With my music moved over to jellyfin (with finamp for accessing it via streaming) I ended up going with a different solution for podcasts, which I'm now using antennapod synced up to my nextcloud and it's nice getting back into podcasts. Previously I was sorta using a half-baked feature in nextcloud music that sorta worked but didn't really fit very well into any sort of workflow.
"We are turning to our young people and saying 'Bend over, bitch. We're taking every penny before we die. Enjoy slavery.'"
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.