goldfish crackers ©
@sqc.bsky.social
Mostly lurking, in accordance with the robustness principle. In this house we believe distortionary and redistributive issues should be separated, the notion of a "fiduciary" is essential to the future of democracy, and fascism must be destroyed.
Right, but you probably don't own an F-150 with a confederate flag and a "fuck trudeau" sticker on it. Their behaviour makes perfect sense given their values.
November 30, 2025 at 5:36 AM
Right, but you probably don't own an F-150 with a confederate flag and a "fuck trudeau" sticker on it. Their behaviour makes perfect sense given their values.
Fair enough! I'm not as cynical as you but you might be right.
November 30, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Fair enough! I'm not as cynical as you but you might be right.
Wildfires tend to burn themselves out :)
November 30, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Wildfires tend to burn themselves out :)
Right. You have all these MBAs gloating about being able to discipline their labour force, but what happens when those newly fired employees start their own firms? Which is more competitive: a bunch MBAs with automated engineers, or a bunch of engineers with automated management?
November 29, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Right. You have all these MBAs gloating about being able to discipline their labour force, but what happens when those newly fired employees start their own firms? Which is more competitive: a bunch MBAs with automated engineers, or a bunch of engineers with automated management?
That seems like a plausible scenario for within-firm dynamics, but what about between-firm dynamics? The idea that managers are less exposed to automation seems to come from their power withing orgs (they do the firing). But do we really think firms demand more managers in the new equilibrium?
November 29, 2025 at 10:20 PM
That seems like a plausible scenario for within-firm dynamics, but what about between-firm dynamics? The idea that managers are less exposed to automation seems to come from their power withing orgs (they do the firing). But do we really think firms demand more managers in the new equilibrium?
Totally agree. I'd add Zahler and Peckinpah and (to some extent) Saulnier to that list.
November 28, 2025 at 5:36 AM
Totally agree. I'd add Zahler and Peckinpah and (to some extent) Saulnier to that list.
Sorry, do you think that Donald Trump is a red tory?
November 28, 2025 at 4:44 AM
Sorry, do you think that Donald Trump is a red tory?
I like Singh! I think he's a good person! But, unlike Carney, he clearly lacks the economic and international relations chops to help us navigate this moment. If you can't see the relevance of Carney's skill set to our current problems I don't know what to tell you.
November 28, 2025 at 4:41 AM
I like Singh! I think he's a good person! But, unlike Carney, he clearly lacks the economic and international relations chops to help us navigate this moment. If you can't see the relevance of Carney's skill set to our current problems I don't know what to tell you.
I am specifically saying that I am glad there aren't more NDP MPs because it would have made it harder for Carney to enact his agenda. The "I don't vote for PM just an MP" thing, while technically correct, deliberately misses the party-level aspects of Canadian politics, which are important here.
November 28, 2025 at 2:13 AM
I am specifically saying that I am glad there aren't more NDP MPs because it would have made it harder for Carney to enact his agenda. The "I don't vote for PM just an MP" thing, while technically correct, deliberately misses the party-level aspects of Canadian politics, which are important here.
Very good point.
November 27, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Very good point.
I agree that LGBTQ ID is different from religious ID (both are different from political ID). This is at the intersection of two difficult issues for liberalism: group identity and the treatment of children. In practice I like the Canadian ad-hoc cultural sensitivity better than strict liberalism.
November 27, 2025 at 10:16 PM
I agree that LGBTQ ID is different from religious ID (both are different from political ID). This is at the intersection of two difficult issues for liberalism: group identity and the treatment of children. In practice I like the Canadian ad-hoc cultural sensitivity better than strict liberalism.
Yeah, I'm conflicted! Two examples push me in opposite directions: people who say "having out LGTBQ+ people as teachers is 'endorsing'/'promoting' those identities" make me want to say "representation is acceptance not endorsement", but your "political views" example pushes me the other way.
November 27, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Yeah, I'm conflicted! Two examples push me in opposite directions: people who say "having out LGTBQ+ people as teachers is 'endorsing'/'promoting' those identities" make me want to say "representation is acceptance not endorsement", but your "political views" example pushes me the other way.
I completely agree in principle, but I do worry about how this kind of thing would affect Sikhs. Like, from a modern point of view, putting dress codes in your religion was a mistake, but loads of decent people are living downstream from that mistake, and it doesn't cost us much to accomodate them.
November 27, 2025 at 9:43 PM
I completely agree in principle, but I do worry about how this kind of thing would affect Sikhs. Like, from a modern point of view, putting dress codes in your religion was a mistake, but loads of decent people are living downstream from that mistake, and it doesn't cost us much to accomodate them.
