Just a minor nitpick: the acronym is SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), like POTUS.

In Alberta you can’t refuse to let someone exploit oil resources found on your property

TBF, I’m pretty sure that’s how it works throughout the country. The title on my home in Ontario has easements for potential minerals/resources as well.

They’re discontinuing it in 2026.

Which has been discontinued. They have said they’ll bring back a EUV for the 2026 model year, but we’ll see if that comes to fruition.

I think it’s more of a corollary that phone companies can incentivize people to buy more than they need. I live in Canada, where carrier locks have been outlawed for a decade, so we don’t typically get $100s off the phone, but they do often give interest free financing. This pushes people to get a brand new, top-of-the-line Galaxy or iPhone, when all they do is simple stuff that any basic smartphone could do. They just get used to paying “only an extra $50/mo” so once that phone is paid off, they finance a brand new, top-of-the-line smartphone.

Probably has to suck-up inorder to get products early so his reviews can be viewed first.

No. Apple and most major tech companies are pretty good about giving reviewer samples to anyone with a large enough audience. The only thing that gets you disqualified is breaking the moratorium and releasing your review early.

What conducting softball interviews gets you is more interviews.

This is really interesting in contrast to where I live in Ontario, Canada. A municipality wanted an injunction to make it crystal clear they could evict a homeless encampment on municipal property. Instead, they got a judgement that doing so would violate those people’s Charter rights. This ruling means basically every municipality in the province now legally has to do something about the homelessness crisis.

you attacked a person for being a bad example because they are struggling and not at rock bottom because people exist at the bottom.

That’s not my intentions. I question her choices, but that doesn’t mean she has an option that would 100% fix her situation. It would probably be hard to find a 2-bedroom for $1500/mo and she’d still have over 50% of her paycheque going to housing.

My concern is articles highlighting cases like this allow people to disregard the housing crisis as just people unwilling to tighten their belts. Like “stop eating avocado toast” or “cancel Disney+”, there’s no quick fix.

I’m pretty sure she’d be in the same situation in the US. Assuming the house was jointly owned and she had the ability to buy out her ex-Spouse’s equity or get the whole home in the divorce, there would still be a change of ownership, so she’d need to get a new mortgage solely in her name.

I know I’ve heard of couples splitting up and coming up with creative solutions, like continuing to jointly own the house, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

You make a lot of assumptions about me and my experiences, and frankly, they’re 100% wrong. I wasn’t trying to insinuated that her situation is easy, I even say it’s “making tough decisions”.

She probably didn’t qualify to take on the whole mortgage without her ex-Spouse.

I really hate these CBC articles where they talk about a huge, legitimate issue, but undercut it by choosing a crazy/unrelated example:

Charmbury, 47, has to make sacrifices because 100 per cent of her income goes to her rent.

She had to sell her house after her divorce and now pays $2,679 per month for a three-bedroom townhouse in the same neighbourhood. She didn’t want her children, a teen boy and teen girl, to have to switch schools or share a bedroom.

So, she’s been cashing in her investments. Child support helps with the bills, her mother helps her with groceries and her friends give her their old clothes. She says she barely sleeps from the stress.

Even 30 years ago, I had friends who had to change schools/share a room when their parents divorced. Putting someone who refuses to make tough decisions and try live within her means in the same category as adults who have to live with multiple roommates, face homelessness, etc. is insulting.

Also, I’m pretty sure most would say child support is income, even if it’s not taxable income. She’s spending 100% of her employment income/paycheques on rent.

We can’t just get rid of it, as the SCC has ruled that MAID is a constitutional right.

I think you watch too many movies. From my experience serving in the CAF alongside the infantry, all the actions you describe would not be condoned and anyone taking those actions would be charged. Maybe I’m biased, but I was always told the goal of our operations were “capturing hearts and minds” which would be in direct conflict with taking terrorist actions.

Those are Edge Case. There will almost always be edge cases where we have engineering or physical constraints, but we have solutions for almost all individual trips.

Russia and the US have committed war crimes in their invasions of Ukraine and Iraq respectively, but the general consensus is that their militaries are still not terrorist organizations.

War Crimes != Terrorism. Some acts qualify as both, but words have meanings, and I think it’s important we recognize that. I don’t think the actions of the US in Iran would make a reasonable person say the US Military is a terrorist organization, though they are definitely harbouring some war criminals.

I think the other thing is asking, what’s the value in labelling an organization? Telling your friend with a substance problem that they’re an addict/alcoholic might just drive them away and towards worse influences. Or telling off your toxic coworker might be cathartic, but it’ll probably just make the situation worse.

PS I’m pretty sure labelling the IDF as “similarly abhorrent” isn’t very helpful.

I’m not sure what you mean by “spreading terror”. IMHO, most actions that would meet those requirements are war crimes.

We can debate whether pretty much any law is moral in our own opinion. However, I think laws are a good place to start with what rules should be followed. They can be changed/updated as necessary.

I think the big difference is whether the force follows the rules of war or not. Obviously the CAF has had some violations, but not on an organisational level like the IRGC.

The point that you kind of touch on in your comment, is that SUV’s generally aren’t better than a hatchback/wagon. In my experience, most SUV’s aren’t efficiently using their space, so they feel more luxurious to ride in, but have horrible cargo storage. @notjustbikes@notjustbikes.com talked on his podcast about being picked up (with his wife) from the airport in a huge SUV (I think it was an Escalade) and being unable to get their luggage in the trunk.

That’s assuming nothing unexpected happens. Weeks before our '05 (manual) Civic was totaled last May, my spouse and I were discussing how we could probably get 5+ more years out of it. We were (thankfully) able to get a '20 Golf, but VW has even discontinued that!