rbos

Looseleaf earl grey and 20 years of debian.

That's one way to run Ukraine out of ammunition, I suppose.

Phoenix.

Germany was the worldwide leader in science before the Nazis. We may see a shift to Europe or China if science is actively suppressed in the USA.

They wouldn't need to. Soft power would be sufficient to get them nearly everything they want, without risking boots on the ground.

The main risk to us, from a military perspective, is if the USA collapses federally and the states end up fighting amongst each other. The Midwest states will collapse into chaos and feudal fiefdoms, lacking access to trade opportunities (IMO) so border raids there will be the big risk. Actual military occupation might be a concern if the dice rolls the wrong way in the East - Toronto and Quebec are very vulnerable, and sitting on huge reserves of fresh water plus the St. Laurence seaway.

It would be a hell of a thing if Canada ended up with alliances with the southern slaveholding states.

Age the second one 2000 years and look as good it will not.

I'd like you to please step down a little bit from DEFCON 3. :) I feel like you're reading me say "all" regulations when I mean "some" regulations. There definitely exist stupid rules that aren't science-based, or have been ideologically-motivated, or created in response to temporary panics, that could be rolled back.

Like, property setbacks and parking minimums are examples of regulations that I personally think could be removed.

The important thing is that any proposed service cut, or regulation cut, be well-justified, at least as well-justified as the introduction of new ones. We have to consider the consequences of introducing a new rule, or repealing an old one.

Not all regulations are "WRITTEN IN THE BLOOD OF PEOPLE HURT OR KILLED", some are pushed through by (say) lumber companies afraid of losing profit, or tech companies trying to make life more difficult for smaller tech companies. Some simply have unintended consequences and turn out to be worse than not having them.

Ditto government services and spending. There are good government services, and honestly, services that could be redefined, or rebuilt to be more effective.

Yeah. I'm 100% open to cutting government services, regulations, and spending, but you gotta make a case for it. How would it be better? Could it be done better and more cheaply by private services? How would you avoid the downsides?

Like, we never should have sold BC Tel. We're paying more money for less service now, to out-of-province entities taking huge profit margins at the expense of BC citizens. I honestly think we should nationalize all the fibre, copper, and cell towers in the province and force Telus et al to be resellers for wholesale access to lines. That would minimize the monopoly rents and allow innovation and competition on the front end, where currently, they use their monopoly access to the networks to force us to accept shitty front end service.

Anyone planning to sell a government service to the private sector needs to answer the question of how to prevent us from being fleeced by oligopolists and increasing our costs.

Lost their seat.

Thanks, was looking just today for a reference on the Speaker thing.

Sweet, safehouses.

Beat me to it, nicely done. :)