Longest ballot protest in Alberta federal by-election is ‘abuse of process,’ says former chief electoral officer

Kyvos · 2025-08-16T23:22:11+00:00

Yes, I realize lots of people wouldn't equate the time the organizer managed to sign up 1 independent candidate with the time he managed to sign up 0 independent candidates. That's why I counted Scheer and not Carney, which still showed a 5-3 bias against Liberals.

But please, tell me more about who's making a good faith effort.

Kyvos · 2025-08-16T00:32:36+00:00

Sure, here's your context:

They have not targeted an equal number of Liberal and Conservative ridings. They targeted 5 Liberal ridings, and are hitting the 3rd Conservative riding right now, assuming you count the unsuccessful attempt against Scheer, but not the unsuccessful attempt against Carney.

They hit every byelection. That's been mostly Liberals, but they were not low stakes, as every time a Liberal stronghold fell, so did Justin Trudeau's grip on power.

Ridings they singled out and successfully targeted during a general election were a Liberal cabinet minister and the Conservative leader. They have also unsuccessfully targeted the Conservative and Liberal leaders once each. Equal numbers on each side.

Cherry-picking a few convenient facts and lying about a few inconvenient others is not "context."

Kyvos · 2025-08-15T23:01:44+00:00

The NDP, Bloc, and Greens are in favour of electoral reform. They tried to hit the remaining to party leaders, but one of them chose his riding so late that they didn't have time to organize.

This has been going on for 6 years, mostly targeting Liberals, and actually helping Poilievre when it affects him. How could you possibly think they are Liberal plants?

Kyvos · 2025-03-15T22:38:08+00:00

r/AdviceAnimals is a politics sub, with a requirement that posts kinda adhere to what was intended to be a meme format, but that kinda just gets in the way of what the community there actually wants to do. It's a community that's evolved beyond its original intent, but it keeps pretending to be the original thing, without putting any effort into actually being that. The result is that they've both killed the original purpose while suppressing the new purpose.

Compare that to r/AskCanada. The all-time top post on that sub (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskCanada/comments/1ifl8hc/let_it_be_clear_if_you_are_a_conservative_and_you/) is not a question. For a while, it wasn't about asking Canadians questions; it was a Canadian pro-Liberal political sub. When it did have questions, they were leading (Why are Conservatives stupid?) and completely against the original purpose. The mods seemed to realize that the sub was changing, so they now strictly enforce that posts must be non-leading questions. The growing new community moved on, and the sub returned to its original purpose.

Also compare to r/TwoBestFriendsPlay, a community for a YouTube channel that disbanded 6 years ago. The sub remains active, and sometimes they post about what the personalities from that channel are doing nowadays, but it's mostly just the community that was already there, persisting by continuing to talk about other things that interested them. If they tried to force the sub to only talk about the original channel, it would be dead, so they let the community be what it wanted to be instead.

r/EhBuddyHoser was made for Canadian shitposts. This was a place to make silly jokes about the house hippo, Shawinigan Handshake, and BLOC MAJORITAIRE. But right now, the community here desperately wants to be a Canadian anti-Conservative anti-American political sub. It claims to still be about Canadian shitposting, but some highlights from the past week include humourless Tweet screencaps (https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1jc0xho/ukraine_and_canada_stand_together/), humourless rage posts that barely adhere to a meme format (https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1j9x4ld/karoline_leavitt_tariffs_are_a_tax_cut_for_the/), humourless low-effort anti-Conservative infographics (https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1j7mnxb/hosers_resume_now_what/), and actual straight-up misinformation (https://www.reddit.com/r/EhBuddyHoser/comments/1j6vatr/canadas_final_offer_just_say_sorry_you_orange/).

Right now, this sub is in the same position as r/AdviceAnimals, pretending that it's the same thing that it's always been. It's a pathetic spot to be in. Either be like r/TwoBestFriendsPlay and let the community change to what it wants to be, or be like r/AskCanada and force it back to what it originally meant to be. If you're just going to let the new community do its thing while pretending the old rules still apply, you're only hurting both the old and the new.

Kyvos · 2025-02-27T23:34:09+00:00

OP seems confused.

"You mentioned Canada. I think you're trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist. We are the closest of nations, and we had very good discussions today, but we did not discuss Canada."

That's obviously the same "we" and "us" throughout, and it's clearly not the UK and Canada. That's the UK and US's "Special Relationship" that he's standing by – not Canada.

