[What's wrong with this country anyway?]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In my opinion, what's wrong with this country is its shitty governments. I don't think I need to be specific since they're all shitty at every level. They are largely populated by small thinkers, venal, self-serving people without vision or ideas. Their principal ambition is self-promotion, and once in office, re-election. They're short-term thinkers who focus on short-term political objectives which will reward them with applause.

And yet, in comparison to other Western countries, Canada's governments aren't even that bad. Democracy doesn't encourage long term thinking.

Also, societies where most people live in comfort and apathy always begin to rot. Or, in modern forms of communication, here's a meme to explain it:

[The Slow Painful Death of the Trump Administration]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The only thing that looks the slightest bit off is the emails that Assange leaked, but like I've said many times - the grass roots support in the Dem party was in favour of Bernie Sanders.

Don't think there's such a thing as "grass roots" any more. Just mobs organized via social media campaigns, which are all artificial and driven by some entity (whatever Russia has done in the last few elections, American groups have been doing against each other a thousandfold over anyway). 

[Carbon tax and oil subsidies: why such contradictory policies?]

9 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Maybe, but that still doesn't explain subsidies to the fuel industry.

If you give the government the benefit of the doubt, the explanation is that the point of the carbon tax is not to put companies out of business but to help them evolve into cleaner and better versions of themselves. To this end, subsidies, especially focusing on improving their processes to be cleaner and more efficient, make sense. Indeed, the linked article mentions that some of the money is specifically for "clean" tech/initiatives. 

If you assume the government is incompetent, then the explanation is also simple. The carbon tax is something that was popular with Trudeau's liberal base and allows him to be popular with world leaders at international events. Meanwhile, the government directionlessly reacts to the economic decline of affected industries by throwing money at them, hoping to minimize the backlash. 

Or, if you assume that the government is nefarious, then the whole scheme is an effort to put more of the economy under government control and amass greater power. The carbon tax penalizes large swathes of industry, potentially driving political opponents and contributors out of business. Meanwhile, those few companies and projects the government chooses to favor will be propped up. At what back-door price? In this way, the government gains greater control over the economy and greater power.  

So whatever your view of government is, it makes perfect sense. 

[Carbon tax and oil subsidies: why such contradictory policies?]

17 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Unfortunately, and perhaps shockingly, it appears that those who promoted the carbon tax have been taken by surprise by declines in the auto and fuel industries even though that was the whole point of it!!!!

Actually I would anticipate that increases in carbon taxes (and thus fuel costs) would spur growth in the auto industry, not decline. High gas prices incentivize people and companies to replace old, inefficient vehicles with modern more efficient vehicles, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electrics. Almost all auto manufacturers now offer a variety of such models. Hybrids often cost only a small premium over gas powered equivalents and can provide up to 50% improved fuel efficiency. 

[Canada now in Civlization VI!]

1 hour ago, AngusThermopyle said:

I started playing Civ when it was first released and I'm still playing it now. Truly a masterpiece of gaming. Honestly I can't think of anything I don't like about this game, sure there are minor things in each iteration but the game has always been solid. It sets the benchmark in strategy games.

My favorite was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Best game in the series, in my opinion. 

[Minorities and Crime]

26 minutes ago, turningrite said:

But it's difficult to figure out who benefits from the decision to prioritize political correctness over objectivity where crime and race statistics are concerned.

Ideologues of all stripes always want to silence any scientific inquiry that might contradict their ideology.

[Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax]

2 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

There is also another reason why many nations are not embracing nuclear, and that is that solar and wind are now much cheaper sources of energy to install and there are fewer regulatory hoops to jump through in those two technologies.  In addition, nuclear plants seem to take a long time to build compared to wind and solar and often seem to run into cost overruns. 

Yes, solar and wind are cheaper. But the variability still means they can't be used for more than a fraction of power needs (a growing fraction using smart grids and load management, but still a fraction). The long time it takes to build nukes and the cost overruns are mostly a result of regulatory burden and uncertainty, as well as the reality that so few new nukes have been built in Western countries in a long time, that each one is effectively a unique one off megaproject, as opposed to a routine construction job. On the other hand, China has no problem building dozens of new nukes quickly and on budget. Of course, despite China's rapid construction of nuclear plants, they still only provide a small % of its total energy needs. 

[Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax]

39 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well that's the Republican position: Buy your own enclave away from the fray.  It's the worst form of Social Darwinism, because it allows the one percenters to buy their multi-million dollar Space X tickets to a Moon colony while everyone else fries. 

