psvrh

joined 2 years ago
[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

It makes sense when you realize Ford won't do anything that returns private money to the public, but will do everything and anything that enriches the private sector.

Removing tolls from the 407 would be a public benefit, so he won't do it. You'd be more likely to see him sell the east-of-Pickering chunk of 407 for a "tax break" and claim it's a win.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 32 points 8 months ago (12 children)

Is this because there unsafe, or because they're driven by douchebags? Or both?

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago

You'd think this, but so far he just seems to keep damaging more things and rolling everything up into a kind of metastasizing grift that gets it's tentacles into everything.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

For a country that fought to not have a king, they really seem to want one.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

What the age of consent in every legal jurisdiction.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

You're absolutely right about this. 7 is basically a Vista service pack that got rebranded.

All of the "good stuff" people credit 7 with came in Vista.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

8 wasn't nearly as bad as people think, and there were big improvements to the kernel that make it a definite improvement over 7.

The problem for most people was the Start screen, which if you could get past, left you with what was a really good OS.

Less ads and telemetry than 10, too.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

The reason citizens feel this way is because they've seen the half-assed policy we have, where we don't enforce drug laws, but don't support addicts either, and the result is serious harm to just about any city of size in most of Canada.

The correct solution would be a) housing and comprehensive supports for addicts, so they have a roof over their head and can get clean, b) safe-supply, and c) actual enforcement of laws and bylaws so that the only place you can use your safe, free supply is the home from a) or the treatment centre in b).

All of this would cost money and political capital. The cheap solution was to just do a half-assed job enforcing laws about drug use, and a similarly half-assed approach to the crime caused by drug use, with a token few bucks thrown at safe-consumption. This looked wonderfully progressive, and it had the benefit of being cheap and keeping the riff-raff out of nice suburban spaces. Basically, we looked at Portugal's solution, and did maybe 30-50% of it, and looked all shocked when it didn't work.

Now we're dealing with a situation where we didn't address the causes of addiction, and piled on not addressing the impacts, either. And people--voters, people who live and work in downtowns scorched by addiction--are unhappy about it. And now it's a more expensive problem then it was 10-15 years ago.

This is painfully typical of Canada: ignore a problem when it's cheap to fix, half-ass a solution, and then cry poverty and powerlessness when the problem metastasizes into a crisis. See: healthcare, education or immigration

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 45 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe next time do this stuff during your mandate instead of the last eight weeks?

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Exchange, formerly known as "what if we made an email server, but it's database is Microsoft Access?"

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)
[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (7 children)

The RNC saw moderates kicked out by voters in primaries, and candidates made sure to run.

Why can't the DNC and progressive voters do the same?

view more: ‹ prev next ›