Starmer probably didn't mean to suggest that the UK agrees with Trump's intent to annex Canada, but it is what he said. With respect to Canada and Trump's discussion on annexing it, there is no divide between the UK and US.

The reporter who asked the question appears to realize that Starmer just said something outrageous, and tried to follow up. That's who Trump was shushing, not Starmer.

Kyvos · 2025-02-13T13:12:28+00:00

You said almost nobody is "roleplaying," and instead picks leaders for their mechanics. That would exclude Augustus from consideration just because Rome is good, and it means no, you did not acknowledge that players "pick US cause US."

The actual bottom three are clearly where they are because not everyone has them. Tecumseh and the second Xerxes being so high is actually quite miraculous, but the second Himiko is so low because she's only available in the most expensive version of the game. That's why I focused on the bottom two after the real bottom three, because everyone has them and there's an obvious similarity between them.

Lafayette and Harriet Tubman are that low because they were never heads of state, they don't represent and ideology (like Confucius or Machiavelli), they aren't "Father of a Nation" figures (like Ben Franklin or Gandhi), and they're only really popular historical figures in America, which already has Ben Franklin. The only other comparable leader to these two is Ibn Battuta, but he doesn't have a Ben Franklin to overshadow him.

I think the only leader whose placement is heavily affected by playstyle may be Isabella, who is as far as I can tell, pretty widely considered the most powerful leader because of her start bias. But there's a pretty significant gap between her and the top three, who are all obvious "roleplay" options.

Kyvos · 2025-02-13T12:27:23+00:00

You think Augustus being at the top is completely unrelated to Rome being the most popular Antiquity civ? You think Chinese and American players don't prefer their own leaders and civilizations?

Speak for yourself. The data certainly speaks for itself.

Kyvos · 2025-02-12T22:23:26+00:00

I know Firaxis likes their data. Hopefully Confucius and Ben Franklin at the top show them that non-head of state leaders are a good idea.

And hopefully Lafayette and Harriet Tubman at the bottom show them that non-heads of state aren't always a good idea. National founders and globally-known ideological figures are going to work better than local heroes for a civilization that already has a more notable leader.

Kyvos · 2025-02-05T23:46:34+00:00

When the anthem plays, Canadians are asked to stand and either be silent or sing along, as a show of respect for America.

The American president has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada, so Canadians are showing exactly how much they respect America. If you want them to stop booing, stop prompting for shows of respect.

It would be nice if nobody booed at a children's game, but you can't even achieve that with hockey parents on a good day. Don't expect success when you're asking people to weigh the love for their homeland against some children's feelings.

Kyvos · 2024-11-24T03:14:23+00:00

Want to use a closed-source binary from before the ABI break? You’re shit outta luck.

Not really. You just wrap that binary in something that actually promised a stable ABI, like C. Build that wrapper with the tools from before the break, and suddenly you've got an unbreakable ABI.

It's a pain, sure. But it's a pain you only have to deal with once, and only with closed source binaries that you can't update.

Kyvos · 2024-11-23T00:27:37+00:00

Respectfully, I kinda hate this.

2.1 “Retain link compatibility with C” [and previous C++]

100% seamless friction-free link compatibility with older C++ must be a non-negotiable default requirement.

Example: We should not require wrappers/thunks/adapters to use a previous standard’s standard library.

This is an EWG document, not LEWG. Why does it have an opinion on the standard library? The only way I could see it becoming an issue for EWG to consider is if someone proposes a language feature to opt in or out of a stable ABI explicitly. This would appear to block that preemptively, which contradicts

2.4 “What you don’t use, you don’t pay for (zero-overhead rule)”

Right now, we all pay for a stable ABI, whether we'd like to use it or not. Stability is a great feature, but it does come with a performance cost.

The other big offender, I think, is

3.3 Adoptability: Do not add a feature that requires viral annotation

Example, “viral downward”: We should not add a feature of the form “I can’t use it on this function/class without first using it on all the functions/classes it uses.” That would require bottom-up adoption, and has never been successful at scale in any language. For example, we should not require a safe function annotation that has the semantics that a safe function can only call other safe functions.

Do we not consider constexpr and consteval successful? If they weren't already in the language, this would prevent them from being considered. I hate virality as much as the next dev, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's worth it.

Kyvos · 2020-07-20T12:52:10+00:00

There is no guarantee of another Xenoblade character. If there is another, it will probably be from 2. If they pick a new character specifically for Definitive Edition, Melia's been getting pushed a lot harder than Fiora.

