Can you explain more about the temporary part?

Quebec’s language French-only/prominent language laws were enacted in the 90s. I believe they used the notwithstanding clause to prevent charter challenges. As far as I understand, those laws are still in effect twenty-ish years later. How does that work?

I’m curious if they’d be able to have that conversation in Poilievre’s Conservative Party. From what the previous floor crossers have said, there isn’t much room for disloyalty.

I suspect that Quebec would have quit Canada decades ago if they hadn’t been able to implement their language laws.

I’d argue that keeping the country together is a good outcome. It’d be nice if it could have been achieved without making the Charter of Rights and Freedoms optional.

Carney’s Liberals have policy positions very similar to the Conservatives. He isn’t performatively woke, like Trudeau. He’s happily scrapped the carbon tax, and he’s stopped pushing for polluters to pay. He’s even making noises about supporting Alberta’s extraction industries.

I suspect all but the most rabid Conservatives would be happy if Poilievre was doing exactly what Carney is up to.

I suspect the Conservatives are moving over because

• Carney’s Liberal Party is very compatible with them and their constituents. He’s removed the few environmental protections Trudeau added, and can’t be painted with the woke brush. He’s quietly propping up Alberta and the fossil fuel industry.
• the last election was close and they still lost - they assume there will be enough swing voters in their ridings that they could win the next election
• as a majority becomes more likely, they get to be part of government - and have 3 years for voters to forget they crossed the floor,
• enticements, no matter how small.

54,000 containers left Montreal last month.

That’s like 1,800 a day. Say it takes one hour to open a container, investigate it sufficiently without disturbing the contents, then that’s 225 working days of investigation every day.

Assuming the port has the infrastructure to allow that kind of investigation, they’d need like 300 employees to do that work.

EDIT: that would probably work out to 30-50 million in personnel, support, and infrastructure costs annually. They’d probably need to pay a bunch more money to retrofit those facilities into the port.

Would it be worth it? Maybe. But nobody wants to foot that bill.

They can. That’s what the notwithstanding clause is for.

I like the new header! It makes the UI more interesting.

It’s a really strong lock. It has to be.

might drink and drive gallop

These floor crossings are happening so often that they barely register as news. It’s gonna be a big deal if/when the Liberals finally cross into majority territory, but until then, it seems like a slow, constant drip.

Let’s see what happens on Monday.

Or the AI on shopping websites saying “I’d recommend this model…”

We don’t have a pronoun for “this non-human unit”. LLMs are marketed as conversational, so they need to conform to the limitations of English.

One could argue that “we” or “one” would be more appropriate, but that would sound stilted in many contexts.

I’d prefer linguistic markers to distinguish between people and machines, but we haven’t gotten there yet.

Former NDP MP Brian Masse introduced a private member’s bill to lift the prohibition in 2019, and one year later, Conservative MP Kevin Waugh re-introduced Masse’s bill.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brian-masse-sports-betting-9.7149986

Fuck those guys.

Don’t do catnip. Not even once.

And a few qurans

It’s an a-10.

The meh humour cheapens the tiddies.

Without a fan he will become uncomfortable and begin to smell

I really like the treatment of metahumans in the earlier editions. I really like orcs getting the short end of the stick in terms of lifespan and appearance. It makes a dark setting even darker.

no way to verify it isn’t beyond “trust me bro” and I don’t trust them

If the verification service is structured like oauth, then the request could be passed through the browser as signed plaintext. You could verify that the requesting site is only passing a minimum age request to the service. That would be as straightforward as viewing the interaction in your browser’s debug tooling.

If you say that you don’t trust the signature, and that it could be used to smuggle identifying information across, there’s a couple of ways to deal with that: open source and audited provider governed by legislation; information theory that would show personally identifying information wouldn’t fit into a field of that size; and “personal auditing” where you can try throwing data at the service to see if you can trick it into accepting invalid input (that really goes with the previous point, because the only field you can usefully vary is the signature).