I’m afraid that homelessness is going to follow the path of addiction: that it won’t even be recognized until white ex-urban people are affected by it, and even then the measures that will put in place will be too little, too late and too worried about the cost on the rich to do much for the poor.
Gee, maybe you should have spent more time improving the lot of everyday people and less time playing footsie with billionaires?
A lot of neoliberal erstwhile-progressives are about to find out the consequences of selling out their principles for a seat at the rich kids’ table.
Most of Europe’s already found this out, Biden and Trudeau are looking at the same thing, and I expect Starmer will be out on his ass after four years of failing to help the poor and middle class, as he’s so busy right now assuring everyone that he’s not a socialist like Corbyn.
How much of this is decline at the expense of Windows 11, due to Steam lowering barriers to entry, fatigue with Windows’ hard selling, and/or extending the useful like of hardware that W11 abandoned.
How about we just around kneecapping billionaires, instead?
So, money is speech, is pollution speech too?
do the Liberals have any good options to turn things around?
Quit the party and vote NDP.
A liberal is a conservative whose privilege hasn’t been challenged yet.
Does it work the other way? Can I follow Threads users without being on threads.net myself?
How some federal employees are pretending to work using ‘mouse jigglers’.
FTFY.
This happens everywhere that managers are more interested in warming chairs than actually being productive:
Boy, imagine if we’d planned for this in the 1980s, like experts told us to, instead of just kicking it down the road because they money was too good?
Coincidentally, that’s what using it is like, too. :)
To be fair, that’s a British style of writing. It’s a loaded word in North American journalism, but neutral in the UK.
“Easy to live with” is probably a a better term. They’re more comfortable and more versatile than a low-roof car, and not gas-sucking, hard to park, terrible handling and hard to climb in and out of like a truck or truck-based SUV.
While I agree with you, there were very few USDM two-row tall-roof cars, and I think the only one that sold even remotely well was the Chrysler Magic Wagon, because the others (the Civic Wagovan, whatever Nissan sold) were gutless.
The cars that really sell well are compact and mid-size crossovers like the CRV and RAV/4. Minivans aren’t quite the same thing, and the US never really got MPVs that crossovers basically are.
I do agree that minivans are almost always better than large crossovers, but they’re not as popular, cost more to make and retail for lower margins, which is why OEMs don’t push them.
The other thing is that people like comfortable cars that are easy to drive. Up until the long/low/wide era of the late 1950s, most cars had high roofs. easy cargo spaces, high hip points and chair-like seating, all of which was sacrificed on the altar of styling.
SUVs brought us back to the easy-to-own, easy-to-drive vehicles of that era, at the expense of being unpleasant to drive compared to cars. That’s where crossovers come in: they’re cars with that tall roof and hip point, but without the body-on-frame construction of truck-based SUV that gets you bad handling, worse ride and terrible fuel economy.
And yes, it’s true that crossovers were yet another way to boost margin, but they’re also better in almost every way than the low-roof cars that came before them, and consumer-oriented design counts for a lot.
Yeah, this.
Irving owns NB, and if they want to kill a story or stop the government from looking into something, they’ll do it. I don’t think people outside of the Maritimes understand how bought-and-paid-for the media, the government and most businesses are by Irving.
I still remember public servants and teachers voting for Harris instead of Rae in 1995 and being absolutely incredulous about it.
Like, dude, his entire campaign platform is about firing you and people like you and salting the earth behind him so that your job doesn’t just not exist, it can’t exist because government will be so broken it won’t be able to build a yurt. And you’re voting for him because you’re mad that the guy who made you take one unpaid vacation day every once in a while so that those jobs–yours included–would be saved.
Nope, “Common Sense” and suchlike…
Maybe, and just hear me out, maybe they should have spent money on things that help regular Canadians, instead of things that further enrich the rich.
Of course, that implies that the point wasn’t to further enrich the rich, and that the Liberals wouldn’t prefer to switch seats with the Conservatives every few years, as long as the money train keeps running.
I won’t say I didn’t have a bit of schadenfreude when Fort McMurray burned.
Do they?
Because their actions imply otherwise.