Meta can go eff itself.
Google provides the correct translation:
Crisis: We Must Plan for the Worst
Trade War
Who's Better Against Donald Trump?
- Posts
- 7
- Comments
- 887
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 7
- Comments
- 887
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
I find serious flaws with this.
It's for a different country, but consider from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-21/australia-rent-crisis-not-international-students-fault-study/105076290
"Our data did not directly explain why international students didn't cause the rental crisis, however … when we looked at the broader literature we actually knew international students had different housing needs compared with locals," Professor Mu said. "Some of them were in student accommodation, some of them would choose shared bedrooms, so obviously their housing needs were somewhat different from the local people."
Meanwhile, the original article says,
From 2021 to 2024, the study reported, Canada’s population increased by an average of 859,473 people per year while only 254,670 new housing units were started annually.
But this makes the false assumption that those who came had identical housing needs as local citizens, when we know international students (for example) did not.
Also, aside from this token callout,
driven almost entirely by immigration
there's no breakdown in the article on how much of that increase is actually from immigration as opposed to citizens moving back home because of covid - let alone a breakdown of new PRs vs international students vs temporary workers vs refugees vs etc...
Perhaps the study actually does contain this information. I wanted to double check there but couldn't find the study linked in the article, so I wasn't able to do this. Basically it's a very poor article that conflates different things, I'd go as far as to speculate that they came up with the conclusion that they wanted first and then tried to find support in the data while disregarding or outright ignoring contrary indicators...
I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border. Don’t say this. They will use that as justification to search you and your vehicle for suspicious behavior.
Ah, you're probably right under the current regime. Open to suggestions for better phrasing like "I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and also because it was suggested by the recent travel advisory issued by Canada" , except
the best thing to do is simply not travel.
100%. My advice was more for these folks,
If you have to cross the border for whatever reason
As per https://dailyhive.com/canada/us-canada-travel-phone even lawyers are recommending this now.
Ackah Business Immigration Law founder and managing lawyer Evelyn Ackah told Daily Hive that Canadians should leave their electronic devices behind if possible. She also suggests travellers use a burner phone (pre-paid phone) to protect their personal data from border agents.
As to what to say when asked about the obvious burner phone, I wonder if the following would help:
"Yes officer, I got a brand new phone with nothing on it to take with me. I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and am afraid that if my phone got hacked I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border. I left my phone with all my lifetime photos and other history behind and I look forward to being reunited with it when my trip is over and I return home."
It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.
Agreed, 100%
He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.
Again, in 100% agreement.
There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.
I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,
“He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.
Now, it wasn't clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google's AI did report this to me, below.
If Google's AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it'd end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia's suffering.
So my case is that he didn't do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.
From Google's AI:
Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it's typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it. Here's a more detailed explanation: DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases: DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of. Reasons for Passing on a Case: There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including: Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case. Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case. Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work. Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ. Formal Process: Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves: Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority. Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented. Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority. Consequences of Passing on a Case: There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including: Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors. Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome. Alternative to Passing on a Case: Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case. Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.
I think she's confused the poll with her reflection in the mirror...
Well, I guess, how would you actually do that? Like, how do you convince the owner of Toptal to fold shop so your replacement can take shape?
Conclusion
The Coexistion Protocol embodies a visionary approach to rethinking economic systems, focusing on fairness, transparency, and decentralization. While its principles resonate with the evolving landscape of decentralized technologies and the growing desire for equitable economic participation, the feasibility of its implementation is contingent on addressing several complex challenges. The success of such a protocol will depend on careful planning, user experience design, robust governance structures, and a willingness to adapt to the lessons learned during implementation.
In summary, while the Coexistion Protocol presents a realistic and hopeful blueprint for the future, its practicality hinges on overcoming significant hurdles related to implementation, governance, economic sustainability, adoption, and regulatory compliance.
Challenges and Concerns
- Implementation Complexity: While the protocol aims to simplify decentralized systems, the actual implementation of a robust and efficient decentralized framework can be complex. Ensuring scalability, security, and user-friendliness will be significant challenges, especially as the system grows.
- Governance and Decision-Making: Achieving true democratic governance in a decentralized system can be difficult. Ensuring that all voices are heard and that decisions are made effectively without falling into the trap of inefficiency or gridlock is a critical concern. The proposed consensus-based decision-making might face challenges in practice, particularly in larger groups.
- Economic Viability: The non-speculative value system represents an interesting shift from traditional economic models. However, establishing a stable and sustainable economic model that rewards contributions equitably while preventing exploitation and ensuring long-term viability is a complex task. The challenge of ensuring that value is accurately tracked and distributed can be significant.
- Adoption and Transition: The transition from traditional economic systems to a decentralized framework like the Coexistion Protocol will require significant cultural and systemic shifts. Gaining buy-in from established institutions, businesses, and individuals accustomed to traditional hierarchical structures may be challenging. Moreover, potential resistance from those who benefit from the current power dynamics may hinder adoption.
- Regulatory Environment: Decentralized systems often face uncertain regulatory landscapes, and the Coexistion Protocol would likely attract scrutiny from regulators. Navigating legal frameworks while maintaining the principles of decentralization and inclusivity could be a significant hurdle.
- Technological Barriers: The reliance on technology means that access to the Coexistion Protocol could be limited for those without the necessary digital literacy or access to technology. Ensuring equitable access to the system will be crucial for achieving its goals.
