Interesting. Which claim would you be interested in reading the sources?

I get what they mean but… it’s in such poor taste.

I guess, we’d have to consult with the horse-pilled anon OP if he meant to replace absolutely all driving with horse riding, but I was assuming his take was mostly about day to day trips and not necessarily all trips.

As i said take it from people who actually write software as a career.

As I do… but I’d rather not take it from software engineers because we are not experts. I’d rather listen to real experts, the folks who research this topic as their career.

We’re literally telling you to not pay us to do that

Noted.

Not in a way amenable to seal the deal a few cities across, unless you get a one way ride up there and you’re prepared to camp/hotel a few nights on the way back

the loss of the paper audit trail would be catastrophic for verification

Which is why researchers of electronic voting defend the use of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

But anyway, “this isn’t a discussion” is consistent with statements like “there is absolutely zero reason to expose voting systems to a digital threat vector” so I guess there are things we seem to agree on.

Trust the engineers.in the actual software domain then

Yes, which I am. Though who I’d trust the most here are the cryptography researchers that dedicate their life to researching electronic voting systems.

As an engineer, you should know that no system is perfect and there are several trade-offs and threat models to consider. And electronic voting can’t be discussed in a vacuum, but measured against existing voting systems which are also full of their own kinds of issues and risks.

Beyond insane. Every time Doug Ford comes back to mind I’m triple thankful for being represented by David Eby.

Montague doesn’t show up for barely anything, but in matters of catering to oil & gas lobbyists and licking the balls of Chip Wilson, the guy will consistently go all in.

Fuck ourselves for electing this guy, and this ABC majority in general.

Has Singh called for this? Trudeau?

Eby did it, though. And maybe that’s what saved their majority in this very tight election. He surely knows it’s not the effective way to spend, but he also knows that it’s an easy hill to not die on because so few really care about this.

Welcome aboard!

That’s literally what almost every harm reduction activist has been saying for decades, but I’m not saying this to shame you. I barely did it sooner, I was beyond my 30’s when I finally got it. The fact that it takes so long for someone to encounter the rationale for all the effort going into decriminalization, destigmatization, safer-supply and supervised consumption sites… speaks volumes about who really is holding the megaphone of the media apparatus!

That’s my point. The far-right of this country is already working to destroy opposition and we’re closer to implementing climate change denialism policies and going backward on reconciliation than we’re close to having free speech at danger. And in any case, it’s not like the precedent doesn’t exist already or that the far-right needs the precedent to grow fascist.

The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to worry about

Sure. I wouldn’t like to see climate change denialism criminalized in this century and I’d be pretty worried if any government pushed for it - but we’re so so far away from something like that happening. We’re way closer to going backwards in reconciliation.

This slope is not slippery at all. Denying holocaust has been a crime since 2002 1994 in Germany and yet Germany had no issues with upkeeping free speech in the two three decades since.

edit: oops it’s actually older than I thought

:lolsob: tragically accurate joke

Public yes, but not nationalized.

What’s the distinction here? You mean that you want it to be federal instead of provincial? Or that a govt-owned company doesn’t count as nationalized because its governance is too similar to a private company?

What I sparsely understood from your comment is that these agencies need more govt funding and less reliance on fees, which I totally agree. Not sure if that’s what nationalizing transit means, though.

There’s Government Service, and there’s Public Service Badly Managed for Profit. Hint: if our ferry system tries to bill itself as a tour operator, it’s in the latter group.

So is the problem with BC Ferries that it’s badly managed and the way it markets itself… or is the issue that it receives too little govt funding? I think it’s the latter.

Most if not all transit agencies in Canada are already belong to the public (as opposed to private businesses) already, no? TransLink mentioned in the article sure is, BC Transit too. BC Feries too… (kind of, crown is the sole shareholder).

edit: lol what even does it mean to get downvotes for this

It feels like I’m missing something, maybe because I’m not a politician or a transportation engineer. It’s very common that upper spheres of government will provide extra funding focused on capital expenditures like building new infrastructure but won’t commit to operational expenditures like maintenance and salaries.

I wonder if it’s some sort of political game of being able to claim funding for shiny new things, because expansion is flashier than maintenance. Or maybe there’s a real governance aspect to it, considering that OPEX should stay under control at the right level as to not overstep the scope of each sphere of government - transit agencies should not grow accustomed to funding that is supposed to be extra. IDK, I guess I’m not ready to have an opinion on this. I’ll just trust whatever the folks at Movement say.

some might even say a poopyface too