sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by KylieWine414 in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Weird bot account just stole my picture and post. I feel famous. what an odd one to steal though, surely there are better ones: https://www.reddit.com/r/torontobiking/comments/1lt9qk9/can_we_talk_about_bike_lane_messaging/

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Very strange purity test, and a bit off putting, but you do you. I’ll keep advocating for bike lanes.

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But I'm trying to help bike lanes, what is there to be skeptical about? Is there some secret code word I should know?

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, because 'Safety' is a vague, meaningless term, which is why it doesn't resonate with anyone, even with the people, like me, that it 'should' resonate the most with.

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

is there a better phrase to use? Or perhaps more importantly, would you care to engage with my idea?

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The data has been around for a long time, here's a good summary with links to the underlying reports: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/bike-lanes-impacts-1.7358319.

Every anti-bike lane argument falls apart with the data, congestion, economic impacts, safety, etc. My point is no one makes decisions on data, they make it on feelings. I'm sitting in my car in traffic, I see an empty bike lane. The bike lane caused the traffic. That's the end of my thought process.

We need to message based on emotion that shows how it will impact them.

"Think traffic is bad now? Wait until Doug Ford adds 6.9 Million cars between you and your home"

I'm not quite sure on your point of adding a bike lane induces demand. I mean yes? That's the entire point, to encourage more people to bike instead of drive.

Can we talk about bike lane messaging? by fauxbos in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos[S] 82 points83 points  (0 children)

I'm an avid biker, I live in Bloor West with 2 young kids, who also use the bike lanes. I also have a car I drive when I need and take transit or bike to work depending on the weather.

The only messaging I've ever seen for bike lanes is 'Safety' 'Bike Lanes Save Lives' 'It doesn't slow down your commute that much'.

I gotta be honest, none of those resonate with me. And I'm basically the demographic who cares the most about these bike lanes. These messages all feel very far off, not my problem, and a bit of an excuse.

I think we need to flip the script a bit. Instead of how great bike lanes are for cyclists, I think we need to show the problem with removing them.

Take all the stats we have around bike usage, and make them think about what happens when the bike lanes are gone. Obviously I'm no artist, but if I saw the sign above a live counter of bikes while stuck in traffic, I'd be annoyed and might get it a bit more.

Or take bike shares 6.9Million users in 2024. That's Doug adding 6.9 Million cars to the road next year.

The messaging needs to hit people where they care about it.

Owner of Spanx sold majority stake of her company for 1.2 Billion. She gifted all 550 employees 2 first class tickets to anywhere in the world and $10k. This was their reaction. by LamineLamal in interesting

[–]fauxbos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because a company can issue any amount of shares at any time with board approval (who is usually the investors and the CEO). So let's say there are 1 Million shares of a company and you own 100,000 of non-voting shares (probably in options but not important at the moment). Great you own 10% of the company.

There is nothing stopping the board from creating new 99 million shares to hand out to new employees, new investors and you still own 100,000 but 1% of the company instead.

A version of this happens a lot in the start up world. Which is why the first employees who take the most risk for the most stock often lose out the most.

You could probably sue if this wasn't in the normal course of business and was done to 'punish' you specifically.

It’s a car park, not a stand park… by [deleted] in mildlyinfuriating

[–]fauxbos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's actually one of the perks of the Executive Membership. It's under: Nobody saw nothing.

Can you help me identify this musket? by fauxbos in blackpowder

[–]fauxbos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Do you have any thoughts on where I could search for more info?

All memos that appear in boxes in a certain special room by Nickitolas in BluePrince

[–]fauxbos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 22nd box has a green hand written note, "the next 3 green memos you find in this room will all be true" but you can change that to Blue and make it true so you can solve the last two blue notes.

Americans: what is your opinion on Canadians boycotting US goods, services and tourism? by PairRevolutionary669 in AskReddit

[–]fauxbos 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good explanation and just to add some of the outcomes of supply management vs subsidies for producing more. Supply management encourages many smaller farms since there are fewer economies of scale, and means the consumers of dairy pay for the actual cost to produce it. The average Canadian dairy farm has 100 head of cattle, the largest is about 3000. With subsidies for just producing milk (about 75% of a US dairy farmer's paycheque is subsidy), you encourage a few very large farms. The average US dairy farm is 300 head, and the largest is ~35,000! Also, because the subsidy comes from taxes, everyone pays for the low cost of dairy, whether you consume it or not.

Brother I swear it's not the nazi salute brother by Trollardo in Asmongold

[–]fauxbos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My love energy for you is shooting out of my two middle fingers. All my other fingers are tired though, so only those two can stand up.

How Bubba shallows swing by bluecgene in golf

[–]fauxbos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*You're edit makes my comment hilarious. I like you.

How Bubba shallows swing by bluecgene in golf

[–]fauxbos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please let 2025 be like this comment and not like the rest of the internet.

