wampus

I'm honestly not totally sure what to think about this one, though I recognise that it's a big shift/likely a negative overall result.

Reason I'm humming and hawing, is that there are lots of expensive cybersecurity type 'things' that rely on the CVE system, without explicitly paying in to that system / supporting it directly, from what I recall / have seen. Take someone like Tenable security, who sell vulnerability scanners that extensively use/integrate with the CVE/NVD databases.... companies pay Tenable huge amounts of money for those products. Has Tenable been paying anything into the 'shared' public resource pool? How about all those 'audit' companies, who charge like 10-30k per audit for doing 'vulnerability / penetration tests'.

IT Security has been an expensive/profitable area for a long time, while also relying on generally public/shared resources to facilitate a lot of the work. Maybe an 'industry' funded consortium is the more appropriate way to go.

Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec's provincial party a seat at the table, while impeding access for parties such as the Greens and Peoples. They're basically an example of institutional discrimination that came in fairly recently, with a pretty explicit target/goal.

I have much less interest in sitting through a debate between 4 people, when 1/4 of the time will be dedicated to a guy talking about one province's interests, and where that party doesn't even run outside of that province. Guess I'll just wait for my media bubbles to give me the highlights and hope that it's not too biased.

Hilarious.... so the req is to have someone in the house (or 4% vote share nationally), and run candidates in most ridings. They're getting cut because the elections folks think they are in violation of the latter there.

While still allowing the Bloc to participate. A party that's never run a candidate outside of Quebec. A party where every second of time they're givin on a national stage, only speaks to one province's interests, in a 'national' debate. Who's been in pretty well every national debate for decades now.

Still a ton of wiggle room here for the province, which is a bit annoying. Over reliance on products from companies like Microsoft is rampant in the gov -- tons of gov stuff is in US cloud products. While alternatives exist, it's very likely they'll exempt 90% of their entwined supply chains due to 'cost' or other out-clauses in this announcement.

It's vaporware until its commercially available.

I'm curious -- I've looked at this a little in the past, but paused once the payment requirement showed up. Doesn't feel like it really matters at all about using a VPN or otherwise to try and hide my identity, if there's a charge on a credit card that proves I use a torrenting service... ? How are people sorting that out, or are we all just pretending you can't get tracked through a payment?

Lots of people seem to think it's either or, and it really shouldn't be, in my view. (I'll note I'm canadian, since it seems to matter to some these days).

The argument that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to protest is to me somewhat valid, but with a bunch of reservations. Peaceful protests, publishing op eds, (obviously) University papers, online posts, and other 'regular' forms of expression I'm totally in agreement that they should be allowed to express themselves/participate.

But we've also seen cases in Canada where our immigration levels got so high, that we literally had CCP organized protests in favour of a detained Chinese CCP Billionaire, as well as the tearing down of "peaceful protests"/awareness things in regards to HongKong and the crack down the CCP did there. We've seen large, organized groups of Indian students -- their messages of "go get free food" being amplified by foreign controlled social media -- draining our food banks dry, the loss of that social support helping to fuel class conflicts and increased animosity towards Indian people as a demographic. We've seen 'protests' leveraged by foreign powers to sow discontent and animosity intentionally, and/or to control the narrative around news stories.

And that's really no surprise: one of the stated methodologies of authoritarian regimes, for attacking democracies, is to basically sow civil unrest through the amplification of contested issues/topics. They'll amplify/fund controversial right-wing and left-wing viewpoints in order to cause internal conflict. They'll hype up race conflicts. Like how the majority of people are totally fine saying both "Hamas is bad" and "Israel's genocidal actions in gaza are bad", but somehow it's always framed as just a 2 sided thing where you're on one side or the other, is great for authoritarians: why fight a democracy, when you can make it fight itself. If we're accepting Students/people from authoritarian regimes, we have to be realistic in acknowledging many of these people will share the regimes beliefs, and will be actively working against our governments / peoples. They aren't the stereotypical refugee seeking a better/freer life, but rather people with malicious intentions and a desire to disrupt.

So I'm fine with such people having visas and non-permanent citizenship revoked if the person's involved in criminal activity (violent protests), and/or if they're a primary organizer/instigator/funder of such things, or (as was the case with some 'student' groups in Canada) they're actively coordinating their protests with foreign embassies/agents. I'd also be in favour of increased scrutiny of people from such regions when it comes to long term stays / partial immigration (where they don't renounce their former non-democratic country). Lots of countries also expect singular citizenship, I see no particular issue with western democracies at least requiring that their citizens not support/be registered citizens of authoritarian dictatorships. If you want to live in an egalitarian/democratic country, you shouldn't be supportive of authoritarian autocracies/dictatorships.

And again, similar to the note about 'one side or the other', in terms of free speech, most folks generally recognise that there are some reasonable restrictions / repercussions involved with it. Hate speech, explicitly calling for the killing of some group of people or what have you, clearly not a 'right' for most sane people -- at least, not one that wouldn't come with consequences. In the same way that the left is fine boycotting Musk for his Nazi salutes (he's free to express himself as a Nazi, and other people are free to take issue with that / not support him because of it), foreigners explicitly challenging the existing norms of society should be prepared for potential consequences if they do so in a manner deemed inappropriate.

Appliances.

Yes.

I haven't really spoken to any of my green reps before, in terms of them running for the seat. I have had interactions with my NDP MLA and MP, and have been left thoroughly disappointed with the results.

I don't think a whip position is really that big a deal for a party, until they have enough people elected to make it matter.

So the argument is what, that the white people who had a 'role model' for their kids shouldn't be annoyed that the industry is removing that role model, because race shouldn't matter. But also that race representation matters, and that it's important for other races to have representation by taking over the roles of those figures.

It doesn't upset me, it just doesn't make sense to me. Like I accept that parents want to have positive role models that 'look like' their kids, as it helps kids development. So it makes sense that minority groups want to see themselves represented as such in media, and that they'd celebrate established characters being swapped over to be their race/gender. However, that same line of thinking explains why white people are annoyed that their kids are 'losing' role models that 'look like them'. If you assert that 'race matters' (and I accept that it does for kids), then it seems reasonable to be annoyed that those characters are being 'taken away' for practically the same reason that it seems reasonable for minority groups to be happy to see themselves represented. If race representation matters for the character and kids having positive role models, than its arguably worse to disenfranchise the larger group of kids.

I mean, we're busy watching young guys flock to alpha dumbass influencer bros, in part because there are fewer and fewer positive role models for them to look up to.

In Canada its termed EDI https://www.canada.ca/en/research-coordinating-committee/priorities/equity-diversity-inclusion-research.html

We do see requirements for people to state whether they're an Employment Equity group -- or rather, options to positively identify as an employment equity group so that you can get passed that 'check' on the hiring process. The government of Canada will literally send you a note saying you've been kicked out of the application pool for 'not' identifying as such on their forms, for example. And the only group that isn't an employment equity group, are cis white men. The checkboxes to identify as FN are also "optional", but generally translate into more benefits/privileges in hiring and so on.

The Employment equity act is a derived document that changes the Charter's general assertions in 15(1)(2) into specific groups which, the verbiage of which excludes only cis white men. The Charter says "no discrimination based on race/gender", the EEA says "you can positively discriminate in favour of any group except cis white guys".

No, I'm not surprised in the slightest by either of these, seeing as I've known about these things for decades, and seeing as I've received "You didn't identify as an Equity Employment Group" rejection letters from the federal government in the past.