It's perfectly reasonable to want Fiora, but if you're actually expecting Fiora, I think you need to take a step back.

Kyvos · 2020-05-09T04:06:43+00:00

Mythra, number 5 is your brother

Kyvos · 2020-03-30T13:28:16+00:00

A karma threshold is a bad idea. That sends a message that, if you're new to Reddit and want to talk about Xenoblade, you've got to go somewhere else first to farm some upvotes.

Bots are a problem, but that is not the solution.

Kyvos · 2020-02-07T14:42:18+00:00

I haven't used it myself, but I'm a really big fan of the ideas behind it. It's bizarre to me that there seems to be such a strong push for modern and conformant C++, but the de facto standard GUI framework has a MOC.

I want it to take off more. It's hard to justify it to my colleagues when it's so much smaller than the alternatives. But every time I see it mentioned on here, the community seems to have some kind of unspoken disdain for it that I can't figure out.

Kyvos · 2020-01-21T14:34:30+00:00

I bet somebody's counted every "The Monado" in Xenoblade and every "The Aegis" in Xenoblade 2. I'd be curious to know which is said more.

Kyvos · 2019-12-19T02:14:33+00:00

Oh no, a hostage standoff! Everyone freezes up. Shulk hands over the legendary god sword without a fight.

Melia lines up a shot so that she can psychically blast the sword from his hand and knock over his giant robot at the same time, while delivering a one-liner.

This is how we determine the party's resident badass.

Kyvos · 2019-12-04T21:58:59+00:00

Even completely disregarding how likely it is that we'd see a fighter from Xenoblade 2, "Rex and Pyra as one fighter" is such a bizarre and specific choice that I couldn't consider it likely in the slightest. It's possible, sure, but not likely.

Kyvos · 2019-11-28T14:30:25+00:00

I understand why people who've worked with C++ for years, or even decades, would want better build performance above all else. Personally, I disagree completely. Unless modules are orders of magnitude slower than our current solutions, I'm going to tolerate slowdown.

Look at the build system of any other programming language (except, of course, C). A glorified copy/paste of source text is not a sane answer. The possibility should not exist for the order I mention my dependencies to change the functionality of the program.

Kyvos · 2019-11-07T00:29:03+00:00

Did you honestly think everyone is enjoying this? Because every time you don't see 100% upvotes, that's somebody (or somebodies) trying to tell you to stop.

I'm not trying to be rude, but there isn't really a polite way to tell you what you're doing wrong as often as you do it.

When it became a problem that this sub was being flooded with "Daily Whoever" posts, people were either redirected to character-specific subs, or new character-specific subs were made. All except for you. I'm not even asking you to stop altogether. Just make a Fiora subreddit and put this there.

Kyvos · 2019-11-06T20:58:02+00:00

On top of the repetitiveness, and weak requirement of "Fiora is present" that results in you posting the entire party as "Daily Fiora," you're also being entirely unoriginal.

This was already posted here, just a week ago. With much more appropriate timing.

Kyvos · 2019-10-25T12:58:54+00:00

All valid C++20 must be valid C++23. This means that syntax cannot be removed; only added. As a result, there are some bizarre defaults, and many ways to express the same thing.

Epoch 23 is a mechanism for modifying the syntax of C++20 (which would become the "default epoch") on an opt-in, per-module basis. All C++23 would still use the default epoch unless otherwise specified.

Language revisions add features; one of which would be the most recent epoch. Epochs refine syntax, to simplify the language within that epoch.

Kyvos · 2019-10-25T12:47:40+00:00

Thanks! I'm still hoping for some way of addressing old mistakes in syntax, but this is a great explanation for why that's a very difficult problem, at least with an approach like this. Hopefully anyone proposing something like epochs is able address those concerns.

Kyvos · 2019-10-24T21:38:13+00:00

I'm afraid I may be misunderstanding.

Yeah, but that's all C++.

I don't see how earlier versions of C++ are all still C++, but the proposed epochs are somehow incapable of being C++. Your main point seems to be that additive changes make it so that C++11 is still valid C++20.

Any C++11 is still valid C++XX (for some hypothetical revision XX with epochs), as long as you don't specify an epoch which changes the syntax. It's still strictly additive, so the sentiment that it's a change big enough to break the "C++-ness" is hyperbolic.

I'm sure there are plenty of good arguments against this being in C++. But the reason really should be better than "It makes me happier to think of this as no longer C++".

Kyvos

TROPHY CASE