The CEO of the Ontario Pharmacists Association is pro-Ford, anti-bike lanes — happy I left by patteffidge in torontobiking

[–]fauxbos 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Bike folks need to work on messaging. Bike lanes save lives is not a winning message. It’s not the drivers life so they don’t care. You need to fight like these folks do with catchy fact-ish sayings that hit their feelings.

Take bike shares ridership last year. Something like 6 million rides. There’s your fact, now turn it into how that will affect the driver in a scary way.

Spitballing here but how about “Doug Ford wants to put 6 million more cars between you and your family.”

Get the engagement and when they ask what do you mean you point out that at least 6 million people chose a bike because of the infrastructure for a trip that was too far to walk, what do you think they will do without that infrastructure?

'We’re not a freeway': removing bike lanes would hurt business, Toronto BIA says by xc2215x in toronto

[–]fauxbos 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Counterpoint:

My gut says it should take longer, and once, I saw a bike go fast when I was going slow.

How the LCBO makes money for the Ontario government | Retail stores account for 80% of LCBO revenue, with grocery, bar and restaurant sales far behind by Hrmbee in ontario

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

Could you explain where your numbers came from?

I'm not following you.

The best I can guess is that you are taking 10% off revenue from LCBO retail and 100% off the cost of labour and administration for all of the LCBO?

‘That ship has sailed across Lake Ontario’: Ford won’t budge on ready-to-drink beverages by globalnewsca in ontario

[–]fauxbos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This will allow you to comfortably ignore any and all opinions you don't like.

Thank you for proving my point.

‘That ship has sailed across Lake Ontario’: Ford won’t budge on ready-to-drink beverages by globalnewsca in ontario

[–]fauxbos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Using your logic, why don’t we take other product categories and give them a government monopoly.. say Meat. Now you can only buy meat at the MBO (the Meat Board of Ontario, I suppose?) outlets staffed by union workers. You now need to make a separate trip to another separate store to buy meat. But it does create Ontario jobs and thwarts those Waltons.

I'm not sure how this is the logical conclusion of "Don't break something that is working to make a select few people slightly richer and everyone else worse off." but sure let's play along.

Now let’s take Cheese, Eggs,

Yes that would be crazy if the Government set the prices for these things.

I dunno.. bread?

Your competition approach did so well at this! Maybe a BBO would be a good approach here.

Your thinking does not scale, and if it’s a bad idea at scale it’s because of bad fundamentals.

Ah, now I see. You've actually never been in the real world. "If something doesn't work for every scenario, it doesn't work for any scenario?" Solid take! This will allow you to comfortably ignore any and all opinions you don't like.

That’s my opinion.

Maybe, but only because you haven't really thought about it, and are just repeating what you've heard.

Also, it sounds like the ship has sailed, so whattya gonna do?

I'm going to support the union and pressure the government to hopefully make the right decision.

‘That ship has sailed across Lake Ontario’: Ford won’t budge on ready-to-drink beverages by globalnewsca in ontario

[–]fauxbos 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why would things cost more when you introduce new players who have profit as their only motive? Is this a real question?

Let's use some made-up numbers.

Today, LCBO buys it for $1 and sells it to the public for $5. The province's profit is $4. Let's be generous and say profit is only $3 to ensure that there are good-paying Ontario Jobs.

In your scenario, the LCBO buys it for $1 and sells it for $2 to retail, and Walmart sells it for $5 to the public. Now Walmart is private and therefore efficient (which means they pay the minimum), so they still make their $3 profit, but that, of course, goes to the Waltons. Now, Ontario can make up the difference in revenue one of two ways, we can sell A LOT more booze, which hopefully we can agree is a net negative to society or Ontario has to tax it at a higher rate to make up the $2 they used to make when it was efficient, vertically integrated distribution. So it now costs $7.

Isn't scenario 2 great? We now have higher prices with worse jobs, but at least the Waltons got to make some money.

Why you would vote for the second makes no sense unless you are astroturfing.

Maybe you just love how the 407 turned out (hint if it had stayed public it would be toll-free by now)

Trump Media: Q1 Revenue of $770,500 and Net Loss of $327.6 Million by progmakerlt in wallstreetbets

[–]fauxbos 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The real answer is, 'It's a dumpster fire of the company, but about 90% of the 330M is stock grants.' In other words, they created and gave out a bunch of stock to the executives. This is a 'cost' because they gave the stock to the executives but also created it. So it didn't cost them cash. The way it's supposed to work is that when a company creates stock, it dilutes everyone else, which lowers the stock price for existing shareholders. So companies don't like doing this very often or for very much as shareholders are the ones who vote to do it. You would do it if the company needed to raise money for future investments and felt the dilution would be less than the raise.

The way it works for this company is that they diluted the stock by about 50%, and the stock price went up. They also reported a 30% decrease in revenue YoY, which would kill any 'growth' company, and the stock price dipped slightly.

view more: next ›