No it won’t. Korea is already there.
Let me tell you what ACTUALLY starts a world war.
Russia wins in Ukraine, spends 8 years building up forces and getting even tighter w/ china, keep chipping away at NATO unity with useful idiots like Orban, and then they take a crack at the Baltics.
THAT’S how WWIII starts.
Right now the masks are all still on. What happens in Ukraine stays in Ukraine. This is the only time to put boots on the ground that DOESN’T start a world war.
Each of them only does it once, and thinks it’s just a matter of luck when it happens to someone else
Lol the Fraser Institute is an absolute fucking joke.
Oh, no, I’m absolutely not trying to engage as if this person is holding the objective truth because they aren’t. I’m not either. They just have had a different brainwashing than most so I’m interested in the flavour. I’m interested in hearing their views, fact checking them, and using that to reverse engineer the intiontions of those who are feeding them a moral rationalization.
No, I was just trying to drag out of you how you see the incident without priming the pump. How does one minimize the killing of hundreds of unarmed students? I knew people like you existed, I just never had the opportunity to witness someone actually do it, and I was curious how it’s done.
You roll 20 additional days into it as a buffer, and count injuries as equivalent to murders, and let them happen anywhere.
It can’t be the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” for you because then couldn’t draw in PLA members who had heart attacks and died elsewhere that day because they weren’t at the square. You need to create a context where they’re all the same thing and the geography of place really damages the ability to do that.
You just dilute a massacre to make it not a massacre by expanding the time and places. Super interesting. It’s a distinctly different approach to propegands than you’d typically see in the west or Russia.
What what is called?
The incident?
Care to expand on the Tiananmen propaganda comment?
If people hated the bill on it’s own, then shouldn’t it be less popular than Trudeau?
No.
Therefore anything connected with him is going to have an inherent downward swing of opinion due to the association? Right?
No.
These relationships can exist, but it’s not the case that they must exist. We know through polling what the favorability is of the CT: low. We know through polling how well understood it is: poor. We know through polling that people who don’t understand it are much more inclined to view it unfavorably. We already have a very straightforward explanation.
Adding in Trudeau is adding a 3rd variable into the mix to explain something that’s already been explained. And when you add him it, you have to start inventing justifications to make things align with his numbers.
It is the antithesis of Occam’s razor
My argument is I think I don’t think a dislike of Trudeau is driving the unpopularity of the carbon tax. My argument is that misunderstanding of the carbon tax is driving the unpopularity of the carbon tax.
And my rationale is what you’re saying: why is the CT MORE popular than Trudeau if hatred for Trudeau is why the CT is is unpopular? I agree, it DOESN’T follow.
I think we roughly agree. The point I’m trying to make is that I think arguments around it being tied to just hating Trudeau are overblown. Even when Trudeau was net positive the carbon tax was net negative.
I think people’s perception of the carbon tax are based on their understanding of the carbon tax. I don’t people’s view of Trudeau significantly factor into it, at least not directly.
Conservatives are most likely to see it unfavorably. They’re most likely to not understand it. They might ALSO be more likely to see Trudeau unfavorably… But that’s kinda post hoc ergo propter hoc IMO
Maybe. But if it was that simple then I’d expect it to be at least as unfavorable as Trudeau.
I think it’s just people don’t understand it, and I think that’s frankly the fault of the liberals.
People hear “tax” and go “shit that’s a thing I have to pay, right?” And “carbon” and say “my home is heated by natural gas and I drive to work” and then say “the government wants to tax me not to freeze and to get to work?” And then they don’t connect the dots that the money that keeps getting direct deposited to them by the government is funded by the tax.
Like, if it was called “The Climate Bonus Payment” and the government had a little fucking fanfare around the distribution, it’d be wildly popular.
Canada-wide, it’s at -8 in terms of favorability.
Even if you attribute that to ignorance of how it works or even flat out hatred of Trudeau, it still isn’t popular. That is the political reality. It is GENERALLY unpopular.
Considering Trudeaus favorability ratings are currently like, -30, it’s actually significantly more popular than Trudeau himself, which makes me skeptical that the driving force really is just a dislike of Trudeau
You can never be too sure. My grandson clicked a YouTube and two days later his laptop was completely dead. The Apple genius at the store said water damage. Scary stuff.
Ok good I didn’t want to accidentally click a malicious link
No I mean is the video real
Is this real?
I agree that would be ideal.
I flat out do not trust each of the 500 devs operating on our codebase to maintain comments.
Tests are documentation, code can be documentation. Those run through CI.
If you can keep comments updated at scale, do it. If you can’t don’t pray for a miracle and find something that you actually can enforce
Ukraine is losing ground. Unless something changes, they will eventually lose the war.
The things required to stop that will necessarily be escalatory.
The West needs to fucking swallow that pill instead of endlessly fretting about escalation. Do you think Putin is worried about escalation? He just brought North Korea into the war.
Ukraine will be a smouldering ruin and Russian troops will be amassed at the border of the NATO Baltics licking their chops and the big brain west will be saying “Thank goodness we were so responsible in the Former Ukraine”