n2burns

It's not how easy they could kill him, it's how easily they could not see him (for example, at a cross walk).

As for killing, one of those trucks could easily do me in and I'm 6'0" 280lbs.

Poilievre added that municipal government revenues have grown through the collection of development cost charges, and would require municipal governments to speed up permits.

Poilievre is almost partially right here. Development charges are waay too high in a lot of areas. In some communities in the GTA, they are >$100K!! However, municipal governments have done this as to not upset residents by keeping their property tax increases low. As my municipality's CFO said, municipal governments are the only level where their income doesn't increase with inflation (Ontario is still using 2016 property assessments).

one has Cyanogen

You are running a device that is nearly a decade without updates?

I think people who think about housing critically get it, but unfortunately I don't think most Canadians get this, either on or off Lemmy. It's too easy to see "1.3 Million Vacant Houses" and think that's a solution for the Housing Crisis.

I am fully supportive of public housing and coops, but that doesn't explain how a "limit 1 house per family" rule would work or what it's intending to achieve. If you or @Sunshine@lemmy.ca want to expand on that you can even explain it in the context of a whole system, I'm happy to hear it. I am a policy wonk and just want to understand this proposal.

Why did you feel the need to editorialise the headline so much? I know it's not a requirement on this sub, but that's usually so posters can provide better context

I'm Canadian and my lower-bound estimate is 25¢/km(~€0.17/km), so 50km would be $12.50(€8.44). And I think it's a lot more expensive to drive in Europe.

Can you explain what you mean by

-limit 1 house per family

Many of the times I've heard this sentiment, it's been to either ban Mom&Pop landlords, or ban rental houses completely. These options seem to benefit potential homeowners by screwing over renters. I'm not sure if you mean something different?

Vacant House Taxes have been tried throughout Canada and are generally ineffective. They are just a distraction.

The main reason why they don't work is fairly obvious: Why would someone own property to keep it vacant?

Sure, there are some people with vacation homes, or second homes where they frequently visit (heck, I might have to get an apartment where my office is located now we're being forced to return to the office). Oh the Urbanity has a great video where they point out the vast majority of "Vacant Homes" are either students who don't permanently live there, in the process of a move, under renovation, etc.

Besides the privacy concerns, AFAIK I know there's no training/gradual-introduction for soon-to-be 16 year olds. That means, assuming some of them follow the rules, they'll go from nothing to full-force Social Media. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you’re getting 650 Mbps, all of your hardware is definitely capable of running 1 Gbps

Just to clarify, this means there aren't any 100 Mbps bottlenecks, not that the hardware can run at 1 Gbps. When Gigabit was new, a lot of hardware was rated for Gigabit but couldn't actually get 1000Mbps. I know this is less of an issue now Gigabit is mature, but there's still a possibility something is bottlenecking just due to the hardware not being able to keep up.

Those restrictions seem good, no? You don't get subsidies to build out your manufacturing just to sell it off.