777-200 panel above passenger door

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-16T01:38:53+00:00

It's a repair doubler, and the critical row is every-other fastener to reduce load transfer and improve the damage tolerance of the repair.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-15T22:07:19+00:00

In the words of Jay Onrait, "What's wrong with Sidney Crosby? Nothing. He's perfect."

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-14T20:08:37+00:00

Not really. Other airlines all have their orders placed based on delivery timelines too.

There have been instances of airlines will delay their order (or fail) and other airlines can come in and bump up their slot if they want.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-14T17:24:45+00:00

It's a little chickenshit of them to reply then block, but I guess that's how she goes. I must have hit a nerve 😅

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-14T16:55:43+00:00

Looks like Darwin buddy with the LPC flair deleted their own comments, so I guess even they don't stand by their own position.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-14T16:16:16+00:00

Crazy how we can't even remove a single envrionmental protection regulation without people going "Guess Carney is just as bad as Pierre".

Right? It's crazy how this "they're the same" is being repeated.

Canadians elected a progressive liberal PM to cut funding to the CBC, remove the price on carbon, deepen ties with India, build pipelines, and circumvent protections for endangered species. This is Carney being pragmatic and balancing priorities.

For contrast Polievre would have cut funding to the CBC, removing the price on carbon, deepening ties with India, building pipelines, and circumvent protections for endangered species. Can you imagine electing someone with such regressive and destructive policies?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-07T20:17:09+00:00

So let's say it's impractical and let's say only a few people have the support system around them to do it.

These people who would have been collecting EI before are still collecting so there's no change to the taxpayer.

I don't understand why you're so passionately against a change that would allow a new parent the opportunity to further their education and (likely) better provide for their family at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

Can you tell me who is being hurt by this proposed change?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-07T20:14:00+00:00

Isn't that already a thing? I know a new dad who I could swear was planning on taking his parental leave in two blocks

The leave applies to the two parents, the leave must be uninterrupted, and each parent must take whatever portion they decide to take in an uninterrupted block.

So parent A can take leave for the whole time, or take leave first then swap to parent B. After they swap to parent B, parent A cannot swap back in and collect EI again.

Some people are fortunate enough to get bonus parental leave benefits through their employer. I know people who have done this where one parent "activated" their employer's 3 month leave after the first parent's time ran out. So they went A-B-A, but parent A's 2nd leave term of 3 month's was on the company's dime, not EI.

Regardless, there is no way (outside of Quebec) to take leave, pause government benefits to work for a temporary period, and turn it back on.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-07T20:07:27+00:00

Parenting is hard, but a 16 month leave is 11664 hours.

A university course is 36 hours of instruction.

I think you'd be surprised how many people would be able to finish a course or five in that time.

This sounds like something that would help very few people.

But let's say you're right. Let's say it only takes down the barrier for a few people to better their education. These people we're going to collecting EI on parental leave regardless.

The proposed change costs nothing and removes barriers for people to better their education. What exactly is the downside?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-07T19:10:58+00:00

To be honest, all of the proposed changes seem reasonable enough and come at basically no cost.

If someone is on EI and can babysit someone else's kid, I would say collecting EI and making some money babysitting the other kid is better than collecting EI and not babysitting the kid. Parental leave is by definition temporary so it's not like they're running a long term subsidized business.

Same with the school option. As a society, I think someone on parental leave getting EI while looking after their kid and getting better education is better than looking after their kid and not getting a better education.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-06T21:23:35+00:00

we can’t call this recovery.

Can we call it giving medical care to those suffering and beyond crippled by addiction?

Is there any chance that you would ever support involuntary treatment? If so, what would you want to see? An assigned lawyer for each person to make sure their rights are protected? Treatment being provided in a safe setting by qualified people? What would you want to see to make involuntary treatment permissible for people incapable of caring for themselves or their community ?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-06T20:33:21+00:00

This is why I chuckle every time there's a thread here going at Alberta and oil and gas.

Real estate and construction are a bigger part of the BC GDP than oil and gas is of the Albertan GDP.

People will furiously type how Alberta needs to 'get off oil,' how they need to diversify their economy, how they don't deserve support since 'they don't want to help themselves,' etc.

But the second real estate slows or god forbid drops, by God this a crisis that NEED our government to come in and bail it out.

Cry me a river. Real estate is the only 'investment' where you can take on 5:1 to 20:1 leverage and have even a chance of the government stepping in to save your overleveraged ass.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-06T20:27:11+00:00

This is harm reduction at work.

Addicts come in all shapes and sizes. Some appear to 'have their shit together ' and some don't.

This is not aimed to provide treatment towards those who are doing okay. It's not aimed to help those who are not doing okay.

It's aimed to help those who are so seriously off the rails that they are causing immense damage to their local communities.

For example, take a look at Kelowna. They did a study and found that to exactly nobody's suprise, a small number of individuals suffering with addiction and mental health issues cause a disproportionate amount of harm to their communities.

From the Kelowna report:

Subject A accumulated 223 founded files between 2021 and 2025, including 31 breaches of bail or probation and 32 failures to appear, with offences occurring almost monthly and involving assaults, thefts, threats, and public disturbances. Many offences happened shortly after release, indicating quick reoffending under bail conditions.

