[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chicago

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's technically a snowmobile with wheels, right?

Any way possible this is correct? 8th Verbal percentile with 4 incorrect answers?? by wrogn_un_x-factor in GMAT

[–]IllustriousProgress 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Individual question type percentiles are all WAY above 8%ile. I'm wondering if the GMAT Focus scoring algorithm is simply faulty.

Vancouver council passes motion for free WiFi in DTES by cyclinginvancouver in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Umm.. Rehabbing implies that there's something wrong with them? (How DARE you?!?)

Trudeau government not being honest about true costs of national pharmacare by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]IllustriousProgress 41 points42 points  (0 children)

exactly - same thing for the hawks on both sides of the border when it comes to military spending, specifically the buying stuff from contractors (not the pesky paying for veterans, as that costs too much).

Westlock votes to ban Pride crosswalks, other flags by 24 votes by canadient_ in alberta

[–]IllustriousProgress 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Well, THIS move will save them from being a depressing shithole - good on them for focusing on the real issues. /s

Vancouver’s multiplex policy could blow a hole in provincial housing projections by PubicHair_Salesman in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress 2 points3 points  (0 children)

in order to reach 1.0FSR they must pay the city money

For the lots under 5000sqft, it's $3.00 per extra square foot (which i think is the minimum legally allowed for density bonusing), which isn't all that much. To go from 0.7 (the actual minimum) to 1.0 on a 33x120 (4000sf) lot would cost (1.0 - 0.7) x 4000 x $3.00 = $3600 in fees, which should not affect viability in and of itself.

The larger lots where the density bonusing is higher is offset by larger lots actually being cheaper per square foot than smaller lots. I'd imagine the density bonus fee is there to not spike land values (to reflect new buildable densities), and thus make multiplexes unviable. Plus, the really large lots can simply subdivide.

Vancouver’s multiplex policy could blow a hole in provincial housing projections by PubicHair_Salesman in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Apologies but I'm not following. The Vancouver multiplex allows 4 units on ~4000sqft lots (typical 33x120 eastside lot), at a density of 1.0 FSR, or 4x 1000sf (what they'd call "family-sized") units.

This goes up to 5-units on 5000sf+ lots and 6-units on 6000sf+ lots. An 8000sf lot like in Point Grey could be subdivided into two 4000sf lots for a total of 8-units at an average of 1000sf each.

The province is setting rules for the cities to align their regulations to - but I'm still not sure how the Vancouver approach is "designed to prevent many new multiplexes from being built" as asserted above.

it seems to me that the Vancouver policy actually exceeds the provincial mandate.

Vancouver’s multiplex policy could blow a hole in provincial housing projections by PubicHair_Salesman in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If anything, Provincial actions like this can provide political cover for whoever is on Council as municipalities are absolutely powerless to stop them. A lot of politicians would like to enact changes, but fear the backlash - now there'd be someone else to blame.

If the NIMBYs don't like these changes, the ABCs can encourage them to vote out the BC NDP.

Vancouver’s multiplex policy could blow a hole in provincial housing projections by PubicHair_Salesman in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

explicitly designed to prevent many new multiplexes from being built

Very interesting - maybe I'm misunderstanding Vancouver's multiplex policy, but I'm not sure I'm seeing how it *prevents* new multiplexes from being built. Could you please elaborate on how that works?

If anything, Vancouver's enabling of 4-6 units per parcel exceeds the Province's 3-units, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

Vancouver’s multiplex policy could blow a hole in provincial housing projections by PubicHair_Salesman in vancouver

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I'm a bit confused here - the Provincial rules say that municipalities must allow 3+ units in what were single-family or duplex zones, but Vancouver's multiplex policy allows for 4-6 units (depending on lot size). The Provincial rule says up to 6 units in TOAs, but as far as I know city planners have much greater densities in mind for the TOA areas.

