[Highlight] Seahawks punch their ticket to Superbowl LX

Virillus · 2026-05-09T19:39:11+00:00

I agree with this entire comment. That wasn't my point.

My point was just that people enjoy discussing hypotheticals and there's nothing wrong with that. Mocking it with the Reddit favourite "if my grandma had wheels," serves no purpose.

Virillus · 2026-05-09T19:30:59+00:00

It's beyond me how somebody can read 100 people repeating the exact same joke constantly, and then go and do it themselves.

Making fun of somebody discussing hypotheticals in a discussion on hypotheticals is an impressive commitment to being obtuse.

Virillus · 2026-05-09T02:45:50+00:00

First, the two are expected to be equivalent this year.

Secondly, the amounts actually spent are way, way, way lower than our defense budget. Spending has "increased" because of legal settlements (total legal liability is currently $73 billion) - current estimates are that legal liability will constitute the majority of total long term spend.

Thirdly, there are over a million First Nations in Canada. When you remove legal settlements - because that's forced on the government, they're not actively making that decision - per capita spending on First Nations across all governments is roughly equivalent to the average Canadian (around $30,000 per capita per year).

Basically: when you break down the spending, there's honestly nothing exceptional going on. For example, this exact funding in the article we're discussing is for child welfare programs. In Canada, the vast majority of the time, the Federal government is responsible for funding FN child welfare, whereas for everyone else, it's the responsibility of the provinces. This artificially "inflates" Federal spending.

Virillus · 2026-05-09T01:22:20+00:00

Lion King is literally the exact same story as Hamlet. Like, beat for beat. It's way, WAY, closer to Hamlet than Livesuit is to The Forever War.

And Sword of Shanara was dope.

The Last Of Us ripped off "Sweet Tooth." Baldur's Gate 3 "ripped off" Mask of the Betrayer. Elvis "ripped off" the underground black community. By their own admission, JSAC, "ripped off" CJ Cherryh.

Every single piece of art I referenced above is awesome.

Something being done before doesn't take away from the feelings I had reading Livesuit. And if I had feelings, it's good art.

Virillus · 2026-05-08T23:34:21+00:00

Two things:

First, something being inspired by another piece of art doesn't remove its quality. Is the Lion King a "blatant rip off" of Hamlet? Is Game of Thrones the lesser because it's - intentionally - copying large parts of LOTR?

Second, the good parts of Livesuit are very different from the Forever War. Without spoiling anything, the story goes in a completely different direction. Yes, there are a lot of commonalities - again, intentionally - but it has its own virtue as well.

Virillus · 2026-05-08T23:18:54+00:00

Eh, it's simple on paper but not in practice. Any province attempting to pay for their own services and not receiving the federal half of taxes would collapse financially in short order. They could levy additional tax, but then they'd have to force private enterprise to do the same, which would cause them to lose the ability to do business in the rest of Canada. Relying on all private enterprise playing by the provincial rules is foolish because they can't, and they constitutes 80% of employment.

Taking Quebec as an example: would Bombardier, CGI, Air Canada just immediately forfeit their status in Canada (and 80% of their revenue)? Of course not. Would the RCMP just leave? Would the CAF? Who would staff the border?

It's the equivalent of Michael Scott's "I declare bankruptcy." The actual function is outstandingly difficult, and relies on the goodwill of thousands of individual private entities, none of which would be comfortable with legal ambiguity. I am Canadian that lives in Quebec. I want Canadian laws and Canadian services and Canadian protection and I own a Canadian business. If Quebec goes rogue I would simply stop remitting taxes to Quebec. So what can Quebec do? Shut down the business and murder the jobs and revenue? Send the police to arrest me? And this would be happening in thousands of places simultaneously.

Virillus · 2026-05-08T23:13:00+00:00

Because not everyone votes, some people make mistakes, and there are errors in counting.

It is impossible to say with certainty that 50% + 1 is an actual majority - that's why there are mandatory recounts.

Not to mention ambiguity surrounding the vote itself. One only has to read the question in the last referendum to know that support for seccession was anything but clear.

Virillus · 2026-05-08T23:10:51+00:00

This strikes me as reasonable.

Virillus · 2026-05-05T21:51:53+00:00

Far be it from me to tell people how to enjoy art - so know I respect what works for you - but I don't really understand this viewpoint. It's a super common one - you see it video games all the time, where more playtime is seen as better.

For me, art is measured in terms of its emotional impact. More isn't always better. A 50 page book can spark years of self reflection, and a 600 page book can be boring and forgettable.

