I've read a number of articles claiming to demonstrate how many of the negative things our governments and corporations foist upon us were first used in prisons. They were then rolled out to the general public, starting with disadvantaged and marginalized communities.

It's time for organizations like the John Howard Society to get more support so that they can be more vocal and more active.

It was never sustainable right from the beginning. Food banks are supported and funded mostly by those just a paycheque or two from being a client themselves. If the actually well-off were doing their part, food banks would mostly disappear because wages and social assistance would be up to the task of making sure people can afford to eat.

Please read the whole article, not just the headline.

Council, including the mayor, claim to have been against this bylaw and supposedly supported rejecting it.

It seems that they made a tactical error in not allowing it the full three readings in council. Since it was a motion brought forward by the community, refusing to give it the full three readings in council meant that it had to go to plebiscite (a binding referendum) under provincial legislation.

As a former hunter, I was intrigued, so I did a bit of searching. Most of the articles suggested that the testing had been done and that hot pink might actually be superior to blaze orange. It's supposedly more visible to humans and less visible to the main big game animals.

Anyone who hasn't followed that link needs to do so now! It's got human cadaver arms manipulated with fishing line and guitar tuning knobs. It's got a link to an article titled "Your Face: Punching Bag or Spandrel?"

You can't possibly find a better way to spend 10 minutes!

I don't know how other provinces operate, but I like Saskatchewan's actuarial model. Instead of a bunch of demographic slicing and dicing, the only thing that matters is your driving record.

No record means you're a new driver. Whether you're 16 or 80 doesn't get considered, just that you have a "new driver" risk profile. There are also a variety of driving restrictions that gradually come off over a few years of driving with a good record.

Build up a bad record and your premiums climb pretty rapidly. Depending on the nature of the infractions, even your driving license itself can start getting pretty darn expensive and possibly even revoked.

Build up a good record and your premiums go down and your driving license stays inexpensive.

I didn't see any "shit journalism." I saw many references to external sources, including some from police forces themselves. That argues against confirmation bias, the more general bias that what doesn't meet expectations is more likely to get reported, and mere sensationalism.

Obviously, that does not mean that there was no selection bias in the choice of references. If you have alternative sources, use them or point us in the right direction so we can find them.

When recognizing that someone seems to be generalizing, it's worth asking whether that's because it is based on underlying facts or is just in service of an ulterior motive. My take (which may be just confirmation bias) is that the underlying facts argue in favour of some generalization.

Not all police are bad and neither are all departments and forces. But there are too many clear cases of bad behaviour to just ignore the possibility that there really is a general problem that must be dealt with.

I can't imagine there being that many jobs critical to public health and safety where there aren't already mechanisms in place to allow for low-risk job action. It's not like there is a glut of suitably trained people just waiting around to work as scabs.

So, yes, the only purpose of this exception is to allow companies to play games with strange and wondrous definitions of what constitutes "public health and safety".

"Hey, you know those rules designed to protect victims and those we are charged with supervising and protecting? Why don't we use those to punish them and protect ourselves?"

From the article:

Moe previously said the policy had strong support from the majority of Saskatchewan residents and parents.

I cannot possibly express how pissed off I get at this blind adherence to majority opinion and majority rule.

The theft of Indigenous lands had the support of the majority of those with power.

The creation of the Residential School system had majority support of those with power and, by that time, the actual majority of the population.

Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.

Sometimes, the only way to create a better world is to drag people kicking and screaming into it.

I don't have all the answers for how to balance minority rights against majority desires, but lots of very smart people have discussed the problem for hundreds of years and concluded that bills of rights based on the principles of inclusion and respect are a good starting point. If we are just going to toss those rights aside every time we get uncomfortable, then they are not rights, but privileges or concessions.

Ask yourself this: How would I structure the world if tomorrow I was going to be reincarnated as an infant into a community without power and grow up to be different from those around me?

It's not yet the law, because it hasn't even been introduced, because the legislature isn't even sitting.

The premier is directing that policy be changed in anticipation of forthcoming legislation, when that legislation hasn't even been put forward.

The premier is taking on the role of absolute dictator by directing people to act without first getting legislation in place. The judge is doing no more than upholding the rights of the citizens to be not bossed around without supporting legislation.

Really, it's not all that complicated. No regulation without legislation.

For your phone and PC security, it's crucial to resist the temptation of using similar passwords across different accounts. Instead, opt for unique, strong passwords for each account to enhance your security. Additionally, strive to memorize your passwords and PINs so that you don't have to write them down, reducing the risk of unauthorized access to your accounts.

Who writes and fact checks this stuff? Password managers have been a thing for a long time now. It should be considered some kind of malpractice now to ever make a recommendation other than "use an open-source password manager to generate and store randomly generated passwords." That should be followed up with a list of highly regarded options, like Bitwarden and KeePass, both of which are available for virtually every platform.