Let's not forget, Drew Barrymore was never the straightest arrow in the quiver. She was doing porn the moment she came of age when her uncle Steven Spielberg told her to cut that shit out and she started dating someone marginally more talented and got some movie roles.
Having mommy issues such that she'd call a hyena like that "momala" shows just how messed ups he still is.
Having mommy issues such that she'd call a hyena like that "momala" shows just how messed ups he still is.
Everyone gives Elon Musk and SpaceX flack for not being on the moon yet, and for having all his rockets blow up.
To be fair to Musk, he's trying to do rocketry and space travel with American engineers, because all the Nazi engineers JFK used to get to the moon aren't available anymore. None of these guys even had a world war to refine their rocketry skills! Unfair comparison!
To be fair to Musk, he's trying to do rocketry and space travel with American engineers, because all the Nazi engineers JFK used to get to the moon aren't available anymore. None of these guys even had a world war to refine their rocketry skills! Unfair comparison!
I've written about this at length, but insurance companies are some of the most powerful regulators on earth.
If you do everything the government says they're happy. If you do everything the insurance company says they'll find more for you to do.
If you do everything the government says they're happy. If you do everything the insurance company says they'll find more for you to do.
It matters insofar as it's important to talk about things that are factually accurate because otherwise idiots will see an inaccuracy and use it to nitpick when the fundamentals of the discussion are all solid.
To be clear, it doesn't go up to 66.7%, the inclusion rate goes up to 66.7%.
When you have cap gains in canada, you only have to include a certain percentage of the gains in your income which is then taxed at the normal marginal tax rate.
So previously it was about 50% of cap gains are taxed as income, now 66.7% of cap gains are taxed as income.
Remember that if you're investing and want to avoid capital gains, you can put a brokerage account or other investments into your TFSA where gains will be totally tax free. Every year after you're 18, your TFSA contribution limit grows every year (at the moment by $7,000 per year). The overwhelming majority of TFSAs contain savings accounts which is a waste of the tax privileged account. It definitely makes more sense to put something that has a capacity to grow a lot more in there.
(That being said, don't get me wrong, Trudeau is garbage, and the way he's like "We need to invest in housing and Gen Z" after doubling the national debt is insane and he's a total monster)
When you have cap gains in canada, you only have to include a certain percentage of the gains in your income which is then taxed at the normal marginal tax rate.
So previously it was about 50% of cap gains are taxed as income, now 66.7% of cap gains are taxed as income.
Remember that if you're investing and want to avoid capital gains, you can put a brokerage account or other investments into your TFSA where gains will be totally tax free. Every year after you're 18, your TFSA contribution limit grows every year (at the moment by $7,000 per year). The overwhelming majority of TFSAs contain savings accounts which is a waste of the tax privileged account. It definitely makes more sense to put something that has a capacity to grow a lot more in there.
(That being said, don't get me wrong, Trudeau is garbage, and the way he's like "We need to invest in housing and Gen Z" after doubling the national debt is insane and he's a total monster)
Boss: "were like a family!"
The family: https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-family-cult-anne-hamilton-byrne
The family: https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-family-cult-anne-hamilton-byrne
The British Columbia government is asking for help with all the drug use.
"we're from the federal government, we're here to help!"
"Start doing drugs on East Hastings"
Thank goodness what would we do without you?
"we're from the federal government, we're here to help!"
"Start doing drugs on East Hastings"
Thank goodness what would we do without you?
Star Trek shower thoughts...
If they can go back in time, why not go back 5 minutes so you can say "hey, security officer wilheim is gonna get fucked up if you go down there, try this instead"?
Maybe there's a temporal prime directive saying "don't fuck with the timeline", but.... They were fucking with the timeline in every series at least a few times a season...
So how many of those episodes where they tried desperately to figure out how to make sure they don't die in the main timeline end up being violations?
How many of those episodes should have been like "no, we need to accept our deaths because we might mess with the timeline if we don't"?
I know there's the episode with the enterprise c, but not only did that have a known consequence rather than a vague one, they fucked with the timeline anyway and ended up with a stupid sexy romulan (I think Sela, a half romulan whose mother was a Tasha yar who wasn't supposed to be on the enterprise C)....
That storyline feels like a different story, discussing sending another ship off to die. I'm interested more in the enterprise or Voyager itself. Like "the right thing to do here.... Is to let ourselves die, knowing we could change it" -- and leave it ambiguous as to whether there'd even be an effect. Do you die for a principle even though there may not even be a benefit?
Now that could be a cool episode of a trek. I don't recall anything quite like that.
It's interesting that the final storylines of both TNG and Voyager both involved time travel, though I think only the former had any consequences for it, but that leads to another problem: if you change the future such that you don't need to change the future, then you don't exist and don't do the thing so there isn't even anyone to punish. You can't very well punish the alternative history version who didn't do anything wrong... Or could you?
If they can go back in time, why not go back 5 minutes so you can say "hey, security officer wilheim is gonna get fucked up if you go down there, try this instead"?