Even in the worst cases, the Earth will remain more hospitable than any off-Earth colony for the foreseeable future. Terraforming Mars, theoretically possible, would take a thousand years or so, and it's far from clear we'll ever embark on that effort. And living in pressurized habitats on the Moon or in space, breathing recycled air, always one mechanical failure away from disaster, doesn't sound like your typical "one percenter's" ideal scenario. 

Even if we get tens of meters of sea level rise and lose all coastal cities, 5-10 C of temperature rise, making much of the tropics uninhabitable, and extinction of 99% of species, the Earth will still have breathable air, and survivable surface temperature and pressure. I would guess that if disaster on this scale were to occur, most societies would quickly forget their dislike of things like nuclear energy, desalination, hydroponics, GMOs, etc, and find ways to support their populations with a smaller geographic footprint. Totally apocalyptic scenarios, such as the oceans boiling away to create a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect, are far outside of any realistic projections that I'm aware of.

Quote

No doubt China and India have to step up their efforts, but I don't see how avoiding responsibility serves anyone.  Pulling out of the Paris Agreement sends the wrong message to both developing and developed countries.  You're proposing a technological solution.  We'll try that too, but we should also find reasonable ways of cutting emissions in the present.  That technology may never be developed or it may come too late.

I guess I would argue that if emissions cuts in places like Canada add up to be nothing more than symbolic ("sending a message") given increases elsewhere, perhaps the better approach might be to encourage economic growth that's as quick as possible so that we can devote more funding to research and development of the needed technologies. Given the reality that cuts aren't going to get us where we need to, we should pursue the solution that gives a chance of success, rather than pouring resources into symbolic gestures. 

[Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax]

50 minutes ago, turningrite said:

China's carbon emissions situation is certainly problematic but India's is perhaps more so. India, too, is addicted to coal-generated energy and has large coal reserves to burn, thus ensuring that its C02 emissions are likely to keep increasing for decades. And its population is set to surpass China's in the not too distant future. Despite being a major energy producer, Canada is responsible for less than 2 percent of global C02 emissions. Even if we reach our 30% reduction target, the global impact will be negligible and will likely be more than offset by increasing emissions in the developing world.

Likely? More like inevitable. China and India's combined emissions increase by more each 2 years than Canada's entire emissions. That is, Canada could instantly cut emissions to zero, and within 2 years global annual emissions would surpass what they were at before anyway, due to growth in China and India. 

Realistically, Western countries cannot ethically (or practically) deny China, India, and other developing countries from pursuing economic development, which means producing and using more energy. The growth is so rapid that even with the fastest possible deployment of renewables and nuclear, a big chunk of new energy will come from fossil fuels (mainly coal). 

The international hopes of keeping warming to under 2C by cutting emissions are pipe dreams. China and India will not forcefully hold over a billion people in abject poverty to achieve these targets. 

I think what we should be looking at now is developing technology for the large scale capture of CO2 from the atmosphere. If the world can deploy technology to capture 20 billion tons of CO2 from the air per year by 2030 the targets might be achieved. Current technologies cost about $100 per ton of CO2 captured, so we're talking about $2 trillion/year expenditure to get there, although the cost may fall with improved technology. World GDP is ~$90 trillion. So the question is, is it worth it to devote about 2.2% of the efforts of the human race to capturing CO2? Worst case climate models certainly suggest that it would be worth it, but not everyone is convinced that the worst case models are correct, plus those most able to contribute to such an effort are also those most able to shelter themselves from the worst effects, at a much lower cost. 

[Canada now in Civlization VI!]

Hah. 

[Minorities and Crime]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

It's like saying "You know what, you can see that men are far more likely to be arrested by police, and subjected to use of force, than women. Clearly this is a result of sexism against men! Men should not be arrested any more often than women are!"

That said, men also receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, which arguably IS because of sexism against men. 

[Canada - a wholly owned province of China]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Whether her company violated Canadian law is not important. We have an extradition treaty with the US and are obligated to detain and extradite people when they make the request. The actual accusation, I believe, is fraud against US banks which the subsidiary she was partially in charge of were dealing with - by lying to them about a number of issues.

Hmm, I see. I guess I still have the impression from vaguely paying attention to things over the last few weeks that the extradition request itself is politically motivated given the US-China trade situation. I'm not sure it's just a routine legal case. Would the US have made the request if it wasn't for the current "trade war"? I'm really don't like the idea of justice systems being used for political purposes. 

