![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/d451c051-3cc2-4b9b-ae35-5417d1aceb17.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
Unless Iran can pull a nuke out of a hat this Wednesday.
Unless Iran can pull a nuke out of a hat this Wednesday.
Stein summed it up, saying, “An American official said, ‘If you don’t hit targets A, B, C, we will provide you with diplomatic protection and an arms package.’”
“Israeli officials responded saying, ‘We consider the United States and listen to them. But we will do anything and everything we can to protect the citizens and the security of the State of Israel.’”
Jesus fucking Christ
I think you hit the nail on the head. More and more I think this is exactly the problem. Carbon taxes especially become a problem when the individual has no good alternatives to switch to. One obvious example is commuting by car and public transit. People should feel encouraged to switch to public transit by the policy. Except public transit is so inadequate in most of Canada that it’s simply not a realistic option for many if not most. If you’re an individual in that situation, you’d feel the carbon tax is just punishing you with no action you can take to make it stop. The only lever left to them is the democratic lever and they’re gonna pull it to make it stop. I think you’re right that the focus of the carbon tax should be on industry alone. Companies are much more likely to have ability to do something about their carbon output as well as to be able to act rationally on price signals. In order to address individual-level emissions, other policies should be employed. Create alternative first, then make them irresistible. Build massive public transit then make it cheap to use, procure large supply of heat pumps then subsidise exchanging gas furnaces for them.
Oh and when economists call it the most efficient way to curb climate change, they are talking specifically about economic efficiency. Its political externalities aren’t factored in even if they are large enough to kill the policy itself.
Grumbly noises
This is interesting. It’s almost like, there’s other mechanism/s driving polarisation, not the voting system in use.
Okay but it does seem odd to claim it’s unpopular when the unpopularity is based on misunderstanding.
I don’t think it’s odd, because people vote based on whatever their understanding or misunderstanding is. Therefore this popularity is what drives upstream decisions on keeping, modifying or repealing this policy. Not what the true, factual reality is.
Obamacare
I don’t have the numbers on Obamacare but lets assume for sake of argument that 80% of people wanted it repealed, while only 20% if it was called ACA. If at a given point in time the law was referred to by Obamacare by 80% of the people and they wanted it repealed, then I’d say it’s unpopular. Of course I can see how this applies to the CT and I’d refer you to my previous paragraph. People will vote and demand change on the basis of their current beliefs, however well they match reality. If someone managed to manufacture belief one way or another, that’s what counts at the ballot box. Today I think the beliefs on CT can’t be framed as popular. Worse, I think they shouldn’t be framed this way because it could lead to counterproductive results.
It looks like the comment section has attracted the Fuck Trudeau crowd. There’s very little discussion of substance on what was said.
I’m not arguing that people know what it is or are aware of the actual implications.
I remember that thread.
I wish they represented the general Canadian population. 😄
ABC baby! A.k.a “democracy my ass”
Same here. That doesn’t mean it’s popular with most Canadians. And if it’s the issue to give us Poilievre, who comes with other downsides, then perhaps we should revisit it. It don’t matter how many up/down votes it gets among us.
Look at some polling numbers on the issue.
Right, so the title is false. You can’t say something is popular when most people who have some opinion on it have a negative one.
It’s not popular.
There’s a part on that. It was … informative and unfortunate.
I wish I had that luxury. 😄 I guess we’ll see how numbers move in my riding by the time the election is called. Maybe NDP’s viability would increase.
That’s an interesting one. I know it depends on configuration, but in the run-of-the-mill case, does connecting through VPN stop local services to listen on local IPs? I know our corpo VPN kills local LAN access but I’m curious what the default for OpenVPN/Wireguard might be.
The OS interfaces provided to apps (generally POSIX) have no idea what HTTP is. They’re much lower level than that. If an OS is to control what protocols are used by apps, it has to offer some functionality that does HTTP for the apps and apps have to use it. Unfortunately the only way to force that would be to disable the general OS interfaces so that apps can’t just use existing libraries that use those. If you did that your OS would become useless in other ways that rely on the basic interfaces.
The other way the OS could do anything about it is to inspect network traffic going over its network interfaces. That would be a significantly different can of worms and it’s not free in terms of processing power and therefore battery. Then you’d have the screams of privacy people that Android or iOS is looking at all network traffic.
So all in all, the OS isn’t very well suited to police application level protocols like HTTP. At least not on devices whose primary purpose isn’t network traffic related.
And they package drives correctly.
I don’t know if SPD ships to where you are but a manufacturer recertified 16TB from them goes for ~$160. I have 7 drives from them so far, 5 in continuous use since spring, no issues so far.
Well done. 🙌