Maybe there's a temporal prime directive saying "don't fuck with the timeline", but.... They were fucking with the timeline in every series at least a few times a season...
So how many of those episodes where they tried desperately to figure out how to make sure they don't die in the main timeline end up being violations?
How many of those episodes should have been like "no, we need to accept our deaths because we might mess with the timeline if we don't"?
I know there's the episode with the enterprise c, but not only did that have a known consequence rather than a vague one, they fucked with the timeline anyway and ended up with a stupid sexy romulan (I think Sela, a half romulan whose mother was a Tasha yar who wasn't supposed to be on the enterprise C)....
That storyline feels like a different story, discussing sending another ship off to die. I'm interested more in the enterprise or Voyager itself. Like "the right thing to do here.... Is to let ourselves die, knowing we could change it" -- and leave it ambiguous as to whether there'd even be an effect. Do you die for a principle even though there may not even be a benefit?
Now that could be a cool episode of a trek. I don't recall anything quite like that.
It's interesting that the final storylines of both TNG and Voyager both involved time travel, though I think only the former had any consequences for it, but that leads to another problem: if you change the future such that you don't need to change the future, then you don't exist and don't do the thing so there isn't even anyone to punish. You can't very well punish the alternative history version who didn't do anything wrong... Or could you?
It was really embarrassing for her to say that, it suggests lack of knowledge of basic concepts in law.
Sovereign immunity is a long-standing concept of common law. It says that the state, and by contrast agents of the state working within their role as such, are immune from prosecution unless the state agrees to allow them to be prosecuted. The US allows itself to be sued through mechanisms such as the federal torts act, or through federal civil rights legislation such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983. This is a requirement of basic government rule because many actions of government would potentially open government up to unlimited legal action.
For example, Obama ordered an American citizen killed by drone strike, and that person died. Whether you agree with what he did or not, he isn't guilty of murder because he is the head of state.
As another example, prior to 42 usc 1983 being enacted, members of the KKK could become part of the government and use their office to violate civil rights and there was no recourse due to sovereign immunity. That was the reason the law was enacted in 1871 -- imagine that there was no recourse for over 90 years after the United States were created, and that was rectified by the passage of that important civil rights law.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to create new arbitrary law from the bench, it is to rule on laws and the Constitution. The correct thing to do here if there was political will to limit the absolute sovereign immunity conferred by the presidency, is for the democratically elected Congress to pass laws which explain exactly when and how the office of president limits his or her sovereign immunity. That is what a country governed by democracy and the rule of law would do, and it is how America worked for centuries until now.
Sovereign immunity is a long-standing concept of common law. It says that the state, and by contrast agents of the state working within their role as such, are immune from prosecution unless the state agrees to allow them to be prosecuted. The US allows itself to be sued through mechanisms such as the federal torts act, or through federal civil rights legislation such as 42 U.S. Code § 1983. This is a requirement of basic government rule because many actions of government would potentially open government up to unlimited legal action.
For example, Obama ordered an American citizen killed by drone strike, and that person died. Whether you agree with what he did or not, he isn't guilty of murder because he is the head of state.
As another example, prior to 42 usc 1983 being enacted, members of the KKK could become part of the government and use their office to violate civil rights and there was no recourse due to sovereign immunity. That was the reason the law was enacted in 1871 -- imagine that there was no recourse for over 90 years after the United States were created, and that was rectified by the passage of that important civil rights law.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to create new arbitrary law from the bench, it is to rule on laws and the Constitution. The correct thing to do here if there was political will to limit the absolute sovereign immunity conferred by the presidency, is for the democratically elected Congress to pass laws which explain exactly when and how the office of president limits his or her sovereign immunity. That is what a country governed by democracy and the rule of law would do, and it is how America worked for centuries until now.
I mean, Illinois is a poster child for the failure of public schooling.
Illinois and in particular the Chicago public school system spends more than any other state in the midwest, teachers there have the best salaries and benefits in the region. Amount spent per student has almost doubled since 2008, and yet more students leave unable to read at grade level than able to (less than a quarter being able to read), and when we're talking about minority students, depending on the minority you could be looking at 8 in 10 students being functionally illiterate at graduation, or even as much as 9 in 10.
Now the problem is, meanwhile according to their own internal metrics things have never been better. Every teacher in the Chicago public school system has a 100% approval rating, and schools report that 89% of kids are on track to graduate -- because the managerial elite in charge of schools don't care about the success of individuals, but good looking numbers and what they measure is graduation rates because within their managerial circles that is the current hypothesis. There is effectively no one that you can vote for to change that, because the managerial class comes with the government, sort of like if a feudal Lord were to conquer the nearby kingdom, the people living on the land would stay with the land unless the Lord did something drastic. The world is not feeling that great today since it's not running by anything remotely democratic, of course the results aren't a democratic populace, but one ruled by a managerial elite.
