... against 3 unnamed individuals, not against any company.

Just be careful out there! Apparently bears have vision comparable to humans, making hot pink more visible to them than blaze orange.

Yup. I surprised myself when I pulled the last decade of data for my nearest Environment Canada weather station (Lucky Lake, SK). I don't remember the number, but it was shockingly few days with a low colder than -30C. I was similarly surprised by the low number of days with a low colder than -20C.

[The industry association] wants a more competitive fiscal framework for B.C. mines and smelters in line with what exists in Ontario and Quebec, saying the B.C. industry pays too much in carbon tax despite having lower emissions in comparison to other mining operations globally.

Translation: Nobody else is paying their share, so why should they?

It also wants faster permitting processes; more funding to help First Nations involvement in land-use decisions; investments to help electrify and power mines; and improvements around how to train and retain more workers.

Translation: They want to cut corners. They want help convincing First Nations that they have no choice anyway, so they might as well play along. The mines won't be as profitable or maybe not even viable if they have to pay for basic infrastructure or to develop their own stable workforce.

How about building your own carbon-free power plants and we'll consider building transmission lines to take excess production?

Maybe set up your own training centres to meet existing standards for transferrable certification. Not like the railroads that have their own welding schools, but the training and certification is not recognized on the free market. Then pay new employees to get the necessary training.

Put 50% (or whatever, recalculated annually) of revenue (not profit) into an escrow account for clean-up and remediation. Payments monthly. Missed payments come with a fine equal to double the payment. Missed payment on the fine means closure and forfeiture of the escrow. All in clear, simple, and direct language that means going to court over the issue is basically pointless. If there is money left over afterwards, we'll split it 50/50, assuming that the business is still operational, not merely shuttered and sold in a way that is designed to retain assets and eliminate liabilities.

If all that works for you, then maybe it's worth talking about how to deal with the rest in actually sensible ways. But there is no point going further if you can't make even the simplest business case without public funding.

Alternatively, if this is such a social good, then maybe it should be a social project. We can hire the relevant expertise as easily as you.

🤞

If people are cancerned about fatal disease, why does nobody proactively prevent catching the flu, given the stats of yealy deaths from influenza?

Some people do, about 20% in Saskatchewan.

I've been getting the annual flu vaccine since it became available.

I don't particularly worry about disease and accidents and definitely don't live in fear, but I take standard precautions: vaccinations, diet, fitness, PPE in my shop, etc. It's all relatively simple and mostly low effort.

There was a time when potential financial benefits were secondary to the need for shelter. Over time, the loss of pensions and other factors forced people to put more emphasis on the financial returns. Then institutional investors found ways to turn housing into an asset class. That accelerated the growing perception that housing was about returns on investment, with shelter as a beneficial side effect. Now, the "shelter" component of housing is only just starting to become part of the discourse again, but is still mostly considered a side effect of housing as a financial investment.

Shelter will continue to be a problem until we go back to a system where housing is about shelter and prices rise at about the same rate as inflation (or slower, due to increased productivity!).

I'm absolutely and completely non-Indingenous and I agree 100%.

Making a claim based on her adoption by the Piapot family is fine. My limited understanding as an outsider who only reads stuff is that the adoption confers legitimate and legal membership as judged by custom. The rest? Not so much.

Should her awards be rescinded? Maybe, but probably not. After all, those awards all came after her adoption and far greater liars have not been banished.

Others have mentioned "Canadaland" and their various podcasts.

I like "Sandy and Nora Talk Politics", "Open to Debate with David Moscrop", and "The Secret Life of Canada" (now a CBC production, but that doesn't seem to have changed the podcast).

"Hacked" is not specifically Canadian content but is made in Canada. Covers the wonderful world of who got hacked and how.

"Conspirituality" and "This Week In Virology" are what I would call "Canada adjacent" in that there are Canadian co-hosts and Canada gets some direct coverage in what are essentially international stories with an American focus. The former looks at the intersection of the wellness community and right wing ideologies. The latter, as you might guess, is about "viruses, the kind that make you sick" (their tagline) and frequently gets very technical, especially when they are reviewing a paper.

CBC pushes quite a lot of their radio and some TV programming out as podcasts. My favourites are "Quirks and Quarks" and "Ideas".

Then there are some limited series: "Recall: How to Start a Revolution" about the FLQ crisis and "Kuper Island" about Residential Schools.

For a good time, you can't go wrong with "Because News", a comedy panel-quiz show on mostly Canadian news. Some guests (especially Eric Peterson, Jean Yoon, and Martha Chavez) occasionally depart into rants or personal stories that have a lot of serious meat.

"Getting more votes" doesn't help in FPTP unless you actually get a plurality of the votes.

I disagree. When everyone votes for who they actually want, everyone, including the political strategists in charge of trying to figure out how their party can win, can see what the voters really want. Yes, they will still play nasty games, but at least it will be with an awareness that there are actually a lot of people who prefer different policies.

If everyone voted honestly, the biggest effect of the NDP would be to help the conservatives win more elections.

Possibly, at least initially. But maybe the conservative strategists would see that they are courting a smaller fringe than if they had courted the socially progressive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've long thought that most policies and platforms in all parties were designed to lead to victory rather than to adhere to some principled ideology.

With cars and trucks, there comes a point at which trailer weight or the ratio of trailer weight to vehicle weight makes it unsafe without trailer brakes. Is that a consideration with bicycles?

It devolves pretty quickly into an infantile solipsism. The world exists only for me, and only when I'm looking.