I'd be the first to admit that this appears to be an election between the people who love Canada and the people who hate America, but the real change is dumping Trudeau, who had become absolutely radioactive. Bring in a boring hedge fund manager and apparently all sins are forgiven.
Discord is like the dread pirate Roberts combined with a used car salesman. "I'll probably kill you tomorrow, you should buy nitro"
Until a few years ago I wouldn't have recognized the reason for the different colored limbs on the player character sprite. (not sure if the animated gif shows up properly)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0NzfsbIeY
I love watching people trying to recreate our technology. This guy is trying to build an engine, and he's got a milling machine so he's trying to build a 2-stroke engine.
I think we're already starting to see why we need to have the competence to do things, because those factories we built overseas to get another 1% profit might become unavailable imminently.
I love watching people trying to recreate our technology. This guy is trying to build an engine, and he's got a milling machine so he's trying to build a 2-stroke engine.
I think we're already starting to see why we need to have the competence to do things, because those factories we built overseas to get another 1% profit might become unavailable imminently.
If the liberals win, I will no longer believe that democracy is a good idea for Canada because we lack the capacity for self-rule.
Well I never!
(Eats french fries covered in giant chunks of cheese and gravy for half my meals, and washes it down with coffee with double cream and double sugar)
(Eats french fries covered in giant chunks of cheese and gravy for half my meals, and washes it down with coffee with double cream and double sugar)
I was watching a YouTuber that I generally like who does technology work, and he just let a little stupid thing slip.
The little thing in there was about how due process means innocent until proven guilty, and how if you're against that you are un-American.
Now as many people will know, I'm not American at all, not until we become the 51st state. But even as a foreigner, I can see the giant stupid holes in such a statement.
Due process does not mean the presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence is part of a criminal process, but it is not always part of the process which is due to you. Due process refers to people getting the process that is due to them under the law. Things that people assume are due process may not be. For example, mens rea is often communicated to others as part of due process, but there are entire classes of crimes which do not require mens rea -- establishing mens rea is not part of the process that is due to you unless it is a substantive requirement of the specific statute. There's also absolutely no presumption of innocence in a civil case, where rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard is a preponderance of evidence where you basically have to prove 50 + 1% that you are probably right. In a civil case, that is the process to which you are due, further proving my point.
If a civil case were to be adjudicated on the “innocent unless proven guilty” standard, that would likely be an error of law that would be easily sent to appeal, and the appeal would certainly be won.
To say "if you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty then you're un-American" -- so our environmental regulations un-American? Is the entire civil court system
un-American? Our food safety regulations un-American? How about banking regulations? How about workplace health and safety laws? I just want to figure out how much of the US legal system we have to throw out as un-American because they don't have innocent until proven guilty in their due process.
Since I'm sure that this is a reference to immigration law, immigration law in particular has much different process due compared to most American laws. Since at least the war on terror period, And likely before that, borders are considered a special case where the process due is considerably different than domestic law.
Some of the case law includes the landmark case Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) which said that immigration is something that constitutionally the courts shouldn't really be involved in at all, and so the congress and the executive should be given broad latitude to handle immigration law. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) held that immigration law is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, and so the process due under the law does not include "innocent until proven guilty", and also that there is no right under the process due under the law to habeas corpus.
Showing that the standard isn't no process ever, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) shows that under certain circumstances even foreign citizens get some limited constitutional rights. In that case, Boumediene was a designated "unlawful combatant" being held in Cuba who it was found was given Habeas Corpus rights. This was a good thing in that the US Government shouldn't be able to send non-citizens to gulags in other countries.
Chae Chan Ping and some Fong Yue Ting set the precedent that generally the courts will give extreme deference to Congress and the executive in matters of immigration. In some ways, it could be argued that excessive due process is in fact a violation of the due process clause because it is providing process to which someone is not due under the law.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) discusses the limits of the "due process clause" by explaining a test showing whether process is in fact due, and notably for my previous statement, where excessive due process would itself be a violation of the law. In the context of immigration law, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) in a 7-2 decision agreed with this concept, with the majority decision explicitly rejecting a due process clause violation, claiming that the process requested was not due.
To show that the "due process clause" discussion goes both ways, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) discusses the requirements of the "due process clause" by showing that in an administrative case (in that case welfare), there was in fact a process due under the law, in that case an evidentiary hearing. The due process clause demands process due under the law, no more, no less.
