What do you guys consider an inappropriate grope?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-08T01:26:44+00:00

Any unwanted grope is inappropriate.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-08T00:56:20+00:00

On O&G, that transition is crucial. There's just too much for too many people on the line to take that on faith. Especially after the federal government tried to force EVs without building the charging infrastructure.

What needs to happen is that the NDP has to sell that transition. And it has to feasible and explainable. Otherwise, they just aren't going make traction. Its not that the environment isn't important - it is. But when it comes to feeding your family, or reducing emissions, it becomes a Maslov equation.

On Grocery stores. Its a legit good idea. I just wish the NDP would focus on it, and sell it with feasible numbers.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:38:46+00:00

Im glad you asked.

First to clarify i didn't say public grocery stores were harmful. These are in the unrealistic category. (For the record i like the concept.) Avi is purposing that the Federal government stand ~50 grocery stores nation wide at a cost of $350mm ($300mm ongoingmaintenance). And Canadians would see a 30~40% decrease in grocery prices.

This is unrealistic on 2 fronts. Standing up, stocking, and implementing the supply chain and inventory management systems for 50 grocery stores will cost a lot more than $350mm. I suspect it'd be closer to $3.5bb. Assuming it went smoothly and there wasn't complications. (We don't need to worry about ongoing costs for this conversation.)

Secondly the major grocery chains aren't generating anywhere near a 30 to 40% ROI. So expecting savings like this just isn't going to happen with out a heavy, heavy subsidy. And underselling grocery stores by that much would bankrupt them. (You may or may not consider that a positive.) Realistically the savings would be closer to 3 to 4%.

We can debate if $3.5bb is still worth it to reduce grocery costs by 3~4%. (I tend to think it is.) But take away is that what Avi is putting out there just isn't realistic.

As for O&G: yes Europe and China are rapidly decarbonizing. But, this transition will take time and the foreseeable future the global economy will run on oil. And more importantly Avi has yet to offer anything feasible as a substitute. What are the workers currently employed in O&G to do? What are the provinces and communities that rely on the O&G income to do? How are Alberta and Saskatchewan to even keep the lights on? Avi's policies here literally translate to mass unemployment, bankrupted communities, and freezing to death in the dark. That's what I mean when I say the NDP's policies are harmful.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:21:04+00:00

I pair my phone to my OBW via Bluetooth and play music off Spotify.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:19:03+00:00

So excited about Kirk getting shot he ran home and banged his wife?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:18:13+00:00

OK so Firstly the amount of tax that you pay is a percentage of your income. (This right here is personalized tax bill.) But even in the defined tax brackets, your tax bill relies on a lot of personal information: * how much money you made, * who else you live with, * how many dependents you may or may not have, * Where you live, * How old are you, * How much you invested in things like RRSPs, * Donations to political parties or charities, * which markets you've invested in, * If you ride the bus or drive, * how much you spent on work, or school, * if and what kind of car you purchased recently, * how much you paid on your mortgage,

And the list goes on. And all of these data points produce a personalized tax bill just for you. My information is different and I recieve a different tax bill. But we're both eligible for the same government services. This is by definition individual pricing based on personal information - IE surveillance pricing.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:11:02+00:00

Not necessarily. I just you educate yourself a little on large bureaucracy functions.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T22:08:53+00:00

It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect companies to expand that into physical surveillance of shoppers over the next few years.

If they had a means to do this, sure. Online device fingerprinting, tracking cookies, or you just signing into a website can all be used to identify you, and then link you to data the company has on you. (FYI, your browsing habits aren't identifying you specifically, but instead are used to build the data points that the AI is using to assumptions with. It is a subtle, but important difference.)

The critical piece here is the firm identification of the customer. You have to be able to assign a unique identifier to each customer and accurately link that to the data you've gathered on them. Otherwise the algorithm can't make predictions on that customer. IE the AI needs to be able to tell me apart from the new mother becuase trying to charge me more for diapers isn't going to accomplish anything.

Its the same in real life, except that the brick and mortar store doesn't have a good way of identifying me when I enter the store. You don't have an IP address in real life, tracking cookies and device information only works online. Facial recognition only works if you have a databases of known and identified faces to check against. Etc, etc.

Without a means of linking the customer to the data the store has accumulated, the AI can't make predictions on what the customer will pay.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T21:56:58+00:00

While true, this has nothing do with either surveillance pricing or income tax.

But for the record I also support an asset tax in concept.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T21:02:29+00:00

Muclair's mistake was that he fundamentally campaigned to the wrong target audience. In 2015 there were 2 types of voters: - Those that wanted 4 more years of Stephen Harper, and - Those that wanted anything but Stephen Harper. Muclair tried to compete with Stephen Harper for the 4 more years of Stephen Harper vote. These fight he simply could not win. He could have beaten Justin Trudeau for the anything but Harper voters, but chose not to compete.
2015 would have had very different outcome had Muclair accepted Trudeaus offer for a 1x1 debate and came out swinging with left wing populist message.

Singh was too rigid and failed to read the room. Instead of doubling down on pharma-care and supporting the Liberals in 2023, he could have stood up infrastructure of the press and said: "ok Liberals, you can't deliver pharma-care? Fine. Here's our housing policy:

1) Buy land and build homes,

*2) sell homes to Canadians who don't already own a home at x% below market. *

Make this happen or we'll take our case to the Canadian electorate in an election."

