Well, Jagmeet said just the other day that what Conservatives have been doing (with these non-confidence votes), was a game, and that he wasn't going to play.
Now, all of a sudden, he's caved?
Something either happened behind closed doors, or he's surrendered.
That's how I see it, and I could be totally wrong.
Just tried Grayjay on desktop last night. Syncing with mobile is awesome.
But on desktop, I'll continue to use freetube because i can block channels (or even content by keyword) from showing up on my feed.
If you only watch content that you're sibscribed to, then this shouldn't even be a concern.
viable parliamentary democracy is functioning as intended
I guess that depends on your definition of functioning.
Just the other day, the NDP leader said this: "We’re not going to vote in favour of any of their games because that’s what (the Conservatives are) doing. They’re playing games,” Singh told reporters after the vote was tallied. (SOURCE)
And now he wants to play games with our future by handing Conservatives more power?
We all know that the Conservative party in Canada and the Republicans in the US are not acting in good faith to bring benefit to the people, so is this how our democracy is supposed to work?
We have a democracy FOR THE PEOPLE, and if the people aren't benefiting from these "games", then it's not functioning as intended.
In my opinion, of course.
It's about optics.
Canada is one of the last few full democracies out there, and seeing how the United States has already failed, to give up and surrender sends a strong message to other nations that democracy just doesn't work.
It's all about status. Big building = big dick. And more buildings spread all over the place is the equivalent to them having tons of kids.
It's such a primitive, ape-brain thing to do, but that's how these psychopaths operate.
Yeah, likely right in front of the doors so she makes sure to poison everyone else, too.
The front of my local hospital always has people smoking, and you'll always be breathing it in if you're trying to enter the ER or main entrance or parking lot or the park beside it.
It's Google.
I'm certain that "Common violations" = "competes with our own products".
Amazon Prime Days ran on July 16th and 17th (at least here, in Canada).
This price jump happened a day before and ended two days later, but this item was "on sale" during those two Prime Days.
I've been seeing this scam far too often, especially with food items. Why isn't this illegal yet?
Now that summer is almost here, I'm looking for better ways to protect myself from the sun. I generally dislike sunscreen, but I do wear it while riding.
The helmet visor "Da Brim" (website) caught my attention. Since I wear a huge-ass sombrero-style hat when I'm off the bike, I'm fine with the way Da Brim looks.
For context, some of my summer rides might have me in 8-10+ hours of sun, which isn't good, even with sunscreen on. If Da Brim can make the experience more tolerable, I'm in!
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has one, and what their experience has been.
Doing your job at a high standard is a problem? Who makes this garbage up?
Should I also tip the delivery driver, and the person who made the product?
Hey guys. I'm curious about this type of scenario, because I see two ways of approaching it and neither seems like the best way.
Legend for the photo: MUP = multiuse path; SW = sidewalk; BL = bike lane (sharrows, but it turns to a bike lane).
Assuming you were on the MUP going north, and wanted to turn onto the bike lane heading west.
What's the best/safest/legal way to do this?
A. Use the crosswalk (not a crossride, so you'd need to get off your bike and walk) and position yourself on the lane facing west?
B. Turn from the MUP straight into the bike lane on a green? This would mean going across two lanes.
C. Position on the left turn lane of the road, and make the left turn from that lane? Cars turning right don't make this easy or safe.
For context, there is a bus route going south to north, and this particular road has a lot of speeders. What I'd think would be safe, usually isn't.
If this were an intersection with cyclists in mind, it would have a large green box for cyclists to move into to make the turn safely. In that case, I'd think C would be the most ideal. But without that, what's the next best?
I tend to choose A at this particular intersection, but that's nearly gotten me run over by people turning left from the north side.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Thank you for all the input, guys. I will stick with "A" (which is a Copenhagen left turn), and will suggest to my city to add a proper green painted bike box at this intersection for cyclists to safely make these turns.
Not as bad as the AI-generated articles showing up in search results. Some websites I get driven to make absolutely no sense, despite a lot of words being written about all kinds of topics.
I'm looking forward to the day when "certified human content" is a thing, and that's all search engines allow you to see.
That's a lot of terrorism without being shot and killed by police. Wow.
If you're ever at an anti-LGBTQ march "for the children", ask these bigots why they aren't marching against the sexual exploitation of children in local parishes.
They will stutter on their words, I guarantee. Seeing this strategy in action is hilarious and highly effective!
Hmm. My municipality is rated 44, and while it's got some decent cycling routes, it's ass compared to another municipality that I enjoy riding in.
That one is only rated 48, but I find my experience cycling there to be significantly better.
So...
I'm not sure I trust the rating.
But also, my brain can't even imagine what a city with an 80+ score is like!