'I've overheard your theory, "[understanding the actual environmetal impact of technologies] is for geeks"
I guess sir, if you say so, some of us just like to read'
I guess sir, if you say so, some of us just like to read'
November 27, 2025 at 8:52 PM
'I've overheard your theory, "[understanding the actual environmetal impact of technologies] is for geeks"
I guess sir, if you say so, some of us just like to read'
I guess sir, if you say so, some of us just like to read'
I wasn't talking about his business experience (which I agree with you, is probably a net negative). I meant his work as a central banker and at the U.N.
November 27, 2025 at 8:48 PM
I wasn't talking about his business experience (which I agree with you, is probably a net negative). I meant his work as a central banker and at the U.N.
Also, it was an election to decide who was going to handle the economic, diplomatic and military consequences of the Americans electing a demented, fascist mercantilist as president. Carney's career made him ideally suited to this. Singh (though I like him) and Poilievre (come on) didn't come close.
November 27, 2025 at 8:40 PM
Also, it was an election to decide who was going to handle the economic, diplomatic and military consequences of the Americans electing a demented, fascist mercantilist as president. Carney's career made him ideally suited to this. Singh (though I like him) and Poilievre (come on) didn't come close.
I agree. The crucial thing is to be able to make sure the left has their say and can affect outcomes without introducing coordination problems or roadbloacks. It's fine (necessary, even!) for the left to criticize Carney's concessions to the right. We just need to have reasonable expectations imo.
November 27, 2025 at 8:13 PM
I agree. The crucial thing is to be able to make sure the left has their say and can affect outcomes without introducing coordination problems or roadbloacks. It's fine (necessary, even!) for the left to criticize Carney's concessions to the right. We just need to have reasonable expectations imo.
You're right about FPTP. But FPTP's tendency to boost pluralilities and push out small parties is actually useful here. We want whoever is representing Canada abroad (particularly to the U.S) to be able to do so authoritatively, and we want them to drive large, rapid, nation-level economic changes.
November 27, 2025 at 8:10 PM
You're right about FPTP. But FPTP's tendency to boost pluralilities and push out small parties is actually useful here. We want whoever is representing Canada abroad (particularly to the U.S) to be able to do so authoritatively, and we want them to drive large, rapid, nation-level economic changes.
I am much more sympathetic to that point of view in normal times, but I really do think our current situation is exceptional. We need to do a large number of very difficult things very quickly and with lots of coordination. Our normal pluralistic, decentralized politics sets us up badly to do this.
November 27, 2025 at 8:00 PM
I am much more sympathetic to that point of view in normal times, but I really do think our current situation is exceptional. We need to do a large number of very difficult things very quickly and with lots of coordination. Our normal pluralistic, decentralized politics sets us up badly to do this.
Our country is genuine danger it has not been in for a very long time. I think most of us get that but it still bears repeating. This is an emergency. If we get through this, it will be because we all sacrified something.
November 27, 2025 at 7:56 PM
Our country is genuine danger it has not been in for a very long time. I think most of us get that but it still bears repeating. This is an emergency. If we get through this, it will be because we all sacrified something.
I'm glad that people are pushing back on Carney's more right wing policies, because this is all a negotiation and the left needs to throw their weight around too, but people are not being realistic about this stuff. We need national unity and economic security right now. We want Alberta on board.
November 27, 2025 at 7:54 PM
I'm glad that people are pushing back on Carney's more right wing policies, because this is all a negotiation and the left needs to throw their weight around too, but people are not being realistic about this stuff. We need national unity and economic security right now. We want Alberta on board.
Yes, you could have voted for any number of parties. But everyone should have voted Liberal, because Carney was and is our best shot at mitigating the danger from the Americans. I admire Singh, and I'm at least as left wing as the median NDP voter, but this was an easy call given the stakes.
November 27, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Yes, you could have voted for any number of parties. But everyone should have voted Liberal, because Carney was and is our best shot at mitigating the danger from the Americans. I admire Singh, and I'm at least as left wing as the median NDP voter, but this was an easy call given the stakes.
We were so dead set on not electing a *2020s* conservative prime minister that we *deliberately* elected a *1990s* conservative prime minister. We made the right call.
November 27, 2025 at 7:26 PM
We were so dead set on not electing a *2020s* conservative prime minister that we *deliberately* elected a *1990s* conservative prime minister. We made the right call.
You are allowed to form organizations of the kind you're describing. Why do you think that there aren't any large scale examples of them? Why haven't you produced such an example?
November 25, 2025 at 9:43 PM
You are allowed to form organizations of the kind you're describing. Why do you think that there aren't any large scale examples of them? Why haven't you produced such an example?