TBH my guy, while OP’s comment was a non-sequitur and there is a lot of value to posting articles like this and making sure people are aware and stay vigilant of antisemitism and other issues within our own borders, your post history is kinda sus. Like, 90% reasonable and then 10% weirdly pro Russia/China.

It feels like every time I go on the internet, I get reminded I need to be very explicit about what I’m saying. (Or develop a thicker skin. :P) Apologies if I sounded dismissive, I was just trying to say that I don’t know exactly how it was approved as I haven’t done the research to know, but that wasn’t surprised it had been, given the overarching issue with medical studies from the last century failing to be replicated. I’m not trying to imply that I’ll somehow dig up the absolute truth of the situation that was previously unknown, I just know I’m making a statement with incomplete information.

Eh… I’d need to look into this specific one more, and it’s a bit weirder than ‘normal’ given this is a drug for a common physiological symptom, but there was a lot of bad medical science done from roughly WWI to the turn of the millennium that nonetheless still underpins some of our commonly available medicines. Clinical psych has it especially bad, but the replication crisis is a problem everywhere.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I think perhaps you misread what I said (or I communicated poorly). I’m speaking about the funding incentive to purchase a heat pump. The carbon tax rebates, as you say, are designed to break even by or better for the majority of the population; I’ve got no issues with that. I was responding to the implication that a transition to electricity was trivial because households could purchase a heat pump for little to no cost. There are households for which the energy costs of resistive heating+heat pump are likely higher than their current heating costs, making this not the case. (Unless there are further rebates I don’t know about for people who have a heat pump, beyond covering initial costs?)

That is a true statistic, yes. Without a ton of relevance to the discussion at hand unfortunately. Most of Scandinavia is coastal, and while cold compared to the rest of Europe, has quite mild winters compared to the northern Canadian interior. Additionally, popular in this context is about a 50% adoption rate by household, without much information (that I can find, at least) on distrobution; I suspect most of those are in southern and costal areas, and the (less populated) northern interior primarily relies on other heating methods.

“…you know what the problem is with the CBC? Too much ethics and journalistic integrity.”

Who… who is this for? Who wants this? Who hears this and goes “ah yes, this is, A: a real problem, and B: a useful solution to said problem.”

While not representing a majority of Canadians, there are people living in regions that get regularly cold enough for heat pumps to be inadequate. Which means running a standard electric furnace (expensive and inefficient) during the coldest months of the year. Which… is not ideal, especially for lower-income rural persons. (IE, most people living in these regions of Canada.)

The rebate is great, but there are persons for whom it is insufficient.

Do I think that’s a good reason to remove the carbon tax from heating fuels? No, not really. (Assuming I understand how the tax works, it really isn’t the burden people expect it to be. (You can debate about inefficiencies, but as far as manipulating economics to incentivize transfer away from fossil fuels without harming the general public, it’s reasonably sound.)) But people do have legitimate concerns that shouldn’t be trivially dismissed.

The VA for Laezel (Devora Wilde) has actually seen this meme and read it in-character. :P You can find it on YouTube.

Whoof. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but damn. “Yeah, we made 9 bil in profit last year, but we’re too focused on the long term and transitioning away from energy sources that are actively reducing the habitabilty of our planet.” Do you fucking hear yourself speak? As-is, if we manage to get things under control before literally rendering huge swaths of the world unlivable within the next century, it’ll be near a goddamn miracle. I understand the need for a smooth transition and the capital to support green initiatives*, and that practically we will need at least some amount of oil for decades yet. Nothing here though gives me any confidence this is anything but a move to maximize shareholder returns.

(*as much as free-market solutions to problems related to common goods (like our goddamn climate) fundementally offend me, due to inherent inefficiency and misaligned incentives, an inefficient response is still better than waiting until we can fundementally restructure society >>)

Yes. Thank you. There have been plural studies (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add4165, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489818/, and many more, these are literally just the first google results), showing that perscription stimulants have a negligible, or even negative, effect on productivity in neurotypical populations. Their reputation as a “smart drug” has been greatly exaggerated.

Clearly, I need to find a Dane to get in a fight with. I could use a drink. :P

This is also a valid question, the systemic pressure to “be productive” puts a lot of weight on the side of taking meds despite side effects. Anecdotally though, some ADHD patients do find meds useful for helping them maintain interpersonal relationships and the like, not just focus on work.

Yup. Until our technology and biological knowledge reaches the point where we can stop using (metaphorical) chainsaws and start using scalpels, everything is a tradeoff that’s going to vary greatly by individual. Personally, the only side effect I’ve noticed from my meds (diagnosed as a child, didn’t take medications for it until more recently), is appetite supression, and aside from a couple blood sugar crashes before realizing working out on an empty stomach was a dumb idea, I’ve seen no ill effects. On the other hand, a good friend of mine on the same medication experienced heightened anxiety and tachycardia. /shurg

There’s perhaps an argument to be made that the current state of healthcare leaves clinicians unable to provide the needed followup care and medication adjustment, but then the issue isn’t the use of medication, so much as the burden on physicians. /shurg

Eh, common knowledge if (and only if) you are someone chronically online and in the habit of trying to understand current events. :P

That said, rage bait is a bit harsh; while I’m not sure there’s much to be done (the calls to deport geriatrics into an active warzone are… a little silly, even if we can prove these people to be war criminals), there are questions worth asking wrt to the circumstances and legitimacy of the rulings and descisions around both their post war status and entrance to Canada. Some acknowledgement and reckoning with some of the questionable actions taken as a nation in the aftermath of WWII is likely past due. /shurg

It would definitely be an improvement. I’ve been involved with both volunteer/municipal and provincial/public health programs to provide food in schools, and the story is constantly one of trying to do more with less. More kids (and more of those kids in need), higher prices and less community/government support. (In terms of both funds and volunteers.)

Well done Scotland, now it’s Britain’s turn. :P (To much to hope, I know. :P)

The dude’s damn near a centenarian. Even if someone in government goes through the effort to circumvent protocol and allow the extradition of someone who has not (and likely can not, at this point) been able to be convicted of anything, even odds he passes away before the standard bureaucracy is done.

Similar the Conservative effort to pin blame directly on the Prime Minister instead of the House Speaker, this feels less like a genuine response to this really shitty thing that happened, and more like an attempt to use the situation to score political points. /shurg

Yeah. This is a major gaffe. I’ve seen the odd post villanizing this dude in particular, which I’m not sure is called for. (I don’t know it’s not, but I’m hesitant to yell at a 90 year old over what uniform they wore when they were younger than I am now.) Regardless of who the dude is or was though, it’s a bad look, and they do deserve to be called out on the eminently stupid oversight to not to the bare minimum of research before choosing someone to bring in.

I get that intellectually, it’s just something that didn’t really click, before. If a corporation is subject to the laws of all countries it operates within, (even when those laws contradict) are they really subject to any laws? Only applying law based on user origin does sidestep that for the most part (even though virtual ‘spaces’ like Facebook and other social media do make that kind of weird), but mixups like this make that tension more obvious.

Yeah, I mean, Meta being incompetent doesn’t exactly surprise me, but it’s not exactly a good look either way. (Since when does Meta do authoritarian governments’ censorship for them? Nations can make takedown requests on their citizens posting news they don’t like? On one hand, of course. Like a billion people live in India, Facebook will do whatever it can to keep that business. As much as alreadyI dislike Facebook, the idea had never crossed my mind before.)