failed suicide attempts are rarely clean or lead to deep reflection if they have already gone through the maid process. maid is not some kind of instant approval we do it in an hour situation. failed suicide attempts at this level are messy and tend to involve mutilation and even deeper suffering. You seem to assume i am ableist and completely ignore the fact that there are people who have and will suffer to the very end and want assistance in doing something that is inherently undignified with some dignity while not having to worry about a doctor or a family member being charged with manslaughter for being with them in their last moments. maid gives those people a pathway to self reflect before they make a rash decision. please familiarize yourself with maid and the process before misrepresenting how it works.

then lets not circle back around to who is involved and look at the results of not allowing it. the alternative is failed suicide attempts and long term suffering. assuming we can treat or make people jump through hoops or find some kind of grand arbiter just prolongs suffering and helps us look the other way as we force people poorly trained or in immense pain to figure it out themselves or put themselves/others in legal jeopardy in addition to suffering. If I have the right to life as long as it is not at the expense of others than i have the right to end it.

except it doesn’t just because maid has been authorized it automatically happens. that decision is as it has always been placed with the one asking for it.

Great to see the real numbers, thank you. I agree with the sentiment about manufacturing. If it were me, I would tie expanded levels to local manufacturing, with more favorable rates for non-luxury vehicles.

I’m in one of the big cities affected by this in Ontario. I’ve got mixed feelings, but I think this may end up being for the better. With all the American manufacturers backsliding on their EV transitions and keeping their prices sky-high for whatever they do have—all while refusing to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way—now, they’ll have to compete or risk losing the market entirely. I still think we should do more and accept vehicle standards from other countries in our market, not just the American ones. This should lower vehicle costs and, in turn, insurance rates for affordable vehicles. It should also make it more economical to export products directly to China, rather than the current convoluted process of selling to intermediary countries that add minimal processing before re-exporting to China at a higher cost.

GF = Girfriend. Not suprising this is lost on lemmy users /s

Warning Opinions/rant incoming:

If they think that Doug Ford (DoFo) is going to start being nice and quiet by refusing to negotiate or that he is going to suffer in the polls because of this they’ve misread the situation. If anything this just hardens everyone’s resolve that Trump will be petty about even minor grievances and therefore we should accelerate our move away from the USA and look more to the other big guys in the room. If trump is as petty and as much of a “pain” to deal with as china or India but with the only benefit being distance then maybe we need to start setting things up to deal with them more and work on cutting the US out of our dealings with Mexico.

If the US wants to try and kill the auto sector and lumber industry in Canada. lets make them priorities and make the transit of those resources to ports a priority. if pipelines are such a no go for BC then lets expand rail west. rail can be used for lumber, auto, crops and oil. There seems to be more appetite for a pipeline east especially if it replaces the oil pipeline that goes south through the US and the great lakes and instead goes around it through the prairie’s and Ontario. Ontario has Break Bulk ports and many cities that would love to build them if they are given capital and an opportunity to be the next trans mountain project of the east.

maybe also time to look for some other company to buy the Brampton, Oshawa and Ingersoll plants. maybe some EV manufacturers in china want to assemble there or maybe some low cost smaller cheaper vehicles from India could be made there.

The US thinks they have us pinned down (mostly because they do at the moment) lets make that not the case in the future so we can still do business without involving them. That will hurt far more than any commercial can.

What an utter asshat.

I have never watched the show, I’ve seen a few Great british baking show episodes dotted around the internet though.

• How does it compare?
• Do I need to rewatch from season 1 to get things/jokes?
• Anything to keep in mind while I watch?

Checked who the author was, should have guessed… SJVN. He certainly has a flair for taking something relatively small, that a solution already exists for and suggesting something bureaucratic, unnecessary, and completely outside his technical competence. This is one of those things that the kernel devs can, and will solve when it’s a real problem. Random journalists and armchair experts can wait till they’re called upon.

