[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

Ugh, i thought this was a question, not a link. So i spent time googling for a good tutorial on floats (because I didn't click the link)....

Now i hate myself, and this post.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

a) drag the whole country leftward, economically

I'm a big supporter of PR (I don't really understand people who aren't -- it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.

My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can't get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the "fuck trudeau" people, i'm suspicious that we wouldn't also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 months ago

I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).

I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago

I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.

No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

Could be in vogue and also true

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago

Interviews are a crapshoot, and feedback from them is usually valueless. Good luck to you in your future interviews

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago

Game developers seem to get paid very little for something that's very difficult.

At the root i think passion among a great many people for (games, animals, hockey), leads to an oversupply of talent, which leads to depressed wages.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

This is a weird way to say it, but if I understand correctly a win for tolerance and acceptance, in which case I salute you!

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Wow, nice hot take!

I find the concept super intuitive, like a blueprint or a mold.

[-] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Voting for for trump does make them worse people, they are objectively supporting a racist. Trump family stole money from childrens cancer charity. That's bad. Likewise I didn't write off Peterson for his personal life I wrote him off cause his arguments are rooted in the bible.

Really what makes peterson and trump so bad is that they are completely self centered, and self gratification is their only goal. They care about nobody else.

I'm sad COVID didn't kill them.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

karlhungus

joined 1 year ago