Subscript5676

Maybe just like how we won’t have their bike infrastructure there (at least in the short term), we won’t have their Fairphones :’( (at least in the short term… I hope)

Sorry, I can help it…

* smacks roof of car labelled The Left

This bad boy can fit so many punches in it

In that case, okay, I see where you’re coming from with the previous comment. But yeah, it’s always good to question claims of some 4D-chess-like move a government is doing, cause often times, we’d actually know what’s happened, and so would the party on the other side of the table.

I will also say this to clarify, cause I think it seems like we have different definitions: when I said pro-X, I only meant it in the sense that you actively do things that benefit party X. I noticed that it’s used interchangeably with “action benefits party X,” but context doesn’t always make it clear.

And I’m only saying that calling what we see right now a bend of the knee might still be a bit early given that this is a situation that’s still ongoing. If the events are to stop right now, and we essentially get nothing else on top of getting Trump on the negotiating table, then heck ya it’s a capitulation. You call it optimism, I call it seeing it for what it is putting aside my pessimistic view on it. But yes, I agree that we shouldn’t need to do what Carney did.

The questionable bills, and general de-regulation / removal of environmental reviews, are in line with US interests at present, which are backed by tech giants wanting to take more control / have more autonomy. The continued (over) reliance on US tech services is also clearly not in Canada's best interests, given how the US has been leveraging their near monopolistic status in that realm. Many of our newly elected government officials got in on a promise of standing up to America's authoritarian bullshit, but once in power have basically complied and made similar authoritarian steps.

This is a very charged take of Bill C-5 and it makes it hard to agree or disagree. Might just be a me-thing, but anytime people use very charged words or takes, I just have the tendency to retort, because while they aren’t possibilities you can disprove, there’s also nothing to prove them. We can entertain the possibility, but I do wonder if we’d just be focusing on the wrong problem and make constructive conversations impossible to make.

Uhh… Did you reply to the right person/comment? I don’t see how your comment connects to mine here. But I’ll reply to your comment anyway.

I don’t disagree with your comment, but I am definitely a bit more hesitant to label Carney as anything (the word “neoliberal” has so many competing definitions it’s essentially a nothing-burger with only some bad flavour attached to it to make it a punching bag by all sides these days). First off, it’s pretty clear that Trump’s moves are done in favour of the US tech oligarchs, that we can agree on.

Carney’s recent moves have basically burnt through his political capital extremely quickly, though I can’t say all of them align with or benefit the US, not even the pipelines he’s been eager to build, especially cause most of the O&G companies in Alberta are mostly owned by foreign companies (source), not necessarily all by the US. And Carney’s government hasn’t done that much with about 2 months in, but none of them have been pro-international trade per se. Cutting the carbon tax is definitely pro-business but it was done more so to appease the right more broadly than just businesses, though I guess if you consider the fact that O&G companies are mostly foreign-owned, then you might say it’s pro-international-trade, but since we’ve barely decarbonized our economy and society by much (doesn’t help that Ontario and Alberta have such strong conservative provincial governments), and the costs are passed onto consumers anyway (though consumers get that rebate), cutting the carbon tax does essentially nothing for businesses at the expense of consumers. Internal trade barriers is, well, internal, and its consequences can be a toss up for businesses in general: those with the resources to operate across provinces may be able to give smaller players a hard time.

All-in-all, I haven’t seen their other moves as being obtusely against Canadian interests, even if we don’t agree with all of them (eg Bill C-5 and Bill C-2), and even if they hurt Canadians in the long run. That said, the earlier border bill is basically an appeasement, given that it was clearly a cop out issue by Trump. This cutting of the Digital Services Tax is another instance of Carney’s government giving up on a policy that is in the country’s interest to try gain what they think is also in the country’s interest with the US, and ostensibly so. So that’s two, but we’ll still need at least a few more of such instances to see if Carney’s gov is pro-US, cause insofar, these were done to get Trump onto the negotiating table by hurting Canadians a little (privacy on the border bill, and putting back on the threat to our media and online entertainment industry). I would hope we’d actually get something given that the sacrifices have been made, and I’d rather we don’t do what Carney did, but we can’t disregard the fact that there’s a potential gain to be made, even if we don’t like how things are going down, and don’t like how we’re negotiating with a wannabe dictator. We haven’t gotten anything out of it though, so patience with Carney is going to run thin.

And let’s not even talk about PP. Just because he’s not elected and we didn’t immediately get Musk-ed, doesn’t necessarily make me feel any better with how most of Carney’s economic moves have been more conservative than what I think is necessary. For example, he said we should have a good energy mix, but he’s yet to announce or even mention any investment or developments in green energy, or anything that would contribute to a good off-ramp for O&G companies (even if we don’t think they deserve it) and making sure we have a healthy amount of green energy generation, and thus only making it more and more necessary to more extreme measures if we want to save our and our children's future.

I’m gonna need some citations or sources for that.

AFAIK, the service tax was not “put in place ages ago”. It was put in force in June 2024, literally last year, and the first payments were expected literally yesterday, on June 30th, 2025. It’s retroactive, but still only goes back to 2022, which isn’t “ages ago”. Source

And what’s this wheat market steal you’re talking about?

This is a very hand-wavy way of discerning distros, but they basically differ by 3 things:

1. the set of the defaults they ship with when installed,
2. the system packages that they distribute through their official package manager hosted on their own package repositories, and
3. the package manager, which encompasses the distro’s release strategy.