I see you are not being honest or have somehow lost the context for this whole comment chain. Statscan indicates that in a portion of cases, the firearm used was originally legally owned, that doesn’t automatically mean the person committing the crime was the legal owner. It also does not make any claim about the origin of the gun used in these crimes, and cannot as that data is not collected. The report itself notes, “Information on the origin of the firearm was only known in a small proportion of cases” and also that “there was limited information on the characteristics of the firearms used in the commission of a crime.” These are important distinctions as we do not know how many of these legally owned firearms were stolen and then used in a crime, the person who stole it would not be the legal owner.

Furthermore, the report details how firearms used in homicides are down from 15 years ago. “In the 10 years prior to 2023, the proportion of firearm-related homicides committed with a handgun varied from 53% to 64%. The rate of handgun-related homicide has been relatively stable since 2019 after increasing from 2013 to 2019. Meanwhile, the rate of homicides committed with a rifle or shotgun has remained relatively stable since 2013 after having generally declined since 1975.” This demonstrates that gun violence is on a downward trend.

The data available from StatCan is also very limited. It is based on only 56% of police-reported incidents. Meaning that nearly half of the data is missing, and that which is available does not contain information about the origin of the gun in question.

My original point was about the significant role of illegally smuggled firearms in fueling gun violence in Canada, especially in the context of gang-related crime. While the StatCan report doesn’t provide a complete picture, law enforcement agencies and research by organizations like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, have consistently highlighted the prevalence of smuggled guns, particularly from the US, in serious violent crimes.

I’m not wrong. I’ll link the data you talked about for others to read here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00001-eng.htm#a2

Look at the definition of violent crime used by stats can and how long they take to explain why simply having one near you or on you regardless of its use counted. Statistics Canada is clear they state the reason for more gun crime is increases in crime in general. Look farther down the page to the figure nothing the breakdown of weapons used. Guns are actually going down with other forms taking it’s place. Please thoroughly read the report. I think you’ll find I’m correct

I understand where you’re coming from with your concerns about gun violence and the environment. These are issues we all care about. However, I think your statement paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture of responsible firearm ownership in Canada, especially when it comes to sport shooters and hunters.

Let’s break it down. You seem to be suggesting that legal gun owners are the problem, that their recreational use isn’t worth the risk. But the data just doesn’t support that. In Canada, the vast majority of gun crimes involve illegally obtained firearms, often smuggled in from the US. That’s the real issue we need to tackle. Our licensed firearm owners go through extensive background checks, mandatory safety training, and strict rules about storing and transporting their firearms. They’re actually statistically less likely to commit crimes than the general population.

The idea that cracking down harder on them will solve the problem is a misconception. The real problem is the flow of illegal guns across the border. That’s where we need stronger border security and international cooperation, not more restrictions on people who are already following the rules.

On the environmental side, I agree that we need to be mindful. But modern shooting ranges in Canada have pretty strict environmental rules, including reclaiming lead and managing the soil. Hunters are also using lead-free ammo more and more. And while noise can be a concern, ranges are usually built away from residential areas and designed to contain the sound.

Here’s something that often gets overlooked: hunters play a huge role in conservation in Canada. Their license fees and the taxes on firearms and ammunition fund a lot of wildlife management and habitat preservation. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters rely heavily on hunters, and they’ve done incredible work protecting our ecosystems. Plus, in many rural and Indigenous communities, hunting isn’t just a hobby; it’s a vital source of food and a core part of their culture. If you’ve been to a grocery store lately, the cost of food is incredibly high if it is even available at all, and many people rely on hunting to feed their families.

So, while it’s absolutely crucial that we address gun violence and protect the environment, we need to do it based on facts, not fear. A blanket ban on legal gun ownership wouldn’t just be ineffective against crime, it would actually hurt conservation efforts, damage our economy, take away a source of food from many communities, and take away the rights of law-abiding Canadians. I really encourage you to look into the statistics on firearm ownership and crime in Canada. You’ll see that responsible gun owners and hunters are not the enemy. We need to work together on solutions that actually target the root of the problem – illegal firearms – while respecting the rights and important contributions of those who follow the law.

To be clear those are cage free eggs per the label and box art. I personally approve but lets be clear those are not your standard eggs that is insinuated.