This action/article is for PR purposes, nothing more.

CBC’s lawyers already know that Meta’s approach to compliance with Bill C-18 does not violate the Competition Act. They also know that the Competition Bureau does not have the power to compel this change in business practice, largely because the same owners of Canada’s media conglomerates (and other small-pond corporations like Weston, etc.) have lobbied governments for decades to render the Bureau powerless.

Here is the Competition Bureau’s actual powers. All they can do is request (not demand/compel) compliance from Meta for the purpose of gathering information, which they turn over to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for consideration. However, Meta has removed links to Canadian news sites from its private platforms in order to comply with the impending legislation. There’s no case for prosecution here, in other words.

Furthermore, not only do Canadians distrust our news media, but we’re also increasingly not reading news on social media. The only beneficiaries of Bill C-18 are legacy media companies accustomed to the Canadian government bailing them out. Remember the $600m taxpayer-funded bailout in 2019, which media companies like CBC, Postmedia, etc. have already squandered? Remember when the Competition Bureau allowed American hedge funds to purchase Postmedia, load it with debt, and then gut its newsroom and fire journalists to continue delivering quarterly returns? If the Competition Bureau does not regard these practices and similar examples across the country’s media landscape as harmful to Canadian media, then nothing is sacred.

CBC, Postmedia, etc. only have themselves to blame for this mess.

The tentative contract between the union and the BCMEA was announced on Sunday, a day after federal Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan directed the CIRB to impose a deal or binding arbitration if it decides a negotiated resolution isn’t possible.

So a majority of workers accepted the deal under the assumption that CIRB would impose worse conditions if they rejected it? Just like they did in Montreal two years ago? This is not an outcome we should celebrate. The federal government very publicly announced it would undermine the collective bargaining process, again, because it’s inconvenient to employers. In war, this approach is called gunboat diplomacy and the government has demonstrated it won’t hesitate to use it.

What’s the purpose of organized labour in Canada, exactly?

“We have new people whose life experiences have been radically different than ours. And so for those of us who have been here for decades or a long time, it gives us an insight into how people lived in other parts of the world, and now they’re with us and we want to learn about them. So we are one united community.”

This is such a positive take from someone in leadership re: new immigration to their community. It can be difficult to manage unexpected population growth and the federal/provincial governments offer poor support to growing communities across Canada. Mr. Morrison and his neighbours deserve lots of credit and respect for welcoming new neighbours who’ve been through a lot. They sound like good people.

Exactly right. Conservatives want an election and would introduce a no-confidence vote soon after any NDP announcement that they withdrew their support for the Liberal government. They would do so to force the NDP to either allow an election or do the unthinkable: forcing their MPs to vote against the motion, which would keep the Liberal government in power, in exchange for nothing, shortly after breaking their agreement. (That would be the end of Singh’s career in politics, so it seems unlikely.)

If the government intervenes in the strike and the NDP do not withdraw their support they risk seriously damaging their relations with labour organizations – the party relies on their financial and volunteer support – and whatever remains of labour/socialist factions within the party.

NDP leadership would do almost anything to avoid these difficult decisions.

Agreed 100%.

BC port workers do not provide what the Canadian government defines as ‘essential services’. Minister O’Regan’s statement, implying that the membership’s rejection of the latest agreement means a settlement might be impossible and an alternative solution must be reached quickly, demonstrates the government supports the employer despite its self-claimed obligation to neutrally mediate the dispute. (Maybe the employer’s inadequate contract offers demonstrate its unwillingness to negotiate in good faith? Why must the needs of the employer and its customers determine the time frame for negotiation, and not the needs of the employees performing the work? Why must the government intervene in a legal negotiation progress?)

His trial-balloon proposal of binding arbitration is simply not acceptable if the membership itself outright rejected a deal. If the government takes that step – or even worse: back-to-work legislation – the NDP will be forced into an existential decision: support the government and make the final break away from organized labour, or force an election that both they and their Liberal counterparts do not want. It would also force union leadership and its members to demonstrate their approval/disapproval with their votes (or refusal to support political parties that show contempt for working people), or else risk irrelevancy.

This situation is politically risky for almost everyone involved.