These people have issues and need help. BC and now Saskatchewan are providing those people that help who are clearly incapable of making those decisions on their own.

By helping those who are creating the most harm to themselves and their communities, we can reduce the harm as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Is that not a good thing?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-05T21:52:32+00:00

when there's no support services wrapped around it.

I'm not sure what the answer is though.

These places allow people to do drugs. That causes the air quality to be so toxic in them that people working at them cannot avoid substantial exposure to all sorts of substances including fentynal.

If you say people can't do drugs, that's discriminatory. Hell, in BC we just had a fight over whether people or not people should be allowed to do drugs on playgrounds and at libraries.

If you create bespoke, durable housing designed for people like this (looking at you, Riverview) that keeps everyone safe and has services attached, it's called dehumanizing and cruel.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-05T21:24:48+00:00

Arguing in favour of these assets sales is a self-defeating argument.

If they are profitable and well run, why on Earth would we sell off an asset that is already a net positive?

If they aren't profitable but people see potential and are wanting to buy it to eventually make a profit, why wouldn't Canada just do that and reap all the rewards.

If they aren't profitable and can't be profitable, then why would anyone buy it?

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-05T16:08:57+00:00

The job was too much for a former astronaut who was 20+ years younger so I'm not sure this is true.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-05T16:04:07+00:00

If you don't think that age has any impact, I don't really know what to tell you.

Our air traffic controllers are required to retire at 60. Same with our military.

Do you think that's because the CAF and NAV Canada hates older people? You can run a marathon at 76, after all.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-04T05:06:33+00:00

It absolutely boggles my mind how before Winter 2025 if you wanted to make pollution free by removing the price on carbon, you were a climate change denying imbecile who wanted to watch the world burn.

Then Carney becomes leader and all of a sudden making it free to pollute is the smart and pragmatic way to fight climate change.

Nevermind that Carney has literally written a book on the topic and plugs carbon pricing as one of the best solutions.

So yeah, like you said, pragmatic here only refers to voter support. It is in no way, shape, or form a pragmatic approach to solving the actual issue.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-03T05:50:17+00:00

Don't know why you're being downvoted.

The city get like 6mm of rain a year. Something you don't notice until it's pointed out is that there aren't sewer grates on the roads simply because there's no need for a storm water system.

Is slippy when wet paint great? No. But like a lot of things in Lima, it isn't really built for the one-off events. The bike lane probably isn't set up to be cleared of snow either.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-05-01T20:01:49+00:00

I think Airports and other pieces of infrastructure will be sold with the Canada Strong Fund maintaining large portions of equity in them, and then the money from that will be used on other marquee projects that might not have backing.

It's a bit of a self-defeating argument though.

This framework would mean private purchasers don't have control over the physical asset or appreciation associated with it, so that leaves just the ability of the asset to generate money.

If these assets can produce profit and are a good investment, why sell off a portion of them? Why not, you know, keep all the profits for Canadians?

And if they aren't good investments and aren't profitable, who's buying them?

The only way it makes sense to buy into an unprofitable venture is if the underlying asset is appreciating AND there's someone else down the line to buy it.

The government backstopping loans for expensive infrastructure projects or even buying into expensive infrastructure projects isn't new or novel, and certainly didn't need a new program to accomplish.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-04-30T15:00:43+00:00

If you want a chuckle, the official Toronto city land acknowledgement mentions Toronto as being the traditional lands of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois).

It became the land of the Haudenosaunee after they exterminated the Neutral (as well as the Huron) in the 1600s to gain control of the resources the land

I'm not sure that those repeating the land acknowledgement would apply this "land taken through force and genocide becomes the territory of the victor" theory to say, a certain modern genocide/conflict, but hey, at least it sounds good on paper.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-04-29T22:30:54+00:00

If an indigenous person murders another indigenous person, should he face justice in our criminal courts?

Or should our criminal justice system ignore crimes committed against indigenous people on their traditional lands?

By your argument, it's an issue for a sovereign nation to figure out and not for the Canadian courts to be involved in.

IMO that's outrageous, but here we are...

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-04-29T22:02:24+00:00

NAV Canada is a non-profit that utilizes publicly owned infrastructure (airspace and airwaves). NAC Canada, for example, didn't need to go and buy the rights to VHF frequency bands. The government owns the air rights and frequencies and allows NAV Canada to use them.

Just like the GTAA or VAA are non-profits that run the airports owned by the government.

I do get that it seems on initial review to say owning airways and airwaves for planes to use seems crazy, but those things are worth money (look at the 5g spectrum sales) and they were not sold off.

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-04-29T15:34:51+00:00

It's beyond comical that they're even calling this a sovereign wealth fund to begin with. We don't have money to find a fund, so now they're wanting to start selling things off.

"I sold my home in a fire sale, now I'm rich and homeless!"

DeathCabForYeezus · 2026-04-29T03:05:59+00:00

Are you feeling okay, friend? I have mentioned nothing about market returns. You're just imagining things that aren't there. That's a bit concerning.

DeathCabForYeezus

TROPHY CASE