Wouldn’t they just move their money over a place that would hide it?

Moving the money shouldn’t make a difference, though. You pay taxes regardless of where you the money comes from or goes to.

Hiding income is illegal already. So more enforcement and steeper fines are about the only things left to do in that case.

Evidence really is sparse. Nonexistent, even

You might be reading too much into what I wrote. Saying it’s a pointless discourse is not the same as saying that I believe a peaceful resolution is forever impossible.

I don’t understand where you want to go with this and I think it’s better we stop here but one last thing to note is that autocracy and church-state separation are different things. We started this off with secularism but you’re now talking about autocracy so I’m a little confused, but regardless of semantics nitpicking I think what matters the most is that we want Israel aggression to stop and we want Carney to plainly demand so.

I think you might be jumping to conclusions on what I think and understand about what’s happening. I don’t think the term “zionist Palestine” is acceptable. I think it’s unacceptable for slightly different reasons than you do.

I’m just saying that defending a jewish state is not necessarily at odds with Canadian secularism if the state in question is not Canada. The point is that defending secularism is totally orthogonal to the whole discussion. And yes, obviously if the Prime Minister is indifferent to a Jewish Israel, they should be indifferent to an Islamic Palestine. Just like they are already indifferent to Islamic Saudi Arabia - we don’t see the PM giving interviews saying that Saudi Arabia should become a secular state.

Extremely poor choice of a loaded word if so.

Totally agree. And tone deaf too. I imagine how ridiculous would it be to call for an “American exceptionalist” Canada.

Very braindead to hope for a future empathetic view of the agressor if the aggression hasn’t even stopped yet.

When i heard a zionist palestine i understand that he advocate for an ethnostate which is completely against canadian secularism.

Maybe? I think one thing is defending Canadian secularism because it’s what we believe it’s right for us. Another thing is a Canadian official claiming that a different nation should be secular. I don’t think he’s in a position to do that, even if, like me, he believes that secularism is the better and most humanitarian choice.

They’re welcome to try to take it.

Are they, though? I suspect you don’t really mean “welcome” honestly here, but in the passive aggressive sense of a tough guy ready to defend his property despite saying that they rightfully belong to someone else… talk about cognitive dissonance.

International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers

And? What’s circular about it? Nations arise from self organizing societies, and these nations come together to define international laws. And then they define the right of self affirmation, and if the main powers recognize a state it is assigned the right to exist. And if the core powers of this world decide that a country does not matter, they’ll look the other way as those rights are bombed. It’s an emergent property of international politics.

It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed.

No rights do, so I don’t understand where you’re going with this.

I guess he means a state that’s ok with illegal settlements and apartheid treatment.

Why would he mean that?

I think it’s more likely that he’s idealizing a future where Israel and Palestine forget their history and trauma and suddenly become best buddies who root for each other’s success because no one is interested in inflicting any more pain on the other. This is a pointless exercise in imagination but it’s probably what he’s going for with this statement.

My philosophy is this: I’ll answer truthfully, and if my country gets to the point where I’m worried that being truthful in my census questionnaire will put me at risk, this is no longer a country I want to be living in and I’ll move.

I know this is coming from a place of privilege but I can afford it, and I believe that everyone that can afford it should do it too.

Not sure what exactly they’re expecting to have happen.

Great opportunity to go inform yourself then :-)

What new Gear Hub Tech?

I think nowadays most tech innovations have been in internal and integrated gear systems and drivetrains around continuous gear shifting, though most often related to gearbox and e-bikes.

eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Ak8ZsQpl8

But then new gear hub tech comes out, and you start considering ebikes, also a pannier would be nice… maybe a cargo bike makes more sense instead…?

Any hobby entry point can cascade into upgraditis

Interesting research but very early stages. There’s a good chance that this isn’t really specific to bikes, but more generally applies to the benefits of people enjoying hobbies and a good quality of life translating into a better psychological state, which is known to affect health outcomes in a myriad of ways specially related to brain function and hormones.

Interestingly, the data also shows that mixed-walking is associated with reduced dementia as well… and I find it a bit confusing that the authors are lumping driving and public transit together in the nonactive category because public transit usually involves a good deal of walking too without people categorizing it as a walking mode of transport.

Beyond separating public transit from driving, I think major factors to control for are: 1) how often these non-commute activities happen; and 2) what’s the stress level of that transportation mode. With those three things in mind I think it would clarify why would walking be associated with worst outcomes than nonactive…

A bike (the bicycle kind, not the motorbike kind, that’s a different wallet-sinking hobby)

Looks like we have different groups of experts in our respective informational sources

Ah ok, “they” meant cannabis magazines.

experts were ignored

The experts were on the side of legalization, so they weren’t really ignored. If by experts you mean people who study public health policy and narcotrafficking.

Now that the consequences are being seen, what are we going to do about it?

What are these experts saying nowadays? What I see is a consensus that legalization was a pretty good move. There’s probably more we should do, but it’s stuff that builds on top of legalization.

Not really what serious advocates ever said. Maybe what random people on the Internet sometimes said?

This is all starting to turn the gears in my head.

Be careful with being too open minded so that weird debris come in