villasv

Is that sillier than forcing people who are not interested in owning a car to get a place with parking spots anyway? Because that’s where we are today. It is hard to find a building like this, and I’d love it.

If only we could decide whether having a place for people to live was more important than dedicating public spaces for storing private vehicles

I would be an embarrassment in one of these interviews. First of all I’m not a very musical person. Secondly I have terrible memory and I don’t even remember much about pre-college life. Being a charismatic politician really requires a different type of being.

Those of us who didn’t vote for trump were supposed to be your brother’s and sisters, but you all are weak little traitorous bitches.

Ahhh there it is, I was wondering what’s the source of that anger. You’re butthurt that Canadians are holding you accountable for your governments aggression towards us.

Yeah, fuck off. We don’t owe you anything. And by the looks of it, we were right all along that you’re not really an ally.

I don’t think so. Sure first step is regularizing sales and not going after existing owners, and the ones already on the streets are a long term problem, but these things will eventually break down, they don’t last generations.

I think no one disputes that we need a clear separation of electric bicycles and electric motorcycles and the presence of pedals ain’t enough.

Presumably once that’s sorted out, e-bikes can and should become the norm. They’re the “all ages and abilities” equalizer.

If I could vote, idk. If no one can take a principled stance on what should be an extremely obvious issue, then nobody.

See, that's the kind of thinking that makes me say that "strategic voting" should have its taboo status removed...

Because of this one issue, you'd be washing your hands on taking a stance for all other issues that humankind face?

If you say yes, I guess I have to respect that. Principles are principles. But well, it’s so not how I would go about this.

The technology is not at peril here, Starlink the company is. Competitors exist, and they'll take Starlink's place, and the technology will live on. Competition is what's to like about capitalism, isn't it?

Funding might be a misleading word here. The title is technically correct, but within context.

Government has funding for increasing internet connectivity in remote areas. Some of that funding is spent on Starlink contracts. So the ask is more like to stop considering Starlink for contracts that consume government funding.

can absolutely be a super power, our landmass, resources and technical know-how can allow us to prosper and lead on the global stage

I mean, sure we "can", just like many others can like Argentina or Norway... but this superpower thing is a bit tired. Let's just worry about not being pushed around instead of aiming for pushing others around - because that's what being a superpower means, really.

And this is what you get with a chain anyway

Those are all important things, but CBC shouldn’t be sacrificed for it