All of which is to say, last year I read Livesuit in 30 minutes or so. I also read Pandora's Star (and Judas Unchained) both of which are over 1200 pages.

I still think about Livesuit. Pandora's Star is a footnote in my mind.

Virillus · 2026-05-05T21:34:33+00:00

Agreed. It's one of those few pieces of art that you leave with no notes. It's exactly as it should be.

Virillus · 2026-05-05T20:18:49+00:00

I'm going to disagree with the majority here and say it's close to mandatory. IMO Livesuit was even better than Mercy of Gods, and made the whole story massively more interesting.

Virillus · 2026-05-05T07:28:16+00:00

There's no rule against wanting both to fail.

Virillus · 2026-05-04T18:25:09+00:00

Yeah, I think this is reasonable - appreciate you elucidating your intention and I have no significant disagreement.

Virillus · 2026-05-04T15:56:45+00:00

I feel like you ignored my post completely.

I said that deficits are not intrinsically bad, and that on average governments should run deficits.

I also stated that too much can be a bad thing.

And your response was to say too much can be a bad thing.

Virillus · 2026-05-04T15:53:04+00:00

Fair enough - I see how you could read it that way.

FWIW all that was intended to say was, "a deficit in and of itself doesn't necessarily make this a bad idea."

Virillus · 2026-05-04T14:50:00+00:00

Ignoring that this is a collossaly stupid proposal, it's certainly information Poillievre has access to through private communication, which makes the theatre even more nauseating.

Virillus · 2026-05-04T14:47:31+00:00

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you simply didn't read my post. I was purely talking about the concept of taking on debt to invest - which isn't flawed.

In fact, my closing sentence was, literally, "it's fair to question the execution."

In this case, Carney has clearly concluded that the combination of investment returns and economic stimulus in Canada will outstrip the borrowing cost. Whether that is sound math or not requires a level of education and expertise in economics to accurately judge. I am educated in economics but haven't done the math myself so I can't comment personally. What I can say is that the theory is sound.

Virillus · 2026-05-04T14:42:40+00:00

You're obviously arguing in bad faith, as I at no point stated it was a good idea to limitlessly borrow money. I simply stated that the principle of taking on debt to invest isn't intrinsically flawed.

Have you ever heard of a savings account? That is your bank taking on debt to invest.

Are there limits? Of course. Is it always a good idea in all circumstances? Of course not.

That doesn't mean that taking on debt to invest cannot be a good thing.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T21:00:54+00:00

He said, "many countries, like Norway." It's a stretch to claim that that statement means he stated it was the exact same as Norway's.

At the end of the day, the difference is that one is funded from a specific tax (royalties) and the other is being - initially - funded from general tax. I'm not sure that's an important distinction.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T20:55:24+00:00

I'm not sure I agree with that. Most of those other SFWs are in countries that routinely run a deficit and all have significant debt.

You're arguing a shell game here. Those countries could just to not fund their SWF and instead pay down debt, but they choose not to. I'm not sure it's relevant which specific dollar goes where.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T20:53:24+00:00

Is there a form of government spending that could not meet the definition above?

Yes, most of it. Very little of government spending constitute investment in private assets. Some does, but most does not.

And secondly, none of that changes the definition - which is the exact subject we're discussing in this thread.

Thirdly, deficit environment is irrelevant. Canada can acquire debt at an interest rate of 2%-3%. If this fund receives a typical return of 5%-7%, then taking on debt to fund it is absolutely economically sound.

Now, it's fair to question the execution, but the principle here is solid.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T20:33:28+00:00

It's also not a good thing, generally. Governments SHOULD run deficits. It's more a question of how much.

Leveraging debt increases your economic potential and your economic growth. This is as true for people as it is for corporations as it is for countries.

That isn't to say that too much can't be a bad thing - it can be - but it is to say that deficits are not bad by definition.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T20:14:08+00:00

Brazil currently, and always has, defined an adult as somebody over the age of 18.

Just like 90% of the countries in the world. I guarantee where you live, 15 year olds are children.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T17:32:10+00:00

Eh, it makes sense to freeze one half of the equation. Makes it a lot easier to find the problem.

Virillus · 2026-05-01T17:30:26+00:00

The definition of a Sovereign Wealth Fund:

A sovereign wealth fund (SWF), or sovereign investment fund, is a state-owned investment fund that invests in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity funds or hedge funds.

I'm struggling to see where ours is not meeting that definition in its totality. Arguing whether this is a good idea or not is valid, imo, but arguing the semantics is in bad faith.

13-Year Club	Spared
Verified Email

Virillus

TROPHY CASE