Swiss technology company that focuses on privacy products. Initially funded by a Swiss startup capital firm and now uses a subscription model. ProtonMail is not open source or non-profit, but the product they offer is privacy. Switzerland also has strict privacy laws and resists state-based information requests. Best option is to run one’s own email client server, but simple folks like me don’t have the skills to do so. (FWIW, I use ProtonMail and think it works great.)

deleted by creator

You are welcome at the https://lemmy.ca/c/art community. Currently, most submissions are people’s artworks, but what you describe is also seems relevant to the community and I’d post content too if there’s interest in it!

“In my view, a lot of the general associations we have with drinking in public are negative, like drunkenness in public, drinking and driving, like drunken hoodlums, all of these things — which make the news, but aren’t necessarily the only way people consume alcohol in public.”

Dr. Malleck quoted here gets close to the source of the problem, which is classism.

Most mayors, city councilors, etc. are doing well financially and they own their own houses (as well as cottages, investment properties, etc.), so the idea of going to a public park to drink outside with friends seems unusual to them. They view public parks as community spaces, but only within their personal perspectives as homeowners, and therefore what is allowed in parks is restricted to class-based moral sensibilities. It’s easy for Councilor So-and-So to bring her laptop to her backyard garden patio for another Zoom meeting. The line worker who just wants to sit outside with her family after 12 hours inside sorting chicken meat for Councilor So-and-So’s BBQ that weekend… she was an afterthought when it comes to these kinds of public space bylaws.

This disconnect between how municipal leaders and many apartment/condo-dwelling constituents live also explains the conflicts during the pandemic when people wanted to leave the isolation of their apartments for fresh air, but homeowner leaders (with their backyards, cottage retreats, ‘working’ holidays, etc.) told them to go back inside and threatened them with fines.

We do we have these bylaws? Ignorance rooted in class.

Just wanted to add that The Verge article quotes from the source document, but does not include its links, etc. Here’s a hyperlinked version, including some specific open source resources, which the author calls ‘third faction’ content: https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither

Hello friend – I love your fence! Your garden patch looks like a dream. What kinds of chillis are you growing?

I just reconnected with a friend yesterday afternoon. We ended up talking for two hours and are making plans to meet in a few weeks. The ‘sorry-we-lost-touch’ part was brushed aside. It felt just like good old times again.

Try sending a text. Maybe your friend misses you too.

Hello friend,

Most people see results after they establish and stick with a meditation routine. If you need help, Kurzgesagt has a useful video on establishing habits and routines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75d_29QWELk

Here’s a simple meditation technique to start, which requires no special equipment, reading/training, etc. All you need is to sit or stand in a comfortable position that does not make you feel sleepy. The technique is counting breaths and it is the first step for many different meditation traditions.

Your goal is to count your own breaths from 1-10 in your mind without losing count. This is a repetitive exercise like gym reps, but your goal is to NOT ZONE OUT. Your target is 10: breathe in and count ‘1’ in your mind, breathe out and count ‘2’… breathe in again and count ‘3’, breathe out and count ‘4’. If you lose track of your count, you just reset to ‘1’ and start again.

At the beginning, you will lose track of your count a lot. Some people take a week or more to successfully complete the first set, much less multiple sets in a row. Our minds naturally wander. Sometimes you don’t even realize you lost count until you think, “Wait, what breath am I on?” That is okay… that is the point! If you keep practicing this technique you will begin to train your mind to focus and not wander, which is a major step to conquering procrastination. Once you develop this simple form of mental self-control you will be able to demonstrate other forms of self-control.

Let me know if you want to chat more about it!

What I mostly remember is the sense of hard work and discovery.

In the mid-to-late 1990s, after the internet became a public phenomenon, but before it totally dominated our lives, spending time on the web felt very different than it does today. There was no publicly-accessible index of websites, search was in its infancy, and link aggregators as we know them today just didn’t exist. For the first time, you didn’t need to be a tech-savvy person to experience the WWW, but it was still pretty incomprehensible to most people, who didn’t understand what the internet was for.

New “homesteaders” developed websites on free hosts like GeoCities/Tripod/Angelfire; the former host organized itself into “neighbourhoods” of sites because we still thought about the internet as a physical space. Web rings served as pilgrimage routes that connected websites together, irrespective of domain or host, into self-selected communities. They organized around subjects/themes, like Lemmy communities, subreddits, hashtags, etc. are today. They emerged around the same time as public bulletin boards which, for people who were not familiar with BBS, were also a transformative technology, and also the source of life-changing memories.

I am so privileged to have been around to explore the early internet.