If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.
Certainly I wouldn’t support such strict enforcement with the current usual driver approach of aiming for a bit above the limit under good road and weather conditions, nor if applied disproportionately against less privileged people.
> If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.
Go en we're talking about the real world that already exists here and not some alternate reality, how often do you find these "if" conditions to be actually satisfied?
You do realize that that former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is not the Liberal leader who is currently pushing this bill, right? Justin Trudeau is now a private citizen with no official role in his party, in the House of Commons, or in government beyond what applies to any former leader/MP/PM (e.g. former PMs remain Privy Council members).
The current Liberal leader Mark Carney has spent his whole career in the banking world, including running both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England at different times, except for running for and winning his current political roles last year. Far from being elected again and again, he’s only been elected once ever in party office and once ever in public office.
Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have very different policies on fiscal and economic matters, to the extent that Carney would probably be a Progressive Conservative if that party still existed at the federal level.
There’s more I could say about the substance of Trudeau’s remark and comparing his China policy to that ofnother PMs like Harper, but that whole tangent is off-topic for this thread, since - again - Trudeau holds no role relevant to current Liberal legislative decisions.
I do realize that (am Canadian), but you are incorrect to say Carney and Trudeau have very different policies. Many of the cabinet members are the same, and as they say, people are policy. Perhaps the tone of messaging has changed, but it's the same government, with most of the same stupid policies.
CCP allies paying to attend a fundraiser co-hosted by an MP who was a Conservative until December does not contradict my point about Carney being economically a Progressive Conservative. I’m not saying that either Carney or that co-hosting MP belongs in Pierre Poilievre’s version of the Conservative Party of Canada. Certainly Carney doesn’t (I don’t know much about the other MP’s views). I’m saying that if the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had not merged itself out of existence, Carney (and quite possibly also the other MP) would be in that party rather than the Liberals. With the current federal party configuration, Carney is indeed within the centrist big tent of the Liberals, but very much economically to Trudeau’s right.
To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position.
Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement.
The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives.
Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.
It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
> It seems disingenuous to suggest that the choices Trudeau made in his cabinet aren’t still being felt by the LPC and the rest of the country to this day.
I agree that would be disingenuous, but I never said that. Of course the choices made by every Canadian prime minister in their cabinet are still being felt by their party and the rest of the country slightly over a year after they leave office. Trudeau is no exception.
> Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.
It’s a very widely held position and widely discussed in many sources.
As one bit of evidence that he has some appeal to the conservative wing of the political spectrum, Carney himself stated in February 2025 that former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had offered him the role of finance minister in 2012. The response by Harper-era staffers tried to make him look as bad as they could without lying, which is unsurprising treatment of a then-Liberal leadership candidate given how partisan politics works nowadays, but notably they never denied that what he actually said was accurate.
That doesn’t disprove him at all: if the average one lasts 200 years and not all last exactly 200, then some will necessarily last more than 200. This is a mathematical consequence of what an average means.
> generally speaking, gambling more than a token sum (say, less than $100) should not be legal exactly because any benefits of gambling is far outweighed by the mountains of externalities it brings. Yes, this includes the obvious incentives to threaten random people. It's bad for society, so it should be effectively banned.
I agree with you in theory, but remember that people frequently do illegal things, just illegally. If we assume that people will in practice gamble whether or not it's legal, I'd rather the gambling not be run by organized crime free from the ability of everyone else to oversee and regulate. That would be the same thing which happened with alcohol during Prohibition and which happens now with the many illegal drugs fueling today's Mexican cartels and US gang networks.
> The only reason why it has suddenly become legal everywhere in the US is because many states have found themselves under mountains of deferred liabilities and are scrambling to raise revenues however they can without raising taxes.
And because of a SCOTUS ruling overturning a federal prohibition on states' ability to legalize sports betting, but otherwise yes.
>If we assume that people will in practice gamble whether or not it's legal, I'd rather the gambling not be run by organized crime free from the ability of everyone else to oversee and regulate.
I don't see why we should assume that. Making something annoying to engage in dramatically reduces the amount of people who engage in it. If illegal gambling rings operate, you'd have to 'know a guy' and the gambling ring would -- by definition -- have limited scope.