Incidentally, until recently, the law of the land for decisions made by organizations like the EPA was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and a concept known as "Chevron Deference". That case was overruled in last year's "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" which finally ended a long situation where administrative organizations were given deference in court cases. This shows first that the process due under the law was highly deferential to the executive until very recently, and that the process due under the law required under the 4th and 14th amendments are subject to change.
It's frustrating when otherwise intelligent people who do their research stop doing their research and just start flapping their jaws about stuff they don't actually know about, I guess you could say that it totally breaks the illusion.
So, what does all this mean in the context of immigration law? It means that while there is a certain level of process due under the law, it is long established law that it is a lower level of process due, and courts are not required - and often are not allowed - to impose procedural requirements that go beyond what is legally mandated. Anyone who is referring to the highest levels of judicial process such as "innocent until proven guilty" are making a mistake, and likely are doing so for political purposes and in other circumstances would not pretend to misunderstand that fact... other than popular YouTubers who are speaking up on things they simply haven’t done the work to understand.
The little thing in there was about how due process means innocent until proven guilty, and how if you're against that you are un-American.
Now as many people will know, I'm not American at all, not until we become the 51st state. But even as a foreigner, I can see the giant stupid holes in such a statement.
Due process does not mean the presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence is part of a criminal process, but it is not always part of the process which is due to you. Due process refers to people getting the process that is due to them under the law. Things that people assume are due process may not be. For example, mens rea is often communicated to others as part of due process, but there are entire classes of crimes which do not require mens rea -- establishing mens rea is not part of the process that is due to you unless it is a substantive requirement of the specific statute. There's also absolutely no presumption of innocence in a civil case, where rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard is a preponderance of evidence where you basically have to prove 50 + 1% that you are probably right. In a civil case, that is the process to which you are due, further proving my point.
If a civil case were to be adjudicated on the “innocent unless proven guilty” standard, that would likely be an error of law that would be easily sent to appeal, and the appeal would certainly be won.
To say "if you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty then you're un-American" -- so our environmental regulations un-American? Is the entire civil court system
un-American? Our food safety regulations un-American? How about banking regulations? How about workplace health and safety laws? I just want to figure out how much of the US legal system we have to throw out as un-American because they don't have innocent until proven guilty in their due process.
Since I'm sure that this is a reference to immigration law, immigration law in particular has much different process due compared to most American laws. Since at least the war on terror period, And likely before that, borders are considered a special case where the process due is considerably different than domestic law.
Some of the case law includes the landmark case Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) which said that immigration is something that constitutionally the courts shouldn't really be involved in at all, and so the congress and the executive should be given broad latitude to handle immigration law. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) held that immigration law is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, and so the process due under the law does not include "innocent until proven guilty", and also that there is no right under the process due under the law to habeas corpus.
Showing that the standard isn't no process ever, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) shows that under certain circumstances even foreign citizens get some limited constitutional rights. In that case, Boumediene was a designated "unlawful combatant" being held in Cuba who it was found was given Habeas Corpus rights. This was a good thing in that the US Government shouldn't be able to send non-citizens to gulags in other countries.
Chae Chan Ping and some Fong Yue Ting set the precedent that generally the courts will give extreme deference to Congress and the executive in matters of immigration. In some ways, it could be argued that excessive due process is in fact a violation of the due process clause because it is providing process to which someone is not due under the law.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) discusses the limits of the "due process clause" by explaining a test showing whether process is in fact due, and notably for my previous statement, where excessive due process would itself be a violation of the law. In the context of immigration law, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) in a 7-2 decision agreed with this concept, with the majority decision explicitly rejecting a due process clause violation, claiming that the process requested was not due.
To show that the "due process clause" discussion goes both ways, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) discusses the requirements of the "due process clause" by showing that in an administrative case (in that case welfare), there was in fact a process due under the law, in that case an evidentiary hearing. The due process clause demands process due under the law, no more, no less.
Incidentally, until recently, the law of the land for decisions made by organizations like the EPA was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and a concept known as "Chevron Deference". That case was overruled in last year's "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo" which finally ended a long situation where administrative organizations were given deference in court cases. This shows first that the process due under the law was highly deferential to the executive until very recently, and that the process due under the law required under the 4th and 14th amendments are subject to change.
