“Party of the people” guys, I promise

I think the bigger concern is that if there are other foreign influenced MPs who aren’t listed in the report, then they and the country influencing them realize that CSIS/Canada doesn’t know about them. Keeping it vague and uncertain makes it more likely that those people will be concerned and may reduce their interference to avoid detection.

Likewise, revealing which MPs are known to be influenced may reveal moles or informants that Canada has, thus curtailing future efforts at limiting foreign interference.

It’s an interesting read - a lot of her experiences she’s discussing boil down to feeling she was ignored or her voice minimized because of her perceived gender identity and assumptions about how she was raised and what she would feel.

I liked her discussion and thought her perspective on purposely not transitioning was an interesting view. This was a really good analogy and drove home the point for me:

Imagine, dear reader, a cis-woman evenly saying:

“I wish I looked like that but I don’t and can’t. It sucks and it makes me feel really awful if I brood on it. That’s why I focus on my writing—I’d rather make things. Investing in and building things that aren’t my body helps me cope with the body issues I’ve been saddled with against my will.”

She doesn’t sound like she needs advice on how makeup will actually fix her core problem, does she? She seems like she’s doing alright. I’m her and I’m trans. That’s all.

Some big quotes that hit home through this post were

Do I need to be inspected and dissected by the people who laughed at me in order to receive my credential?

“I play along,” one of them told me, “because in the queer community the only people who defend cisboys are cisboys. I don’t want to give up finally being read as a girl.”

Oof.

I don’t know if it’s just the sections of the internet I frequent these days, but this intense, misandrist views don’t seem to be as common as they once were, and not as accepted.

I was born into that shitty town, maleness, in the remains of outdated ideals and misplaced machismo and repression and there are some good people stuck living there. They are not in charge. They did not build it. And I don’t feel okay just moving out and saying “fuck y’all — bootstrap your way out or die out, I was never one of you.” I want to make it a better, healthier place—not spend all my time talking about how shitty it is and how anyone who would choose to live there deserves it.

Interesting.

I wound up doing more of a dive into per capita GDP as a metric, and see more of the benefits of it, as well as why its used. I’m still not entirely sold on its benefits overall due to concerns over wealth inequality and “living standards” being averaged.

Thanks for pointing out CPI vs GDP/C differences!

Beyond the issues of it being NaPo and the Fraser Institute being the main interviewee, using per person GDP as a measure of living standards seems… Wildly out of touch. There are no comments on consumer pricing index (with all its flaws).

Literally they hinge their proof of “living standards” on average GDP.

I don’t even know how to begin addressing that.

People who go hunting don’t go by “off the top of their head”.

Now I can’t speak to the laws in California for hunting, but in Canada they have pretty crazy strict laws regarding illegal hunting, including seizure of anything used in the act (trucks, atvs, guns, boats, etc), removal of gun license, and huge fines.

A quick google search shows the method they’ve used, and have been using for the last decade as an attempt to stop the spread: Barred owls are much more aggressive, and playing their calls can lure them in to fight, in a way the spotted owls don’t, so you don’t need to just go based on visual differences. Here’s one article about the removal process up to now with an interview of a biologist who’s pro-hunting.

Relocation of the barred owls isn’t feasible, because no matter where you send them, there’s probably already owls there, and relocation often results in the animal dying off anyway.

What’s the alternative? Watch as the spotted owls are out-competed and go extinct due to human development and habitat destruction? To me, that seems worse. We already hunt to maintain populations of animals in other species - deer spring to mind. Since we’ve eliminated many of the deer’s predators, we need to maintain that role, which includes setting hunting targets each year. Why are these owls different?

Appendix A in the report does.

All told, their total operating revenue was 9.9bil, operating expenses were 13.1bil without including depreciation and pensions,etc which brought it to 16.1bil. that doesn’t include any improvements (capital) works or their debt servicing.

Not sure where you get that from. Most systems operate at a major loss and are propped up by grants/government funding. Typical targets for operating are ~1/3 of costs are covered by rider fares with the rest coming from grants or government funding.

Since the thread talks about NYC, I pulled this - MTA Budget. In it they state:

In a normal year, farebox revenue constitutes approximately 40 percent of the MTA’s annual budget, or $6.5 billion

Totally unrelated, but this is an interesting book

Really? Every single item is wrapped in plastic at your grocery store? No loose apples, cucumbers, potatoes, or leafy greens?

If those are all wrapped in plastic, then look for what options have less plastic. Avoid double wrapped items, for example, or anything marketed as single servings.

I feel like none of this is that hard to come up with. It’s unfortunate you don’t seem interested in an actual conversation. Hope you have a better rest of your day.

You should blame them and still choose options with less plastic where possible? I don’t see where this idea of black and white, one or the other comes from

Where it’s feasible given your financial and geographical means, avoid food wrapped in plastics, foods shipped from far away, and meats. Not every single item in the store comes in plastic. It will require adjusting your habits, for sure.