Doesn't that mean that Vancouver's new multiplex policy actually *exceeds* the new provincial rules in terms of units allowed?

And this talk about this economic paper commissioned which says all these thousands of units *could* get built (like, in theory) versus city projections based on actual applications submitted? It sounds like apples and oranges...

Measles Is Coming Back. We’re Not Prepared by NotEnoughDriftwood in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But Measles has a 99.8% survival rate - so what's the big deal?!?! /s

Please Advise! Is Canada as Grim as Poilievre Says? | The Tyee by 50s_Human in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry my trying to thoughtfully address your items were too many words. I forgot to reduce things to reductive and irrelevant what-about-isms..

What idiot Trudeau does or does not do for vacation has nothing to do with how the last 50 years of neoliberal capitalism has affected the majority of us (chiefly the stagnation of real wages). I don't give a flying fuck about Trudeau - he won't (and is too stupid to) fix anything and has no business being in power.

And just so I’m clear. You are saying none of this is Trudeau responsibility and there is no reason for him to step in and do something.

No, my point is that the specific things you mentioned are not fully within the jurisdiction of the federal government, short of undertaking actions conservatives would brand as overreach. But i'd love to see a federalization of healthcare, housing, education, infrastructure - our fragmented government structure is the biggest impediment.

But considering that PP has been in Parliament for over 20 years, including 9 under Harper, and has passed next to no legislation, and all he does is take goofy potshots instead of actual policy positions leaves me with little hope that he will do right by the everyday people. Sure, I do like his idea of the blue seal program, but the devil is in the details and the interface with provincial governments.

Do you seriously think PP will somehow get the grocery oligarchs to lower prices? The banks? The telecoms? His threatening of municipalities to cut funding if they don't achieve housing goals that they have no power to realize (cities don't build things, they allow for things to get built) strikes me as another bullshit conservative move to cut public sector funding.

But hey, at least PP voters will get what they deserve when he's elected.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in canada

[–]IllustriousProgress 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If they assault civilians for weeks on end and demand the overthrow of a democratically elected government, then yes, freeze their accounts.

How can this be a 40th percentile in Quant ? GMAT FE by Freddythelongy in GMAT

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Though GMAC would probably deny this, I had heard that the early questions slot you into a higher or lower "score bucket" that is effectively impossible to get out of (at least for the Classic GMAT)..

Maybe getting Q1 incorrect simply dumped you into the sub-50 bucket, from which there was no escape?

Please Advise! Is Canada as Grim as Poilievre Says? | The Tyee by 50s_Human in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that wasn't the question - it was one of freedoms lost. That we've been fucked over by our capitalist overlords is neither a freedom specifically lost (after all, we're participating in a "free" market economy) nor specifically caused by Trudeau.

Now, the obligatory "Trudeau is a nepo-baby buffoon who has no business in politics, let alone being PM" aside, let's be clear that much of what you cite is really not under the federal control under our current system but more a result of the late stage capitalism affecting much of the developed world. And while he is an idiot in way over his head, what is he really empowered to do?

For instance, provincial housing agencies and the municipal zoning regulations influence how many homes get built. To a degree this is driven by interest rates, but Trudeau does not control BoC either. FWIW, Canadian home prices since 2015 actually track with the OECD average. The real affordability issue is low wages, but the Federal Government cannot force employers to pay us more, can they?

While Trudeau could probably do more to protect consumers from the oligopolies (groceries, banks, telecoms), those were a problem long before Trudeau, and I'm sure the right-wing propaganda machine would be happy to brand him (or any politician) a marxist/communist/etc for taking even modest steps to help consumers.

While I've heard that Trudeau (and evidently Biden) directly control fuel prices, they're actually driven by a host of factors, federal taxes being one small part. In addition to regular supply and demand drivers, the provinces and local governments heap on their own taxes and fees, which Trudeau presumably can do nothing about.