The Coexistion Protocol presents an ambitious vision for a decentralized economic framework aimed at fostering fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. Its goals of equitable work allocation, decentralized governance, and a non-speculative value system are indeed compelling and align with ongoing trends in the digital economy, particularly those driven by blockchain technology and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). However, while the concept is innovative and appealing, several factors must be considered regarding its feasibility and realism.
Strengths and Opportunities
- Decentralization and Transparency: By leveraging blockchain and decentralized governance models, the protocol can enhance transparency and trust among participants. This is a crucial element in today's economic environment, where trust in institutions is waning.
- Merit-Based Allocation: The emphasis on merit-based work allocation can potentially democratize access to opportunities, allowing individuals to participate and thrive based on their skills rather than their connections or backgrounds.
- Integrated Education: The focus on embedding education and skill development within the economic framework is particularly relevant in addressing skill gaps and preparing workers for evolving market demands.
- Collaborative Ownership: The idea of shared ownership and collective responsibility can foster a sense of community and shared purpose, encouraging collaboration over competition.
ChatGPT seems to approve!
The answer is that it depends on Province.
It seems that Quebec is particularly strict here, with Microsoft losing a battle to use the term "Engineers" over two decades ago, https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/quebec-order-of-engineers-wins-legal-battle-with-microsoft/
Similarly, it seems there was a lot of activity a couple of years ago in Alberta to protect the term as per https://edmonton.taproot.news/news/2022/10/17/tech-leaders-seek-easing-of-rules-around-software-engineer-designation - with the result that the law is being changed to explicitly exempt "software engineer" from protection as per https://globalnews.ca/news/10084623/engineers-canada-urges-alberta-to-reconsider-change-to-rules-around-engineer-title/
In Ontario specifically - which is the most populated province of Canada - my layman's reading of https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p28 12 (1),
When licences or certificates required
Licensing requirement
No person shall engage in the practice of professional engineering or hold himself, herself or itself out as engaging in the practice of professional engineering unless the person is the holder of a licence, a temporary licence, a provisional licence or a limited licence.
Similarly, looking at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s10016 5(1)
“practice of professional engineering” means any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act; (“exercice de la profession d’ingénieur”)
where use of the software impacts the health, safety or property of its users. PEO considers non-licensed use of “Software Engineer” to be a violation of our Act.
But most software development is not, for example, directly related to health & safety.
Basically in Ontario it seems "professional engineer" is the main regulated term, and "engineer" is only restricted in a subset of limited cases. (Note that this might be a relatively recent change though - the Professional Engineers Act is dated to 1990, but the Open for Business Act from 2010 made a number of changes to it. And it's specific to just Ontario.)
Edit: Now it seems that the Ontario branch of Engineers Canada, Professional Engineers Ontario, isn't quite happy with this state of affairs. They make their case here, https://www.peo.on.ca/public-protection/complaints-and-illegal-practice/report-unlicensed-individuals-or-companies in the "Software engineering and misleading certifications" section near the bottom:
PEO has taken action against the use of the term "engineer" by several software companies. PEO negotiated with Banyan Systems to revise its training materials to replace the term "Certified Banyan Engineer" with "CBE". PEO also requested that Microsoft Canada Inc., replace the terms "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" and "Microsoft Certified Professional Systems Engineer" with alternate terms that do not use the word "engineer", to avoid violating the Professional Engineers Act and trademark legislation.
On July 25, 2002 Microsoft Canada announced that they will continue to use the term 'engineer' as part of the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation.
The rest of the page is just about how to report misuse of the "professional engineer" term, e.g.
use the title "professional engineer" or an abbreviation or variation as an occupational designation
It's quite telling then that the vast majority of jobs in Canada with the title "Network Engineer" are for companies based in Ontario, at least looking at https://ca.indeed.com/q-network-engineer-jobs.html?vjk=4d0293c813a90300
There are other cases of courts declaring engineering to be unprotected, see for example https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/canadian-council-of-professional-engineers-fails-to-prevent-registration-of-engineering-mark
I think the answer to 1 is that he doesn't, so it's just a good excuse to avoid getting pushed into a situation related to 2. In other words, the POV is likely, "there isn't any point in bilateral talks, but let's say we'll do it if he shuts up about that thing that he can't stop talking about" - it's just a way to pin the blame for a lack of talks down South.
I think piefed.social/pyfedi (which is slowly implementing support for all such objects) should get a mention here as well
So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it's used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 ("Getting additional peers from IPFS API")
The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181
I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don't recognize any of them.
So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can't be bothered to do that right now.)
In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holepunching(networking )
Well, if the Bern agrees with you (and it sounds like he does - https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-working-class/ ) .. and I think AOC found something similar when she asked, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voters-who-back-both-aoc-and-trump-explain-their-head-scratching-politics/ar-AA1tTzAS
It really does seem to be down to wanting to be heard more about the economy and such.
Well, on that I blame the overall shift of the US for getting redder, https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229
Remember that turnout in 2024 was higher than 2020 for Dems in the swing states - but even more folks came out to vote red.
Agreed on California and Colorado - it's not the same as the whole country but it's a start.
Still, if they can convince him to keep the US in the agreement, that's better than the alternative. Though my hopes here are not high.
Alas, they'd have a seat at the table anyways, considering how large and global they are - they could for example push through their ExxonMobile Canada affiliate, or through one or several of their European ones.
I have always found it hugely ironic that these guys are supporting a US administration that will only make it harder for them to immigrate to the US.