[Canada - a wholly owned province of China]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. Just some of them. And what they actually did was to set up a third party corporation and funnel equipment through that while lying to the US government on the forms they filled out.

So was what Meng did in violation of the sanctions that remain in force and/or in violation of Canadian law? Is there an article that clearly outlines the legal situation? I'm not fully up to speed on it. 

[Canada - a wholly owned province of China]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

The crude bullying by China over the Huawei arrest reminds us that however ancient China's civilization is it's government, and often enough its people, are narrow-minded, parochial, and do not behave in any way remotely akin to what western nations term 'civilized'. Threatening Canada over a routine criminal matter, and demanding we release a woman before the courts seems to reinforce what Stockwell Day said about how senior Chinese officials simply cannot comprehend what the rule of law means, or that the government cannot simply call up a judge and order him to do as they want.

I dunno, is it really that simple? Huawei acted in violation of US sanctions against Iran, but weren't those the same sanctions that were lifted in the Iran nuclear deal, which was originally agreed upon by the US, China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, the EU and Iran? Trump withdrew from the deal unilaterally in May and now the US requested that a Huawei executive be extradited for violation of the sanctions. But the rest of the world is still on board with the deal. So should Canada be bowing to US pressure based on its unilateral withdrawal from the deal? What authority does the US have to mandate that a Chinese company not have dealings with Iran, if China is not on board with the sanctions, and the UN security council is not on board with the sanctions?

Maybe I missed something but it doesn't seem to me that there is a clearcut legal situation here, rather, it seems like its an issue of the US and China each wanting Canada to do something. Personally I think it would have been better had Canada not gotten involved at all. 

[Minorities and Crime]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

Then maybe the residents of Seattle should consider voting for people who are more conservative...

They should. Or not even necessarily more conservative but at least a bit more pragmatic rather than blindly ideological. But they won't. Seattle is a liberal echo-chamber like you wouldn't believe, far more so than any Canadian city. 

I just get to watch the slow motion train wreck since I'm not a US citizen and can't vote anyway. 

[The transgender insanity movement]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are the third person who has made an incorrect assumption on my posts.  Go back and read.

If I'm the third, chances are your posts weren't clear. One person misinterpreting means a bad reader. Everyone misinterpreting means a bad writer. Regardless, my statement stands on its own, regardless of what it was made in response to. So if you're in agreement with it then great. 

[Minorities and Crime]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

And so, instead of addressing the root causes of Black crime there'll be demands the police amend their behaviour, and given the progressive nature of municipal politics and the simpering political cowards who wind up as mayors, you can bet that's what we'll see, along with all sorts of apologies. But I can remember when a chief inspector for one of Toronto's police districts pointed out that while Blacks made up 5% of his district they were responsible for 95% of the crime. Oh, the media didn't like that! Neither did city council! Not that they argued it wasn't true, but just that he should never had said it nor collected any statistics!

Here in Seattle, this has led to de-policing. Police are (rightly) afraid of the possibility that should they interact with a minority person or homeless person (another group beyond criticism here in Seattle) they'll become the target of a witch hunt. So police simply won't get involved. Crime has skyrocketed, homeless encampments are everywhere (worse than the Vancouver downtown eastside now), and if you call the police about property crime they just laugh at you. And the (actual, self-avowed) socialists on the city council just want to double down and push further down the same path. 

[The transgender insanity movement]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If bald people start getting targeted for assault then maybe we could do something about that, yes.

2. I don't think I have said anything about punishment.

The one thing I pointed out, that people haven't said much about and keep drifting from is that targeted groups deserve attention and protection as a group.

The most powerless and smallest minority group of all is the individual. Any individual who has been assaulted deserves the same response from the justice system against the perpetrators of the crime, whatever the race or gender of either victim or perpetrator. Any ideas that do not fulfill this basic reality are fundamentally unjust, because crimes are fundamentally committed by and against individuals. The individual criminals did the crime, and the individual victims were the ones targeted. Period. 

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

34 minutes ago, Machjo said:

how do you think we can create this technology in any cost effective manner?

There's a huge profit motive, which is why companies like Google and others are spending millions on the effort. 

Quote

Remember too that a language changes over time, meaning a need for constant upgrading.

AI/machine learning. Once a working system is set up, keeping it updated by continuing to train it on contemporary data-sets will be easy. 