The fact that the West is ruled by managerial elite instead of their parliaments or republics means that it doesn't matter which country you go to, it's basically the same problem. The managerial class sees you as a number, and they think all they need to do to make people equal is to make the numbers go up, so more graduates means more equality (even though graduation doesn't even mean you're literate), and we're seeing the base level of education dropping because lower standards mean higher numbers, meaning more betterer. I went to school in a world class region, and it was a betrayal -- the level was just too low, and even if you got straight As, they weren't teaching basic competency. Get a 95 in English and barely be able to write a letter because they just didn't teach essential communications skills.
So expecting to stack a much more complicated skill like critical thinking on top of their utter failure to teach these basic skills just isn't reasonable. They would end up coming up with some metric to prove how great they were at critical thinking and meanwhile kids would get even worse at it.
All that being said, I'm not even saying that you privatize public schools. When I say you decentralize the electorate's education, I'm saying you go out and make it everyone's civic duty to become educated outside of the core basics presented (poorly) in public schools. And you might think that that's unreasonable, but both you and I had to do it in order to get to the point that we can have this conversation. There was nothing in public school that would have led you or I to have the thoughts that we are expressing to each other right now. We end up having to go out in a decentralized manner and willfully choose to learn about the world, and form opinions, and learn what both good and bad arguments look like.
Illinois and in particular the Chicago public school system spends more than any other state in the midwest, teachers there have the best salaries and benefits in the region. Amount spent per student has almost doubled since 2008, and yet more students leave unable to read at grade level than able to (less than a quarter being able to read), and when we're talking about minority students, depending on the minority you could be looking at 8 in 10 students being functionally illiterate at graduation, or even as much as 9 in 10.
Now the problem is, meanwhile according to their own internal metrics things have never been better. Every teacher in the Chicago public school system has a 100% approval rating, and schools report that 89% of kids are on track to graduate -- because the managerial elite in charge of schools don't care about the success of individuals, but good looking numbers and what they measure is graduation rates because within their managerial circles that is the current hypothesis. There is effectively no one that you can vote for to change that, because the managerial class comes with the government, sort of like if a feudal Lord were to conquer the nearby kingdom, the people living on the land would stay with the land unless the Lord did something drastic. The world is not feeling that great today since it's not running by anything remotely democratic, of course the results aren't a democratic populace, but one ruled by a managerial elite.
The fact that the West is ruled by managerial elite instead of their parliaments or republics means that it doesn't matter which country you go to, it's basically the same problem. The managerial class sees you as a number, and they think all they need to do to make people equal is to make the numbers go up, so more graduates means more equality (even though graduation doesn't even mean you're literate), and we're seeing the base level of education dropping because lower standards mean higher numbers, meaning more betterer. I went to school in a world class region, and it was a betrayal -- the level was just too low, and even if you got straight As, they weren't teaching basic competency. Get a 95 in English and barely be able to write a letter because they just didn't teach essential communications skills.
So expecting to stack a much more complicated skill like critical thinking on top of their utter failure to teach these basic skills just isn't reasonable. They would end up coming up with some metric to prove how great they were at critical thinking and meanwhile kids would get even worse at it.
All that being said, I'm not even saying that you privatize public schools. When I say you decentralize the electorate's education, I'm saying you go out and make it everyone's civic duty to become educated outside of the core basics presented (poorly) in public schools. And you might think that that's unreasonable, but both you and I had to do it in order to get to the point that we can have this conversation. There was nothing in public school that would have led you or I to have the thoughts that we are expressing to each other right now. We end up having to go out in a decentralized manner and willfully choose to learn about the world, and form opinions, and learn what both good and bad arguments look like.
Anyone living in Toronto (SFH price: 1.2 million dollars) deserves whatever they get.
fwiw, game after game, I consistently underperform, I apply ungodly amounts of unskilled expression, I dominate in failing at my role....
So I just want to play a single player game with some goddamn cheat codes.
And some people go "git gud", to which I reply silence peasant! I'm a member of the elite PC master race, and I shall play my video games how I like, and if the game won't let me, I've got tools to break the game regardless!
So I just want to play a single player game with some goddamn cheat codes.
And some people go "git gud", to which I reply silence peasant! I'm a member of the elite PC master race, and I shall play my video games how I like, and if the game won't let me, I've got tools to break the game regardless!
How are school systems that fail to teach basic literacy to a single student in hundreds of schools supposed to teach critical thinking?
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
And I think education is only going to work as a decentralized effort. Given the astronomical failure of many public schools in the US and around the world, we just can't rely on them as a path to education as an ideal.
I think it's an important question about who "we" is.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
Are you prepared to have every Democrat former president who's still alive locked up? I can think of things that a malicious prosecutor could absolutely throw both Obama and Clinton in jail for, and I'm sure they could dig something up for Jimmy Carter.
Are you prepared to have every president from now on charged by partisan prosecutors and locked up after their term is up?
Do you think that if that happens it's going to result in a stable democratic society?
Are you prepared to have every president from now on charged by partisan prosecutors and locked up after their term is up?
Do you think that if that happens it's going to result in a stable democratic society?