No need to demonize anyone for not being able to if it doesn’t work, but every time you choose something better, it’s an incremental step forward.

At the same time, send an email or phone call to the grocery store manager. Write to your local politician and push for laws regarding stricter use of plastics, more comprehensive recycling programs, or funding and grants for local farmers.

Simply being angry online and not changing your own habits or lobbying for change isn’t actually improving anything.

Not the person above, but Corporations are built around the idea of selling something. The biggest way to reduce your environmental impact is to not buy shit. Doesn’t matter if the shit is eco friendly, more shit means more emissions.

Corporations don’t pollute for shits and giggles. They pollute because they want to make stuff for us to buy. Shell doesn’t just make pollution, they pollute on the way to producing gas.

If we cut back on how much gas we use, Shell pollutes less because they have less gas to sell.

That doesn’t absolve Shell of their role in chasing profits over environmental protection, and there’s plenty of space for demanding better and holding them accountable, but acting like these corps pollute just cuz is disingenuous. They pollute because we want shit.

EVs make a difference for anyone in an area with low density. I live in the country relatively close to population centres, but it’s impossible for me to ever imagine transit being even near me.

We will literally always have a need for small, individual vehicles of some kind for most the population. If we could reduce that to one car, then supplement with transit, where available, or carpooling? Then also make that car an EV instead of ICE? That’s a huge emissions reduction

You’re looking at the original article. This whole series of comments has been spawned off a discussion about a different case, in which the person did join the organization, then let his license lapse.

In the original, I agree. He never required a license because of their own regs( though it appears that also means he couldn’t call himself a professional engineer, so the title itself is protected, he was just exempt from needing the license to do the industrial work he was doing). He is then totally within his rights to use that knowledge and pass himself off as a subject matter expert in the same field he worked for X years, and the board just got pissy. Glad it was overturned for him.

I’ve used the system pretty regularly. To be fair, I live in a small city (150,000) within the golden horseshoe, so definitely better care compared to many throughout rural areas.

In the past few years I’ve had the birth of a child including all the various follow ups and shots, a stress test, blood work to rule out several heart issues, a halter monitor test, an ultrasound of my heart, three sets of baseline blood work, and four family doctor appointments.

The biggest fee at each was parking.

I don’t disagree we have tons of room for improvement. Our contributions each year (ie personal amount of taxes we pay for healthcare in Ontario) have not been sufficient to keep up with the growing and aging population. We desperately need greater cancer screening and diagnostic services, as prevention and early detection can save billions in future chemo/rad or operations. Rural areas and family doctors need a rework, as many people are without one due to fewer and fewer docs entering that field.

That said, I would never take the US system over Canadas. The enormous stress illness would place on a family doesn’t seem worth it for the meager tax savings, and the low wait times seem to only be avoided in the US system by paying out of pocket, which is not feasible for many.

When it comes to titles like this that are considered protected, it is actually how they work.

In your example, he isn’t allowed to use that title in the new state until he’s joined their organization (or they have an agreement with his original state)

As an extreme example for why the timing does matter, If he was licensed properly for 1 year, then let it lapse but continued to do design work as an engineer for 25 years, and then relicensed himself for one last year before retiring, the work he did during that period of being unlicensed isn’t covered, and the board of engineers would go after him for that.

For what it’s worth, there are specific provisions in the laws to allow retired people to continue using the title P.Eng with a “Retired” tag added onto it.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I found a Cornell Law paper breaking down the decision and how/what things could have changed the decision (ie what things the govt is allowed to ban despite the amendment)

This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job

It actually is true, unless MN has weird rules compared to other states. I’m not a lawyer, but the code here, sec. 326.02 seems pretty clear.

or to use in connection with the person’s name, or to otherwise assume, use or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is an architect, professional engineer (hereinafter called engineer), land surveyor, landscape architect, professional geoscientist (hereinafter called geoscientist), or certified interior designer, unless such person is qualified by licensure or certification under sections 326.02 to 326.15.

You actually can’t call yourself a professional engineer if you’re not - theres several lrgal cases where i am that are ongoing due to people calling themselves engineers while being realtors, for example, and trying to use the title to advertise (IE John Doe, P.Eng), which is not allowed.

If your argument is that you’re an expert, then you need to have the credentials you claim to have. Anyone can show the faults in a design, but he’s explicitly doing novel calculations and analysis - ie not just reviewing someone else’s work.

Now that being said, it looks like he never needed a professional license as he fell under an exemption, in which case I feel like they shot themselves in the foot. He’s got previous experience doing the same thing he’s examining - hydraulics and fluid flow analysis. Regardless of his status as “professional engineer”, his previous experience sould qualify him to testify.

Yes but during that period he didn’t have a license.

Without a doubt it’s someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren’t weird, hidden ones.

If you call yourself a professional engineer, that’s a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.