Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
帖子
4
评论
107
加入于
10 mo. ago

  • I can’t find the webpage now, but about a month or so before our last election, there was a webpage where they iirc gathered signatories from people who wanted housing prices to lower, and a good portion of them were retired.

  • I think we could start with just encouraging people to provide reasons when downvoting posts, by just showing a small box for comment for example. If we see improvements on engagement and that it ends up encouraging good conversations, then we’re all good. Otherwise, we can then get feedback on how people feel about that addition, or just observe from anonymized data, eg “How often does someone make a comment after downvoting?”

    I think going straight to harder requirements might backfire in this particular case; I can see a lot of people to just stop downvoting things because they’re too lazy to provide a reason.

  • For what seems like controversial posts, I seriously hope people would at least state why they downvoted something instead of just downvoting and leaving. If it’s straight up bad, we all know why, but this seems to invite debate more than just stating a bad take (for the record, I don’t think this is bad).

  • Votes for O&G interests -> Continues the slaughtering of our nature, worsening climate change -> Forests burn more uncontrollably -> Complains

    Big brain move there Republicunts

  • That’s a sick mask! 👍 Did Carney comment on it?

  • Dittoing @nyan@lemmy.cafe here.

    I’ve recently read an interview with a professor in International Politics, and basically there hasn’t been any good news on that front, and the world is heading back towards an age where “might makes right”. I think we see it too: countries are becoming more and more self-centred, willing to trade values for the benefit of their own country (or just the government themselves). The age of values-based international relations is over.

  • I don’t think that would stop tRump from trUmping. If anything, he’ll use that to further his lie that Canada’s a nasty country to deal with.

  • That’s not always bad though, but you definitely need a strong leverage. And a strong leverage is not something the US really has these days. In fact, they’re working really hard to get rid of their leverages. That’s some smart politics there. /s

    So this rando just came here and just said something like “I’m gonna make it harder for people in your neighbourhood to do business with mine if you don’t stop the fighting.” Like, sure bro. Like that’s gonna work.

    Sure, Thailand exports 19% of its products to the US, might hurt em a lil, but I don’t think that’d stop them from fighting Cambodia if they’re serious about it, and they were. Cambodia does export 42% of its stuff to the US, so it’d hurt em, but if Thailand isn’t gonna be bothered, it’s not like they have a choice.

    So much for the self-proclaimed master negotiator.

  • I’m sorry, but if you want to promote something, at least do it in the right places, and don’t try to spam your message everywhere to try to get support. You’re pretty much making yourself out to be a spammer, and most importantly here, your insensitivity to the topic here has only ruined any chances that I’d look at your project.

  • I wonder how much of it is Shwitter (yeah, Shit Twitter) feeding them all sorts of blatantly biased and overtly rosy image of tRump. The Japanese is excessively hooked on Shwitter after all, and they don’t typically follow US news too closely.

  • I’m adding this as a sub comment cause I think this would be extra points, but I guess it might be interesting for some, if they’ve never really read or thought about it.

    But do first note that I’m no expert of governments or foreign trade relations. I’m just an observer.

    You might be wondering if tariffs is the only way for governments to protect local industries, and you’re most probably thinking that that shouldn’t be the case. And you’re right. That said though, keep in mind that a tariff is a pretty simple tool for governments to use, and fairly good too: you fork out some money upfront to set up the tariff and all its supporting processes, and you get to earn money for the country. What actually happens is that you’ll tax any imports on the exporter, but what ends up happening is that exporters just add that to their cost and thus increase their prices, so it is typically like a tax on your own citizens. There are exporters who do just sort of eat that cost themselves, but that’s not common afaik.

    Another option you could support a local industry is by providing subsidies, which can be done in a myriad of ways: materials, procurement, research, labour, etc, and you can even mix and match some of them. The problem here, though, is that the government has to fork out that money — that’s why it’s a subsidy. The Chinese government loves doing this for any industry that they deem strategic, and they can do so a lot more freely than most democratic countries, because, well, they just don’t have to worry about an election if people aren’t happy with where the investment went. Here in Canada though, people do get mad when subsidies are offered for industries that they don’t like, and that affects the polls.

    You could also outright ban the import of certain products from certain countries, but that usually triggers very negative reactions from the affected countries, unless you have a clear law that literally bans the consumption or use of that product; people want to make money after all, and you’re literally making it impossible to do so. Examples of “okay” bans that most countries have over Canada are like cannabis, cause that’s deemed illegal in their country, and Canada doesn’t really have the desire to make those exports. It’s definitely a strong tool though, with potentially negative consequences.