It's like saying "legalize fent" to protect people who use fentanyl. Like, yea, the problem isn't the addicts, it's that if you can sell the drug in a store, you're going to get 1000x the number of addicts. We need frictional barriers to prevent people from becoming addicted in the first place.
The previous system was fine. We had a couple highly regulated areas where you could travel to (Las Vegas, Reno, a few Indian casinos) for people who were obsessed with gambling. That meant the rest of us were mostly left alone, and not tempted to engage in the vice.
The approach of allowing a limited amount of some "vice" (or otherwise disfavored activity), highly regulated, combined with stiff penalties for illegal use is a pretty common approach to greatly reduce anti-social activity.
Yes... harm reduction approaches can be effective. The point is that they also need a "very annoying" frictional element to prevent harm reduction from creating worse outcomes than prohibition.
The existing Las Vegas & Indian casino system we had previously effectively achieved this goal by making any gambling habit include regular travel, which itself prevents the habit from becoming a daily or even weekly activity.
"Legalizing dangerous drugs" doesn't mean you can go to the store and buy meth. I mean we create a safe consumption site, where you have to go through harm reduction education, be offered alternatives, and likely have things like blood work done to check for potential disease spread and damage from the drugs themselves.
The point is that the harm reduction strategy has to be annoying enough where non-addicts would not engage in the process, whereas addicts would go through the process trivially.
> If we assume that people will in practice gamble whether or not it's legal
Except it's not the same gambling in both cases, they have qualitative differences beyond simply where they're happening. My unhinged neighbor who'd threaten a journalist probably doesn't have an invite to the Underground Gambling Den.
Even if he did, when a court case happens there's no presumption of normalcy. He can't say: "Pshaw, everybody legally gambles on all sorts of things there, the fact that I bet big on the journalist not having his fingers broken is just coincidence."
The immediate illegality of the gambling is also a check on corruption, since it's already disqualifying for Judge Stickyfingers McBriberson to be on the platform, let alone "betting" on the outcome of cases he presides over.
At least if this "Store cookies?" question is implicitly referencing EU regulations, those regulations don't require consent for cookies which are considered essential, including a cookie to store the response to the consent question (but certainly not advertising tracking cookies). So the respectful replacement for "Ask me again" is "Essential cookies only" (or some equivalent wording to "Essential" like "Required" or "Strictly necessary"). And yes, some sites do get this right.
I’ve not seen a site that remembers your selection of “reject all”/“essential only”. It would actually be hard to argue that it would count as an essential cookie, nothing about the site depends on remembering your rejection. I guess that makes “maybe later” more reasonable since it’s going to ask you every time until you relent.
"Reject all" doesn't have to be cookie, the answer could go to the browser storage.
Basically it just exists in your browser, telling it "the user didn't agree to cookies, so don't send this data and don't render those blocks". The only thing that web server knows is that requests come from someone who didn't send any cookies.
Huh? Of course those get remembered, and of course it's allowed by GDPR. If the websites you visit don't remember "reject all", they're doing it maliciously (or out of incompetence, I guess).
Yeah, but the purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia (a tertiary source) is to relatively neutrally summarize the consensus of those who spend the time and effort to analyze and interpret the primary sources (and thus produce secondary sources), or if necessary to cite other tertiary summaries of those.
In a discussion forum like HN, pointing to primary sources is the most reliable input to the other readers' research on/synthesis of their own secondary interpretation of what may be going on. Pointing to other secondary interpretations/analyses is also useful, but not without including the primary source so that others can - with apologies to the phrase currently misused by the US right wing - truly do their own research.
If you spend any time on Wikipedia, you'll find that secondary sources from an existing list are always preferred. The mandate from the link in GP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) extends, or at least is interpreted to mean to extend to, actively punishing editors who attempt to analyze or interpret primary sources.
There's nothing in general about a tweet that makes it any more or less legally binding than any other public communication, and they certainly can be used in legally binding ways. But sure, a simple assertion to the public from the CEO of a privately held company about what a separate contract says is not legally binding - whether through tweet, blog, press release, news interview, or any other method.
Certainly I wouldn’t support such strict enforcement with the current usual driver approach of aiming for a bit above the limit under good road and weather conditions, nor if applied disproportionately against less privileged people.
reply