enkers

This one here, right?

Endorsement of or justifications for Hamas or Hezbollah, or slogans or graphics positively referring to these organizations. These are considered terrorist organizations in Germany.

I don’t think expressing understanding is either endorsement or justification. So as written, it should be fine, but since it comes down to the mods interpretation, who knows what the outcome would actually be.

That’s… not what anyone is suggesting. They just want streaming services to also have to contribute a % of their revenue to CanCon, just like traditional broadcasters do.

Every tenth episode you have to watch Letterkenny.

But honestly, it says in the article:

Earlier Friday, Canadian media company Corus urged the CRTC to require traditional broadcasters and online players to pay the same amount into the Canadian content system. The broadcaster, which owns Global TV, said both should contribute 20 per cent of their revenue toward Canadian content.

Currently, large English-language broadcasters must contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming, and the CRTC last year ordered streaming services to pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund devoted to producing Canadian content.

The foreign streaming services are fighting that rule in court and Netflix, Paramount and Apple pulled out of the CRTC hearing earlier this week.

This honestly doesn’t make much sense. The implication would be that all citizens are culpable for their government’s actions once they start paying taxes.

Funding your government isn’t a voluntary act, so your last parenthetical already invalidates most of what you said.

Have you tried paying more?

And the video isn’t even THAT scary. When I first saw this video with a headline about a robot going “berserk”, I expected something closer to terminator like behaviour instead of erratic hand waving. It was clearly just a software bug with no “intent” behind it (apologies for the anthropomorphism).

I think what’s interesting here is that the family was requesting the maximum sentence, yet they submitted the AI delivered impact statement which asked for compassion, if not leniency, in sentencing. That tells me they did their best to earnestly represent the victim, as it contradicted their stated desired outcome.

If they’d actually wanted a lenient sentence, they could have just asked for one.

Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:

“Hello, just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,” the stilted avatar says. “I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today. Here is insight into who I actually was in real life.”

However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:

The video goes back to the AI avatar. “I would like to make my own impact statement,” the avatar says.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim’s family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it’s still the victim’s sister’s impact statement, not his.

Here’s what the judge had to say:

“I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence. And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”

I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I’d suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.

That’s last year’s term. We’re now calling them unintended inter-vehicular contact events.

Now I’m curious how fennec stacks up. I’d imagine somewhere between Brave and TOR, since it still has addons and is thus susceptible to js fingerprinting. Ofc, you can also run NoScript as well, so that mitigates that issue, but it’s still not going to ever pass TOR.

Huh, did Sundar not pay his protection money this month, or something?

Good news regardless, though.

We shall cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the geese of war.

It reads a bit like an RPG plot. He sent a lesser demon to off the pope so he could take his place.

OK, and now that a system is in place, they have a financial incentive to drop that coverage because it A) costs them money, and B) costs their workers money, so it makes no sense to keep it there.

While yes it’s technically a fraction, and universal would’ve been better, the 4 in 5 people that make under 90k is a pretty darn big fraction.

While I agree universal would’ve been better, the cutoff is 90k. That’s something like 80% of the population who qualify, and the top 20% can probably afford it.

In practice, is it really that different than universal with a raise in taxes on the wealthiest 20%?

Did we collectively forget that the NDP brought dental care to those who couldn’t otherwise afford it? Kinda a big difference, no? The Liberals certainly wouldn’t have done it themselves.

It seems more just that the optics of confidence and supply is confusing to some.

Yeah, I don’t quite get it myself. The only thing I can think of is that it might be designed for American citizens living abroad, but I can’t quite figure out why there either.

Maybe it’s just being onerous enough to discourage all but the most serious attempts.

I’d imagine that’s because of the STCA, but there seems to be a loophole where it doesn’t apply if you enter via water and don’t claim refugee status before 14 days.

If I were really determined, I’d at least ask an immigration lawyer about it, and then I’d plan on taking a 2 week camping trip in Canada when I thought shit was likely to go down.

Anything* But Conservative (* some conditions apply). 🤪