the rockets and employs rocket scientists.
That sounds like a system that would be rife for abuse.
As much as I don't like Musk, Starlink is a good solution to provide internet in remote areas. As long as they followed the terms of the contract, I thought it was a good value for money for the province.
The White House has said Musk and his DOGE colleagues are "special government employees." It has yet to be seen of that arrangement is legal, but as it stands, they are part of the government workforce which is why bureaucrats are "going along with this".