I’ve actually read some books that did this well, like needing to sneak around after moon set or continuing to travel after moon rise.

There are some linked articles that provided more information. The superintendent was fired days before a pride parade that was promoted by the division and the MMF. There are a number of conflicting claims surrounding his dismissal, which will probably get ironed out in court. The usual reason for banning flags is the suppress the promotion of something you don’t like, otherwise taste and relevance would be sufficient. Someone needs to start finding perfectly legitimate flags to be flown that don’t meet their criteria, such as city flags, sister city flags, flags for Saskatchewan in towns near the border, etc., until the rule is made to look completely absurd or they say out loud exactly what they are bigoted against. If nothing else, it will tie them up dealing with inane topics so they don’t have as much time to do more harmful things.

My guess, based on the related articles, is that they want to ban the MMF and/or pride flags.

I honestly never thought of Xi as a hothead. This could be my bias or lack of awareness. I’d say he has a fragile ego, sure. Do you have any examples to show why you believe that?

There were almost literally no other options. Cable ended service one mile away. Third-party cellular stations were blocked by terrain and would require a 30’ mast (quotes were about $2k for the mast install), Bell wasn’t offering cellular service at the time (and I don’t know if they do now), geo satellite has the worst latency you can get, and caps that make it almost worthless. The only options with less than $1k upfront costs and sub-second latencies were DSL and Starlink. Trust me, I wouldn’t have sat on the Starlink waiting list for 9 months if there was a better option.

I specifically said borderline shady because I didn’t think you were trying to be shady. I also tried to find a source for the cancelation of the $1.3 billion, and all I have is the single line in the posted article about it. Not surprising that neither Telesat nor the government are going out of their way to announce the deal fell through, but I’d prefer it if they did, and I imagine you would, too.

The national security angle doesn’t mean you can’t use foreign services, it means you don’t have to use foreign services, especially when you consider a major user will be NORAD bases. This is particularly relevant given the shenanigans Musk has played in Ukraine.

While I think it’s easy to argue that internet connectivity is a necessity if you want to participate in the modern world, clearly water is even more important. We have seen decades of neglect on that front.

Your Telesat review is very biased. I didn’t know who they were until today, but they’ve been operating geo satellites for 60 years. They also don’t manufacture satellites, so their track record will have less bearing on how those satellites are made. Also, it says in the current article that the previous $1.3 billion deal didn’t go through. I tried to find more info, but the closest I got was Telesat’s press release that mentioned it being subject to various conditions, which may not have been met. That actually increases my confidence, since before they were going to just give them some money if certain conditions were met, and not they’re just getting a loan. Now, whether they actually pay it back… I’d be unsurprised to learn that part of their preparation for this was going public in 2021.

I’d be a little concerned about the manufacturer, MDA, who has gone through a number of mergers and spin-offs over the decades. I’m not certain, but it’s possible that Telesat and MDA had divisions that were spun off into each other at one point. They could have a strong core, or it could have all been sold off and the key people moved on. The fact they still have the Canadarm team and were selected for the first phase of Canadarm 3 gives a little hope, but has no bearing on their capability to manufacture the satellites needed for this array. That said, they do have some history with the antennas and such required for this project.

In short, neither of the key players in this satellite project are new entries, and in fact have had many successful projects over decades. Hopefully this project takes them to new heights.

I live within 20 kilometers of a major city. My options for high-speed were 5/1 DSL for $75 or Starlink, with the costs you described. I suppose 5 megabits would be enough if I limited myself to non-streaming services or only one person using those services at a time, but anyone who thinks that was a reasonable alternative in 2023 probably isn’t participating in the modern technological world, either.

This is where I am. If he just stepped back and followed the laws for whichever region he was providing service in, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being provided by an egotistic asshole. But he has done other than that a number of times, and that’s a problem. All this ignores the national security issues, which people should have gotten a refresher on during COVID with the N95 mask issues.

Sometimes the more expensive option just makes sense if national security is a factor.

I’m pretty sure you’re conflating the American situation with the Canadian one. America gave various telecoms about $4 billion to expand their networks, with which they did nothing. Canada did other stupid things, such as put a program in place to increase rural broadband in 2019, which is really late to the game, or, in Manitoba, where I live, just give a fiber network laid by a government-owned utility to a local ISP.

And then there was a giant inquest where a judge said using special powers wasn’t necessary, but didn’t say “…if the authorities who should have dealt with it had done their jobs”?

So we will be able to definitively identify online harassers using “burner accounts”, but we explicitly won’t have a Digital ID. And how would you do that? Are we outlawing VPNs and the Tor network? Are we requiring Canadian citizens to sign up to social media using verified accounts so they can be handed over if abuse occurs? How will they identify if you’re a Canadian and subject to these laws? The same way Texas determines you’re an adult and can view porn?

Not a problem. It’s essentially rolled into our taxes for the most part in Canada. You may have health insurance on top of that, but that isn’t a guarantee and usually is a top-up of our universal coverage. This usually covers things like drug prescriptions, glasses, and hospital conveniences such as semi-private or private rooms. I agree with the general idea, though, that we as a group pay for everyone who is covered. My original point at the top of this thread is that removing people’s eligibility simply because of risky behavior can be very tricky and likely harmful to society.

What makes you think that I, posting in a Canadian community about a Canadian article, have a contract with a healthcare insurance company?

Free climbers don’t usually die the first time, either.

Housing can’t really be a free market for a number of reasons: captive market; regional market restrictions; and high barrier to entry, to name a few.

Here’s a link that gives some insight into the situation, courtesy of @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca .

Way to miss the point. It’s a good thing you don’t engage in any risky behavior, or anything that would have a negative impact on your health. I mean, it’s not like you would be a hypocrite, right?

Or subsidized industries.

The total new car market for 2023 was almost $90 billion. Of that, EV sales count for about 10.7%, or about $9.5 billion. Stats Can provides the first number, electricautonomy.ca was the source for the second, although they got their info from Stats Can, too.

There are a number of possible errors with this data, such as the percentage of EV sales being total sales vs. dollar sales, which would increase the amount spent on EVs since they tend to be more expensive.

So I drink more pop than I should. Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare than my buddy who had a habit of timing running green lights as soon as they turned green. That isn’t illegal, either, yet it’s very risky behavior. It didn’t work out for him just one time, and he nearly died. Why should taxpayers have to pay for him?

The answer is because the vast majority of us engage in risky behavior, or just have the bad taste of passing on our poor genetics to the next generation, and the social cost for penalizing people for not agreeing with societal norms are too high. This includes drug use, even legal ones like alcohol. Sure, don’t spend limited resources such as donated livers on people who aren’t willing to make the lifestyle changes required to make it worthwhile, because someone else will probably have to die for that to happen. But if we could make new livers and the price was reasonable, I wouldn’t even be against that.