It's frustrating when otherwise intelligent people who do their research stop doing their research and just start flapping their jaws about stuff they don't actually know about, I guess you could say that it totally breaks the illusion.
So, what does all this mean in the context of immigration law? It means that while there is a certain level of process due under the law, it is long established law that it is a lower level of process due, and courts are not required - and often are not allowed - to impose procedural requirements that go beyond what is legally mandated. Anyone who is referring to the highest levels of judicial process such as "innocent until proven guilty" are making a mistake, and likely are doing so for political purposes and in other circumstances would not pretend to misunderstand that fact... other than popular YouTubers who are speaking up on things they simply haven’t done the work to understand.
After playing a lot more with my usb-rtl software defined radio, I'm actually pretty disappointed. It's fine for FM radio, but essentially useless for shortwave, am radio, or ham radio.
Australia has a system called superannuation. Instead of getting you and your employer to pay into a pool that everyone pulls from, you pay into a pool for yourself, and it ends up getting invested in general ways that you can dictate. When it comes time to retire, your superannuation fund becomes your retirement.
Once I learned about this system, it became kind of self-evidently superior to what my country has.
Compared to a defined benefit government pension plan, at first glance you might always assume that defined benefit is better than defined contribution, but the problem is if you're defined benefit is significantly lower than the probable benefit of a defined contribution plan, then it makes more sense to go with the latter. Unlike a government pension plan, you own your superannuation. You can screw it up, but they can't just take the money and spend it on BS without your consent.
Once I learned about this system, it became kind of self-evidently superior to what my country has.
Compared to a defined benefit government pension plan, at first glance you might always assume that defined benefit is better than defined contribution, but the problem is if you're defined benefit is significantly lower than the probable benefit of a defined contribution plan, then it makes more sense to go with the latter. Unlike a government pension plan, you own your superannuation. You can screw it up, but they can't just take the money and spend it on BS without your consent.
Back in the 60s they tried to make a car that can use a turbine engine. Turbines have some really cool features that could make them more efficient than piston engines, and way fewer moving parts so they could last way longer, but they also don't really want to be doing what cars do, spinning up and down constantly to deal with the ups and downs of driving.
Seems like a big use case for generator electric, to be able to focus on building your turbine generator to be simple, reliable, and efficient.
Of course one problem with all this is if they build cars that last, nobody will need a new car every 5 years...
I have a set of PIAA silicone windshield wipers on my car. They've been on my car since February 2020 and they're still going strong. Anyone who has ever owned a car in a place that gets sun and snow in the same year will recognize that's an absolutely absurd amount of time to have the same set of windshield wipers. Nobody's trying to sell me a set of these, because replacing wiper blades every year is a useful business model. A turbine engine could potentially last for a million miles and only has a few parts.
Seems like a big use case for generator electric, to be able to focus on building your turbine generator to be simple, reliable, and efficient.
Of course one problem with all this is if they build cars that last, nobody will need a new car every 5 years...
I have a set of PIAA silicone windshield wipers on my car. They've been on my car since February 2020 and they're still going strong. Anyone who has ever owned a car in a place that gets sun and snow in the same year will recognize that's an absolutely absurd amount of time to have the same set of windshield wipers. Nobody's trying to sell me a set of these, because replacing wiper blades every year is a useful business model. A turbine engine could potentially last for a million miles and only has a few parts.
EVs as a class of vehicle are about a tenth as useful as a real car, so if teslas get down to about 1/10th of their normal price in the used market I'd probably even get one.
ngl I can get behind that to a large extent without any politics at all. The guy's like a circus carney, and most of his fortune is from making people think he had a lot more success than he did. Has he *ever* met a deadline?
Most of the time when you see so-called "Canadian Patrioism", it's just anti-Americanism.
I mean, consider that despite all these claims of patriotism, nobody seems to care all that much that China is basically going hard bareback on us.
I mean, consider that despite all these claims of patriotism, nobody seems to care all that much that China is basically going hard bareback on us.
I can answer that one actually -- apparently if Donald Trump were to oppose it, then they're suddenly super nationalists.
At least, that's how they're running their campaigns in Canada.
At least, that's how they're running their campaigns in Canada.