Good on you for asking for a source. We should all be in the habit of doing that more often👍

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-rejected-drop-cancon-us-demand-streaming-services/

Carney effectively confirmed all of this in his recent speech too.

The US wanted Quebec specifically to remove their French language mandates on streaming content, and Canada in general to remove Canadian content requirements for same. This is about Netflix trying to cut their costs.

Yes, but that power only extends to the government itself. The subservient American media will probably fall in line even though they aren't legally obliged to, and the rest of the world will mostly ignore him because this is obviously stupid.

I think the more important thing here is to understand that this achieves nothing. It's not useful as a threat - we literally do not care - and so only serves as deliberate antagonism. Given that America is still allegedly trying to get a trade deal with us, even if they're trying to force a more favorable deal with tariffs and other forms of pressure, this still doesn't help them reach that goal in any way. Like so much of what Trump does it's just childish and self-destructive.

Awesome, thank you

Not just because it enables more access for everyone, but because it represents a deepening commitment by these companies to Linux as a gaming platform.

The more companies see Linux as a viable gaming platform, the more consumers will. It's a virtuous cycle, and one that will only help to erode Windows grip on the desktop OS space.

"Now please stop asking us about Iran and Epstein..."

As I understand it, 41 days is how long inventory would hold out if all incoming shipments stopped today. It's not the same thing as saying "The US is 41 days away from running out."

That said, it's also not clear if this figure is "total supply" or "usable supply." The phrasing in the article suggests the former, but not explicitly. Basically in order to actually move crude from ships to refineries and so on, there's a certain level of pressure you need to maintain in the pipelines. Without that, everything stalls. The point at which oil functionally runs out is well before the tanks run dry, because after a certain point you can only move it by truck and train, which basically grinds the whole system to a halt.

I genuinely do not care if Aaron Swartz was a mass murderer, it would not justify what the government did to him.

The moment you decide that people don't get rights just because they're a bad person, you're a fascist.

OK, I get that this is exactly the kind of shitty behaviour (on the part of the AI bros) that makes people feel like "Something has to be done", but I think everyone here needs to Google "Aaron Swartz" first.

The moment we decide that "scraping" is a crime, we're further enabling the kind of corporate hording of access to our cultural commons that is already becoming far too widespread.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

And if we want to change that, we can't keep establishing precedents that reinforce the status quo.

What a weird thing to say to someone asking for sources. I was under the impression that we were the people who believe that facts matter.

You're more than welcome to just prove me wrong by providing a source, BTW. Like I said, I'm not accusing anyone of being a liar here. I just want to know the facts.

Seconding this. So far I can't find any version of this list or most of the items on it. The source is allegedly Global News, but I came up with nothing there.

The problem here is that people keep trying to tackle these issues with the wrong tools. For example, demands to strengthen copyright. In the long run, that's not actually a good thing. As much as we dislike what these companies are doing, once we start saying things like "Reading a book into a computer is stealing it" we're basically giving Amazon a big wet sloppy kiss. We need to approach this fight carefully and with an eye to unintended consequences. Lashing out wildly is going to create more problems than it solves.

The entire notion that a "battle" over laws and societal norms can ever be won or lost is fundamentally ludicrous.

Republicans "lost" their fight against abortion with Roe V Wade, right? But because everyone else decided the battle was won and stopped fighting, now that right is collapsing.

It's as stupid to think these battles can be lost as it is to think they can be won. You always have to keep fighting. Always.

This is dementia.

What happens is that pathways in your brain start to break down, so when you're trying to form a connection, the connection just isn't there. But what your brain does is it tries to be "helpful" by routing around the damaged pathway without even telling you that it's doing this.

So part way through trying to talk about bond markets, something he doesn't really have a deep pool of knowledge on to begin with, Trump's brain ran into a block. To fix the issue, it took the last word - intervention - and formed a pathway from there. This lead to "military", kind of like an LLM losing context but continuing its next word guessing.

He probably finished out the sentence without even realizing that it has zero connection to the original question he was supposed to be answering.

Same one.

Also, for very much the same reasons I'll also recommend Observation. Play as an AI aboard a space station, trying to keep its remaining crew member alive after some kind of unknown event knocks out power and does.... Other things. Absolutely superb twist on the genre, with a great sense of mystery and wonder.

Iron Lung. Very clever premise. Deeply, intensely creepy throughout.

Most importantly, love requires both partners to be emotionally vulnerable, right? So then under gender roles, men can't love women, only objectify them? Wouldn't this make society one giant trauma factory where men are traumatized into detached sociopathy and women are traumatized into servitude?

Yep.

So what the hell are conservatives doing in relationships?

Exactly what you just said.

Are they all loveless relationships, or did all of the men cheat their gender role to develop romantic feelings?

A little column A, a little column B

If men didn't cheat a little in the past decades where gender roles were the strongest, shouldn't we see a kind of generational trauma so severe that violent crime is rampant and secure attachment is very scarce?

*Looks around at the state of the world...* Yeah, sounds about right.

(Most of that violent crime is in the form of unreported domestic violence, and that lack of secure attachment is masked by relationships held together by obligation.)

Glibness aside, you're 100% correct, and the reason you're struggling is because oh boy is it hard to be slapped in the face by this realization all in one go.

Is love possible under rigorously enforced traditional gender roles? Yes, of a sort, but it will never be healthy. It will never be truly free and alive.

But when we say "traditional gender roles", do note how I added the "rigorously enforced" there. Breaking out of the conservative mold does not require you to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I work in IT, I dress, look and act very masculine, I have a basement full of power tools, I know more than anyone should about guns, I play violent video games, I have a dog, I like to fire up the smoker on a Sunday and cook some ribs... There are plenty of ways that I fit the ideal of traditional male gender roles. And there are plenty of ways that I don't. I could talk about the small ones, but the most significant would be that I'm bisexual, and I'm married to a woman who is in the army. And not, like, a clerk or something, she's infantry. Could kick my ass ten times over, and I'm very comfortable with that.

The thing about traditional ideas of gender is that once you understand that they're bullshit, you're no longer required to accept the bad with the good. You get to pick and choose what you want from the buffet. My wife is one of the toughest motherfuckers you will ever meet, and a lot of her interests skew more "manly". She likes military history, she's a gun nerd, she plays shooters and complicated strategy games. But she still likes to dress up pretty and put on makeup, and she still likes to curl up in my arms and be the little spoon. I can cry at sad movies, but I can also be the tall, strong man who will wrap her up in his arms when she's sad or stressed.

It's not an either/or. It's a whatever you want. Be the person you are most comfortable being, whatever that may. Because the best part is, when you are your most genuine self, people will be drawn to that. There is nothing, nothing more attractive than someone who truly knows who they are and gives zero fucks what anyone else thinks. The more you shed the rules that were imposed upon you, and the rules you imposed upon yourself, the more you grow into a version of you that makes you happy, the more people will be drawn to that. Don't worry about trying to be someone else's ideal. Be your own ideal. The rest will happen naturally.

I would be interested in seeing a source on Cara being "hacked." Not saying it didn't happen, just that I've not seen any information to that effect so far.

And I do want you to keep in mind that the US Government arrested Aaron Swartz for hacking even though all he did was batch download publicly listed files. So we need to be pretty damn cautious about how people deploy that word.

Not exactly a one for one comparison. What you're describing is just a gas meter. I've lived in houses that had them. It's a way of paying your gas bill on a pay-as-you-go basis instead of monthly. Annoying, but not exactly a great example of the kind of rent seeking you're pointing at, since it's just a method of paying for a thing that everyone would expect to pay for (under any form of capitalism, at any rate).