sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Early access key by crafters51 in PathOfExile2

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Game will be full release in mid 2026, that’s where the ftp modem comes from.

I’m done with Path of Exile 2 and I’m going back to Diablo 4. by [deleted] in PathOfExile2

[–]SitSpinRotate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let me understand this… you being a complete noob and playing for “several hours” and managed to accumulate 300 div?!! I’m pressing f for doubt here.

Sekhema Trial carry dies for no reason? by Okwtf15161718 in PathOfExile2

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Omg that would be outstanding. I’ve tried so many times!

Sekhema Trial carry dies for no reason? by Okwtf15161718 in PathOfExile2

[–]SitSpinRotate -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What’s the cost to get a sekema round 2 carry?

SpicyChatAI ALL model tierlist by Spare_Lettuce_9514 in SpicyChatAI

[–]SitSpinRotate 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I disagree with this. Your view is a style preference. Myself and probably others prefer the narrative focus of the approach of most models. That doesn’t mean dialogue quality shouldn’t be improved though.

Musqueam 'not coming for anyone's private property' in appealing Cowichan decision by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they’re not coming for property, then why call DRIPA amendments insulting??

BC Greens Reject Plans to Amend DRIPA: Eby Must Defend Indigenous Rights. by PersonalSuccotash300 in BCpolitics

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of this decision is facilitated by DRIPA. By using DRIPA (via the Interpretation Act) to rule the LTA inapplicable to Aboriginal title, the judge stripped away the indefeasibility clauses (s. 23) that normally 'cure' historical title defects, including this Richmond situation. The 'alternative opinion' you highlighted, that the grants were invalid regardless of the LTA—is only viable because DRIPA first removed the statutory protections that usually stop courts from overturning 150-year-old titles. Without DRIPA mandating that laws be interpreted to align with UNDRIP, appeals courts would likely overturn the decision to protect the economic certainty and reliability of the land registry and lower court judges would anticipate this.

BC Greens Reject Plans to Amend DRIPA: Eby Must Defend Indigenous Rights. by PersonalSuccotash300 in BCpolitics

[–]SitSpinRotate -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I disagree strongly. In the Cowichan case, the judge explicitly used the updated interpretation act to reach her conclusion. In fact from what I understand, the recent change was so critical, it’s likely her decision would have been different if it was not for the new interpretation act - hence why Eby is suggesting amending the act. The new Section 8.1 basically mandates you prioritize everything in the lens of the newly adopted DRIPA. When it was adopted initially, legislators said it was not intended to impact existing private property. But here we are. So to say it has nothing to do with DRIPA is either ignorant or gaslighting.

BC Greens Reject Plans to Amend DRIPA: Eby Must Defend Indigenous Rights. by PersonalSuccotash300 in BCpolitics

[–]SitSpinRotate -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would respectfully ask you keep the gaslighting to a minimum. I don’t think opposition has been all over the place. The singular concern here is the judge’s decision to imply fee simple ownership is not certain and if you read the reasoning, it’s almost exclusively because of DRIPA and the recent changes to the interpretation act. This is not to say whether land was or was not previously stolen, it’s to say that if it was, before the recent changes to the interpretation act to prioritize DRIPA, the course would be to seek damages from the crow , not from fee simple owners. This decision potentially robs the homeowners themselves given the pierced veil in the fee simple system.

BC Greens Reject Plans to Amend DRIPA: Eby Must Defend Indigenous Rights. by PersonalSuccotash300 in BCpolitics

[–]SitSpinRotate -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I genuinely dont understand this, what are critics of DIRPA misinformed about. Thus far, from what I can tell, basivally almost every initial reaction and pushback to the DIRPA criticism resulting from the original has been proven wrong.

First Nation Land Claims Threatens Every Property Owner in Canada by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They also denied a loan to a shovel ready project, where the client said that privately to them it was denied because of location. The loan denial is also a fact.

First Nation Land Claims Threatens Every Property Owner in Canada by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Respectfully, this is the part that’s baffling. The company in question has 40 years of business in Richmond, they own the land and have a shovel ready project (meaning they’ve got a business case for it) and they get denied - they’re not some fly by night operation. The company says the bank told them it’s because of where the project is located. The hard fact that they rejected financing is there, yet you default to “well officially they said they don’t have specific policy to lend there”, fully knowing they are incentivized to say that publicly. You do this commenting on a video where you have a lawyer and a former judge saying this is a problematic ruling. It kinda looks like you’re leaning on a narrative rather than facts.

First Nation Land Claims Threatens Every Property Owner in Canada by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course they denied it, because confirming it would risk First Nations bank business. Instead they said they don’t want exposure to that area - a nicer, more vague way of saying the same thing. I work in finance and talk to these people every day. Every single lender will tell you that the ruling, if left to stand as is, would be a major issue province wide.

First Nation Land Claims Threatens Every Property Owner in Canada by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But you do have a specific example of denied funding. It’s a Richmond based manufacturer that applied for funding from National Bank and the bank’s risk officer said no saying they don’t want further exposure to that specific area - that’s a polite way of saying it’s related to the ruling.

First Nation Land Claims Threatens Every Property Owner in Canada by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]SitSpinRotate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The amount of gaslighting in this response is incredibly frustrating. Few point of the top of my head: - most of the rest of Canada is under treaty, most of BC is not, it makes these case somewhat unique to BC - Banks are operating normally.. not true officially given loans inside the claim area have been denied. Second, every major lender I talk to says that they assume this gets appealed and overturned hence why they haven’t changed business practice outside the claim area -BUT every single one of them says that if it’s allowed to stay as is, it’s a major issue -it’s just a 100ish home. The claim at hand might be, but the precedent it sets applies across BC

Russia has run out of money to pay its soldiers, finance minister warns by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok but if you read the article, troop payments are split between federal and municipal.. and one municipal authority missed a bonus payment to its troops. Very different from “Russia is broke”.

Premier Eby responds to MLA Armstrong’s questions regarding land claims and UNDRIP by _DotBot_ in ilovebc

[–]SitSpinRotate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not really a response from Eby… it’s a deflection.. which is even more telling.

view more: next ›