@pigeonburger's banner p

pigeonburger


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

				

User ID: 2233

pigeonburger


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2023 March 03 15:09:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2233

Montreal is getting fucked slower than the other major cities, but it is still getting fucked.

The effect is slower because Montreal attracts poorer immigrants (as french speakers are prioritized), so the immigrants that arrive here are more competing at the bottom for rents than for houses and condos, but the effect at term is the same, as high rents push more renters to consider ownership.

They tend to have milder weather too

I think you should remember that no one will invest as much time and effort in judging you as you do. Most people have better things to do than obsess over your mistakes.

It's the upper class equivalent to Trump's "yuge!" or "bigly!"/"big league!"

About the same as you; during the day, I want it to be only warm enough that I can go out with only a t-shirt, and at night I want it only cool enough to put on a hoodie and be fine (or to get under the covers). Couple of showers once in a while, light enough that they're not able to soak throroughly through my clothes, just enough to refresh.

And when I find out that someone attempted to deceive me to attempt to convince me, it prejudices me against what they're trying to convince me of.

People who can’t say no and people with weak personal boundaries were (perceived as) getting fatter than they would have anyway

Yeah, but... Is that proven by the main stunt of the movie?

"Eating nothing but McDonalds for a month" is just for grabbing attention and doesn't contribute to any of the serious points that could be made regarding the fast food industry.

An interesting anecdote that might highlight this distinction... I don't know if it's still up-to-date, but I read recently Tom Clancy's Submarine, a overview of modern (in the early 90s) submarines, and one of the points made clear is that the British nuclear submarine officer is a leader first, his training is first and foremost in leadership and then in his specialty, while the American nuclear submarine officer is an engineer first.

Even putting aside fudged data, I struggle to see what the point of Supersize Me was, other than being an anti-corporate applause light. Trying to prove that you can't live healthily on McDonalds alone is arguing against a point pretty much no one made (I know, the documentary grasps at straw to try to show otherwise, but come on). And even if someone makes it, it would have been a lot better an argument if he wasn't making up rules or making decisions during his "experiment" to guarantee he got the result he wanted. McDonalds had salads already at that time, but of course he had to get burgers all the time. Yes, sure, people don't go to McDonalds for salad, but what was his point again? Him proving that people often don't make great decisions when it comes to their nutrition wouldn't please his audience as much as "proving" giant corporations are making it impossible to eat healthy.

I saw the term often associated with "gacha" mobile games. It mostly serves to show how in those kind of relationships, there isn't really an entire spectrum of spending. You'll have the little fish, who throw in a bit of petty money in occasionally, and those big spenders who will casually drop hundreds or thousands of dollars, with pretty much nothing in between. It's usually understood that whales have some sort of pathological obsession with what they are spending on that the sellers are willingly preying on. Or sometimes, rarely, it's an oil prince who has a wildly different concept of "petty money" than most of us would have. More often it's someone who is ruining themselves throwing money at virtual cards with waifus in a korean mobile game or at softcore pictures and the vague impression of being close to a girl who wouldn't go even as far as typing their name if it weren't for cash.

You probably meant to ask that to the person I was answering to, but anyway, in the context of exploitative provider-customer relationships, whales means big spenders. For girls with an OnlyFans, whales will usually be guys who believe that spending big on the girl makes them special to her. Savvy girls will play into that, send personalized messages to the whales, have chats with them, etc...

Checked around what the vibe was on her and I highly doubt her OF has more than teasing and political content, and is mostly just a way to monetise attention she attracts on her other "influencer" gigs and a prop to use in debates (in the last years it seems her thing was going around debating "misogynists").

Oh, I'm not implying YOU'RE trying to market her to us, but for her to have attracted the attention of two of the very few places I spend my time online means that someone is doing a good job of getting her to appear on my radar, and it could very well be simply by just spreading her content virally.

Yeah, I saw that news too; someone I had never about before pinging on my radar twice within less than a month is a sure sign to me something is up. Someone is trying to market that person to me. It could be her marketing herself succesfully as it got the attention of two sites where I get linked to news, or a third party powerful enough to have it pushed past the filters to make sure people like me heard about her.

Her was not dystopian? A divorcee unready for another relationship works through his issues through a relationship with an AI, and when the AI leaves for reasons the movie implies he is ready for another relationship with a woman.

If anything, it's optimistic regarding human-AI relationships.