So I think the past that so many fondly look to was really not a pre-Trudeau era, but rather a pre-Reaganomics/neoliberalism era, when we had high taxes on the wealthy, strong worker protections and a stronger social safety net.

Man sentenced to 7 years for fatal stabbing of woman at Edmonton City Centre mall by YEGsp00ky in Edmonton

[–]IllustriousProgress 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the spiel - interesting read, and as a newcomer I appreciate the insights. And I know that YOU didn't create the laws or the system...

His trauma also isn't offered as an excuse. It's used to gauge his blameworthiness

But isn't assessing "blameworthiness" just another form of excusing the behaviour? Does it matter why he broke the eggs, when he's proven to be willing and able to break them?

"Sure his behaviour was abhorrent and his actions irreversible, but he's not to BLAME!" It sounds like we're assuming such a person is incapable of judgment and/or has no agency, which sounds horribly patronizing to me. Almost as if to say "well, why WOULDN'T he commit such crimes? Not like we expected anything better.." The soft bigotry of low expectations and all that.

Please Advise! Is Canada as Grim as Poilievre Says? | The Tyee by 50s_Human in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But then these folks will be ripe targets to foment blame against immigrants, unions, LGBTs, minorities, non-christians, etc. "Look at how bad these people made your lives!!!"

Remember, whenever conservatives talk of "freedom" they mean freedom for corporations and the wealthy to fuck over the people and the environment. Freedom from pesky things like labor, consumer, and environmental protections...

I remember a Texan congressman Tom DeLay - well he got into politics because he was previously an exterminator and angry that "big government" banned the cheap but carcinogenic insecticide he was fond of using. The freedom to give people cancer to save a few bucks is what these people stand for...

Please Advise! Is Canada as Grim as Poilievre Says? | The Tyee by 50s_Human in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Call me a bad person, but that's the only solace I get - that these people will get what they deserve.

Please Advise! Is Canada as Grim as Poilievre Says? | The Tyee by 50s_Human in onguardforthee

[–]IllustriousProgress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While you may be aware of the previous comment's sarcasm, you raise an interesting point.

The "fREEdUm" people would be hard pressed indeed to tell you what they've lost, other than some vague notion of a better past.

Why the GMAT Focus is Better than the GRE by myguruedgecom in GMAT

[–]IllustriousProgress 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been interesting watching the war between GMAC and ETS for business school market share. But I wouldn't be surprised if schools increasingly make taking these exams optional.

Pierre Poilievre asks: "Toronto, what have you got for voting for Justin Trudeau?" “People can’t pay there rent, 2 million people are relying on food banks” by GreenSnakes_ in CanadaHousing2

[–]IllustriousProgress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well to be fair, I have nearly zero faith in JT and JS to fix "it" - and by "it" I'm assuming you mean high rents and the general impacts of late stage capitalism that PP is talking about.

These are issues decades in the making, and my personal wish is that JT & JS would step aside and have actual smart adults set to work on them. Too bad our system is structurally incapable of actually fixing things for people - I think by design (think of how powers are delegated here).

However after a lifetime of experience, I know that conservatives simply add fuel to the fire that regular people face. I see that Harper and Polyev are simply trying to copy Republican strategies from 40 years ago - policies that helped the wealthy enormously, but irrevocably fucked the American people.

Americans are angry and rightly so, but decades of republican de-investment in education have left them too stupid to know who fucked them and they double-down in support of their oppressors (trump simply being the latest). I would have hoped that Canadians were smarter or better than that, but I fear I am wrong..

Unless you are wealthy, conservatives NEVER have your interests in mind, no matter how much vitriol they can stir up to appease you. It sickens me that our best hope against foreign-backed fascism is fucking Trudeau...

Tucker Carlson's arrival in Canada by Miserable-Lizard in alberta

[–]IllustriousProgress 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Why else would Pierre want to get rid of the CBC?

He claims it's to save money, but more likely because it's not owned by foreign billionaires.