  • Tariffs are used by countries very commonly and isn’t a Turnip original (yeah I spell his name however I’m feeling like).

    The reason why tariffs are used is generally to protect a local industry, typically one that’s weak, either because they’ve fallen behind, or that it’s a new budding industry and fierce competition will just obliterate its chances of even growing.

    Think of, say, our EV sector, which is essentially in its infancy. Sectors like these tend to have higher prices on their products because they’ve not reached a critical point and can enjoy the benefits of economies at scale, where they’ve can operate efficiently while mass producing their products; they’re still trying to figure out what works and works well, and so their stocks are limited, which usually means that their means of production is also not as efficient as an established company or sector. Now imagine if we don’t have tariffs against Chinese EVs, which is a mature Chinese industry at this point, and still enjoys massive government benefits to subsidize a lot of its production processes, i.e. their costs are low and they can sell their EVs for cheap. Imagine them just exporting a bunch of EVs to Canada. Without tariffs inflating their prices, most people would probably just buy Chinese EVs cause, well, that’s the economic thing to do individually in these unstable times. Our local EV companies would easily be beaten by cheaper Chinese rivals, especially when our own quality is not even close to competing with Chinese standards, i.e. they can’t make enough of revenue to cover their business operations and ongoing developments, and so the local industry would either die off because people may be discouraged to work in that sector, or it’ll take forever to grow.

    If you look around what other sane countries are doing, you’ll see that a lot of them have some level of tariffs in various industries levied against enemies and allies alike, because, well, you, as the government, generally have an incentive to protect your local industries, or people would have a hard time finding jobs and earning money, and if they can’t do that for a long enough, you can kiss your government seat goodbye.

  • Optics. He can claim to be a victim of “Canadian oppressors” and try to convince more people that there are “Canadian oppressors”.

  • While it’s true there’s a lot of that, AWS just dominates the cloud, and many of our own tech companies here in Canada use AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, not because they’re cheap, but because they have good uptime guarantees, security guarantees, easily allow you to deploy worldwide and provide fast access to customers almost everywhere (especially major markets like the EU and Asia), and provides companies access to a large talent pool who know how to use these systems. You’d be hard-pressed, as a business owner and/or CTO, to use other options and handle all those downsides yourself, slowing down your ability to do business. The only other potential non-US alternative here is probably Alibaba, but they’re not even close to being considered competition internationally.

    Aside from Apple, the big tech companies down south are big and hard to displace not because of what most people know them for, but because of this large arm of software infrastructure that basically serves as the literal backbone of the consumer-side of the Internet.

    And for those who think that we can just build that infrastructure ourselves, take note that these companies have been doing this for at least a decade, and spent billions and probably trillions doing this in the US and abroad. AWS itself claims that between 2011 and 2022, it invested $108.9 billion in USD, just within the US alone, and they have data centres in many parts of the world. Not discouraging anyone, but you have to think about where that kind of money has to come from.

  • You missed an important word for the part about traffic

    … can sit in traffic for 30 seconds less than before (temporarily) …

  • I wouldn’t be surprised if there’d be a slight recovery in tourists at all, especially if the negotiations appear to be somewhat smooth.

    This chat with my colleagues about the situation down south and what they’ve been doing with regards to the state just sort of revealed to me that while there are people like us on Lemmy that are repulsed by what’s happening there, there are also people who have closer ties to the US or have frequented the US who try to find ways to tell themselves that they themselves should be fine crossing the border, as long as they get rid of things on themselves that would upset the orange down south. For those with family, I get it. But for those who’re still doing it for leisure, it’s rather clear from the way they’re putting it that they prioritize their own lifestyle over politics, which, tbf, we all have different lines that we draw on that.

    Sorry for making a comment that seems impossible to reply to, but I just needed to get that off my chest.

  • Oh he knew. But he’s also the kind of person who would know how to put up an image when he needs to, and I’m sure he knows how to not prod at tigers (even if it’s just a kitten pretending to be one). There’s some sliminess in him and he knows how to slither his way around things that are potentially dangerous to get what he wants, though at least he doesn’t go around hurting other people.

  • I have a colleague who said he feels fine going down there for whatever cause he thinks he’ll pass with just how white he looks 🤷 Some people…