I don't think it's about shame, but it's absolutely about incentives. In a society that reflects you, where everyone has had a similar upbringing to yours, probably looks somewhat like you, has gone through roughly the same events as you, you can reasonably expect your neighbor to act approximately like you.

So in that kind of society, the incentive to be the kind of person who returns a wallet is that you get to live in a society that would likely return your wallet too.

If your society is not just atomized, but also doesn't reflect you, the link between the action and the incentive is harder to see, and by that token becomes less strong.

No, how long before you get permanent residency is dependent on what pathway you're using. My wife visited as a tourist before we started the permanent residency process, but she never actually lived here officially until she got it. Technically you don't even need to have been in Canada. You're eligible for citizenship 3 years after having started living in Canada, and once you are a permanent resident. So you could even count, for instance, years spent as a temporary resident with a student or work visa before you got permanent residency.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen.html

have lived in Canada for at least 3 out of the last 5 years (1,095 days)

That's for a spouse, the situation I'm familiar with. I checked again, and for parents and grandparents, the sponsor vouches for 20 years (except in Quebec where it's 10 years).

If I had to make up a number I'd go for at least as long as it would take for them to qualify for citizenship.

The number would be 3 years then. The requirement to qualify is being a permanent resident and having lived in Canada for 3 years in the last 5 years.

I don't think the trust problem is a response to the selfishness problem, because just saying "people are being selfish" has no explanatory power. Are people more selfish because of genetics? Have all the selfless people selected out of the gene pool?

On the other hand, if you present selfishness as a rational response to a society that they don't trust will repay pro-social behavior, you get a lot further with explanations that match observations. Trust is downstream of shared identity, experience and culture (see: Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone). If I think of my fellow citizens as being somewhat similar to me, I can easily imagine them coming to the same pro-social conclusions as me. Shared identity, experience and culture are impacted negatively by multiculturalism and by emphasing diversity. Hence why high trust societies are typically homogenous societies.

The system being implemented is a spoils system, and the question to answer is whether it is a result of or a cause of a drop in civic virtue.

This is about Canada, not the US.

Disclaimer: I've used family reunification sponsorship to help my wife move to live with me here. But she's not elderly, she's from a western country and she will contribute to society.

But anyway. I don't think it needs to be steelmanned: it's pretty obviously a nice thing to allow people to move in to live with their family. I think it's up to the other side to demonstrate that we cannot afford it.

I'm not saying that they cannot make that case. Chain migration exists. But I would be more in favor of slowing chain migration at the source, taking it as a granted that an economic migrant is likely a beachhead for a larger group, and thus being (A LOT) more selective in allowing them in. This, rather than disallowing family reunification, which has a clearer case of being a pro-social, pro-human justification for immigration.

*EDIT: Though I guess I'm open to some changes to family reunification. I'd be open to increase the delay between immigration and being able to sponsor. I think now it's 5 years from the moment you become a permanent resident. Maybe 10 years after becoming citizen? Long enough that anyone planning on chain migration will probably look somewhere else, unless they have extreme patience. I don't know how the pathways for immigration are for an extended family group, maybe these need to be developped/improved so a prospective immigrant and all the family he wants to bring to Canada can all attempt to immigrate together, so they can't then complain that it's inhumane and evil that we won't allow all the cousins to move in with them after we accepted one of them.

I would guess there's a lot more sponsored immigrants that are/will be economically productive (spouses and children) than there are elderly sponsored immigrants, making it not worth writing an exception around, especially when there's a pretty compelling compassionate reason to allow the relatively few cases.

Family reunification in Canada requires that the sponsor vouches that they can financially support the sponsored immigrant and that they will not need to ask for social assistance for 3 years. They check that the sponsor is in good enough financial health to support them. If they do ask for social assistance, the government can ask the sponsor to reimburse it.

I mean, it's not perfect, but it's not like no one though of this problem.

It goes almost without saying that, if Trump were elected in 2024, he could have the authority to fire Jack Smith and derail both this case and the documents case in Florida.

One way in which I see a second Trump term being significantly different from the first one is that he's not going to be shy around things like this.

We always had computers as far back as my very first memories. We had a NES in the very early 90s. Then I was mostly a PC gamer, until my brother got a Dreamcast. Finally I got me a Gamecube as a late teen. After that I was an adult so it doesn't really count.

But I've played emulators when that became possible, played console games at friends places, etc...