Major distros generally manage how a package gets built on their distros, in a way that’s compatible with the rest of their package repository, while smaller players may choose to directly use one of the repositories from the major distros, go their own route, or do something in between, i.e. repackage some of the packages from the upstream repositories. Typically, the smaller distros re-use large parts of a larger distro and give a sort of flavour to the larger distro. In the Linux community, these larger distros end up being called “bases”, and many smaller distros are generally “based on” some larger distro.

Manjaro is based on Archlinux, which, incidentally, is also what the newer SteamOS is based on (SteamOS used to be Ubuntu-based). Whether Manjaro actually provides benefits remains to be seen, cause their reputation has been really bad for several years because of how they’ve soured their relationship with a really supportive community earlier on in their life, and badly handled the distribution and communications of several critical packages. I haven’t followed their news in a while, but if they stroke a deal with the company to work together and ship essentially proprietary software or drivers, you can certainly expect some advantage, at least earlier on, but experience tells us that these usually don’t end up well in the long term.

As far as the handheld market goes, you aren’t wrong: every company and their mother that has a potential to get into this market is now ogling at the chance to gain that market share after seeing the success of the Switch and Deck. Many see the Deck as an underpowered machine and believe that they can offer better specs at lower prices (particularly large companies as they typically already have the benefit of economics of scale). AFAIK the Deck has been unbeatable in terms of market share, but that might be outdated info from several months ago.

Fuck this imperialistic, purely exploitative, and victim-seeking, almost Nazi take.

1. First Nations are part of Canada and they have a say in this country’s future.
2. Prosperity and resource utilization do not have to be achieved by closing the door on discussions that need to be had.
3. This bill is blatantly and clearly undemocratic, and is a threat that can throw this country into the similar shit show that we see down south. If you’re happy to see it passed, I don’t know what to say about you.

I’m hoping this is just your bad take and not trying to parrot some shit rhetoric that’s been coming out of certain talk figures and some less reputable users around here.

That comment is just my opinion (hence the “imo”), cause most of the reviews will just say that the story is meh without explaining why it’s meh. People aren’t pissed about the contradiction between the gameplay loop and the story.

And imo it’s perfectly fine if you’re viewing it through the lens of “it’s just a game in a fictional setting that happens to have a relatable message,” or simply an “idk is there even a story?” Most people play MH, and honestly just a lot of games, with that mindset, so just cause people never really cared over all the old titles, it doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable: it’s just ignored. Now, I don’t really take issue with that (I’m typically a bit of a lore buff) or the contradiction itself: it’s fictional, do what you want, even if it doesn’t make sense or even contradictory; but I do wonder what Capcom’s intention is, spending all that money and time to create some kind of story. I mean, there are so many other settings they could choose, but they went with this.

I see a whole bunch of low effort negative reviews from Chinese players that seem to be hating on Capcom. Not sure if something triggered that.

But there are also a lot of player concerns that have basically just surfaced with about 4 months into the life of the game:

• bad performance and optimization continues to plague the game
• constant crashes for a lot of people
• too little content, and people really don’t seem to like the slow release of new contents, and wonder why aren’t they just putting em all out at once (though many big titles are trying to go for a cadenced content release cycle to keep people interested in the game, and it’s always a bit of a debate on whether that’s good or not)
• story is too low effort (but MH has never really been a story-centric game; and imo the story in Wilds seem to contradict with the gameplay itself: talks about the cycle of life and the ecosystem around it, but here we are just hunting everything down)
• the monsters are too easy
• older players of the MH series find that the game has made itself too easy and not punishing enough: rare items are easy to get so there’s no satisfaction to be found there, builds are too shallow, etc

It’s not that simple though. People who live in rural areas already have resources that they trust, and that’s outside of the Internet, and with their local communities, churches or not. The way we, as humans, look at information is highly dependent on what we already know, with all our biases and know-hows shaped by our past experiences. And as much as people on Lemmy think it’s easy, knowing how to lookup the Internet is a skill: just work with someone who doesn’t use the Internet much, and you’ll see how some amount of investigative skill and patience is needed, and it’s not just a “ask whatever you want into the search bar” kind of deal. Even we don’t just do that: the Internet has a ton of trashy websites that can’t be trusted, and we have to learn how to filter those out.

It’s easy to just say that these people are gullible, but I see their gullibility as something that is shaped by people with malicious intents. Keep the education system badly funded or ran by likeminded people, add that with a community that seems to be doing well without outside knowledge, and you have an environment that’ll churn out people who are likely to believe whatever their circle of people peddles to them, especially if they’ve created an environment where you don’t trust anyone from the out group.

This whole thing is just sad to read, though I think I’m rather naive to reasons why the ideas of separatism was even there in the first place, if not just because some small group of powerful individuals wanted impunity when it comes to resource extraction, and, over the years, gained governmental powers and installed a useful and twisted mouthpiece as their their Premier, and started using recent alt-right tactics to look for any points of dissatisfaction turn that into a bludgeon against Ottawa.

I feel sorry for rural Albertans cause their lives and worldview have been shaped to have little to no options but what O&G execs and extreme religious leaders want.

That’s not just an anti-trans playbook. That’s THE playbook used by many politicians around the world today to garner support while breaking their political opponents’: pick on small issues that target some minority groups, talk about them as if they’re rampant, just so that they can get enough of a majority behind them so that they can push their own agenda.