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

24 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I know a few languages and work in the language industry so I do have some knowledge with regards to the complexities of language. Remember that mortal human beings with limited human knowledge of imperfect human languages will be creating this technology. Do you know a second language? Have you ever had to translate complex text from one language to another?

Yes, I'm fluent in two languages (English and Russian). I spent about 6 months working in translation of technical documents between English and Russian, as it happens. I also used to have passable French but its been years since I used it so its mostly rusted away (another flaw of humans as compared to computers). 

Quote

Let's put it another way. Why do you think most languages arte so difficult to learn?

I don't think they are that difficult to learn. Rather, the motivation for people to learn multiple languages is not that high since in most situations people remain in areas where their native language is sufficient for their daily lives. Additionally, traditional language teaching methods at the school level (i.e. your typical French class in an English speaking school in Canada) are ineffective to the point of absurdity, explaining the almost null results after 7+ years of French "education" that a typical Canadian receives. A focused effort to learn a language can lead to fluency in about 1 year, which is shorter than the time it takes to learn many other types of practical skills. 

[The transgender insanity movement]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Or do like Starbucks does and have individual bathrooms.

Individual bathrooms are great when possible. They are clearly much nicer from a user perspective regardless of any debate about transgender issues. But they take up a lot more square footage per person (especially since they also have to meet accessibility requirements), which is a problem for establishments that have to serve large numbers of people. Space is at a premium for a lot of businesses, as well as schools, event venues, airports, etc. These kinds of places will likely have to keep some kind of categorization for their bathrooms rather than offering all individual bathrooms. 

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

So yes, it's doable. But as a taxpayer, would you not rather Government employees just share a common language?

Not really. Technology gets better over time, and the cost of technology goes down over time. Meanwhile, the language capabilities of humans stay the same from generation to generation, but the pay of government civil servants just goes up and up over time. Sooner or later, the machine version will be more cost effective. My bet is on sooner rather than later. 

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

That would not be enough. The machine would need input from both visual and audio contexts too. Your phone is not recording your every move, is it? Unless it is, then the machine translator would be missing context.

Now, a simple solution to that would be to program the translator to request clarification; but especially for a language like English where nearly every word can mean severeal things, for the machne to correctly translate one sentence might require multiple requests for clarification. That could be a very tedious process, especially in an industry in which time is money.

Beyond language, the machine must also understand cultural context, which again could vary somewhat even between municipalities. The input required would be phenomenal.

Now of course some solutions exist. For example, we could learn a language like Lojban and machine-translate from that. Since Lojban is so semantically precise, all necessary linguistic input would already be included in the sentence. But then if everyone must learn Lojban, when why not just skip machine translation altogether and just communicate in Lojban? And if we all need to learn a common second language anyway, then why not an easier one like Espeanto (since except for cybernetic communication like machine translation, Lojban is far more precise than most people would need in their daily lives anyway)?

Anyone who knows a second language understands the complexities involved in communication. It involves not only grammar and lexis but context too. And context itself is far more complex than many realise. While the human brain can compute it instantly based on a lifetime of accumlated personal knowledge, how do you program that kind of data into a computer system individually for each person. After all, even English contains different dialects and different accents exist across the English-speaking world and even English-speakers might have lived very different life experiences which can afect the meaning of their sentence. It's far more complicated than some seem to realize.

People deep in a specific field often tend to overestimate the complexities of their own field and underestimate the ability of people outside their own field to come up with creative solutions. None of the problems you mention are any more qualitatively difficult than dozens of other problems that are actively being researched and addressed by people working in AI and machine learning. As for Lojban and Esperanto, the US couldn't even switch to metric, let alone adopting new languages. Not gonna happen. 

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

Even a human might need to ask the original speaker which he meant between different possibilities, though we could program a machine to do the same.

Now if you want a machine that has the same interpretive capabilities as a human, you'd have to walk around everywhere with a GPS cap on your head with audio and video to record every aspect of your life so that when you refer to an inside joke  you heard, or referring to the party you attended yesterday, etc. it could always know which you meant between different possible meanings. That would be an extremely expensive system.

You mean like the cell phones that everyone already carries around almost everywhere?

[Canada's Bilingualism Racket]

7 minutes ago, Machjo said:

And even to produce the technology, we'll need people who possess the necessary linguistic and technical skills. Just like bugets don't balance themselves, technology doesn't just produce itself either.

That's true but that's the power of technology and computation. You only need one set of experts with the right linguistic and technical skills to solve the problem once. After that, the power of what they have created is available to everyone else, expert or not.