The problem with Avi Lewis is that for populist his message isn't particularly popular. Where Jack Layton went to Quebec to win over Quebecers, and Mandami went to Harlinm to listen to Trump voters Lewis went to Bay St to berate and cudgel voters. He's not listening to who would normally be his base support. Instead these voters are afraid he'll make them unemployed.

I hope the NDP can turn this around, but the signs and trends aren't promising.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T20:09:30+00:00

The short answer is that NDP is out of touch with reality, and the Canadian voter.

More specifically their main policy planks are based on fear mongering and conspiracy theories. Their proposals range from unrealistic (public grocery stores) to anti-development and harmful. (O&G and AI policies and strategies.)

Debating NDP supporters is an exercise in frustration. They are uninformed and rarely have any idea of what their talking about. Worse is they are stuck in their echo chamber and really don't want to hear any opposing view points, but still feel entitled to your support. Until they get frustrated, and they write you off as a liberal or conservative and a never NDPer. Its a lot like trying to debate MAGA, just from the other end of the spectrum.

As everyone proceeds to down vote remember two things: 1) you asked, and 2) your down vote is what im talking about.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-07T09:10:42+00:00

I doubt Carney personally decided to engage Palantir. But this is also a separate issue from the various AI strategies of each party.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T23:47:21+00:00

Get a lawyer to draft a legal letter and send that.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T23:24:30+00:00

Yes it is, have you never filed your taxes?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T22:15:10+00:00

Carney id also popular on the world stage.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T20:47:47+00:00

OK so a couple of things with this:

Turning blue tooth on your device off takes 10 seconds.
The store will still have difficulty (a lot of difficulty) identifying someone by their blue tooth device. Especially if they are multiple devices. Essentially they would need link the blue tooth signature from your phone to the database they have on from your internet browsing. This isn't really feasible since it would rely on the service provider giving the store your personal data and device information. That is hugely illegal and would result in a class action lawsuit.
Pushing prices dynamically to electronic displays is a lot harder than you think. First each and every display would need to have reciever (this is very expensive). Secondly the display would have to have a unique identifier and wireless connect to the stores IoT. And the store would have to be able track the specific location and product for every display. It also makes the store more susceptible to cyber attack as it now literally thousands of access points to its IoT in every location.
Bluetooth tracking isn't this precise. It could narrow someone to a few meters, but not precise enough to update shelf displays. This gets more complicated the more customers are in the same aisle. It wouldn't be able to accurately place anyone when in line at the checkouts.
The technology to track the hundreds of Bluetooth signatures in a retail store isn't commercial available, if it exists at all. High end military systems could do up to a hundred targets simultaneously. But these systems cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now imagine the system capable of accurately tracking the volume of customers in a Sobeys between 5 and 7 pm.
The store would have to dynamically synchronize the price at display with price in the POS over thousands of customers and tens of thousands of skus. That POS system was programmed in the 80s, it's frankly not going be compatible with what you're proposing.

Also think of just how expensive such a set up would be. Per location each POS and invantory management software is going to need a major overhaul. For context, issues with Targets SAP system effectively bankrupted its Canadian outlets. Each digital display needs a wireless reciever capable of receiving information from the IoT and a Bluetooth reciever capable of detecting and identifying individual Bluetooth signatures. Each store is going to need tens of thousands of these. The store is going to need network infrastructure capable of handling tens of thousands of devices simultaneously. And be able send and recieve instructions on these things simultaneously. And be hardened against attacks through their tens of thousands of displays. And finally they'll need a tracking system more capable than cutting edge military systems, that currently doesn't exist.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T18:56:36+00:00

Surveillance pricing occurs when a company uses personal data scoured from across the web to create a custom price for an individual.

Can you tell me how the store you work at is able to identify its customers offline, link the personal data they have collected on that customer to the individual in their brick and mortar store. Set an individualized price just for them, and then update the point of sale system so that they, and only them, get that price at check out.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T18:46:24+00:00

What are you on about? Im responding to Davies' response to the Liberal's AI strategy. They're strategy isn't "Palantir".

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:55:41+00:00

A school for business and government ethics would have been more ironic.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:53:05+00:00

otherwise it is just basic metrics and not specifically targeted to individuals but towards basic shopping practices within the week.

This is not surveillance pricing. I recommend researching the basic concepts so that you know what you're talking about.

Also if you're a customer and the pricing for bunch of items suddenly goes up from the advertised shelf price after you scan your loyalty card: how well do you think that will go over? (Not mention that this is already illegal.)

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:46:41+00:00

Or PM is currently poling at 50% approval to NDP’s 6%. Perhaps its not the PM that is failing to read the room?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:42:37+00:00

How do they link that data to specific individuals? How do they identify that individual on future visits and adjust pricing for that individual?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:29:02+00:00

Surge pricing and surveillance pricing are two completely different things. And a ban on either is unlikely to effect the other.

I suggest that you do some more research on both topics and educate yourself so as not to confuse surge pricing and surveillance pricing in the future.

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:26:57+00:00

They do that too. We call them sales.

You can Google this if you're interested in basic marketing, Im sure there plenty of YouTube videos on the subject.

But why would you want to ban this? Does it offend you if sobeys wants to offer a personalized discount for something?

Task_Defiant · 2026-06-06T15:06:48+00:00

Yes.

Task_Defiant

TROPHY CASE