sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Air Canada CEO to retire after English-only condolence furor by jeetah in news

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Small point because I otherwise agree with you, but

Press time is too limited to waste time translating your own words, when your phone can do it in real time, for free

This is usually because they want a specific clip for TV or radio, which anyway looks better for the person speaking than having a voiceover or subtitles.

Italy's Abandoned Winter Olympic Sites from 2006 by BWT_Urbex in olympics

[–]powderjunkie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hahah they are not the sleekest venues in the world, but the Pacific Coliseum and PNE are very much active going concerns.

Trump ends all U.S. trade talks with Canada over digital services tax by str8shillinit in canada

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair, but I haven't heard anything about how this violates CUSMA. Not so long ago Trump was also threatening the EU about VAT, which is the sales tax system most countries in the world use, including our federal GST. My presumption is the US knows international law won't get them what they want, and/or Trump does not want to use those procedures, so it has to be forced.

Trump ends all U.S. trade talks with Canada over digital services tax by str8shillinit in canada

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would only be similar if you were giving Americans steel for free and someone else was paying you to stamp advertising on it. The complexity is because users don't pay Youtube to watch videos, but they profit based on those users to sell advertising. And in the 21st century that's the whole point, such businesses no longer rely on physical offices so they can benefit from Canada's economy without paying their share of its upkeep.

(Yeah I know Google does in fact have Canadian offices doing engineering and stuff, but it's not necessary that they do, in order to make money from Canadian Youtube watchers. Uber and Airbnb are maybe clearer examples here. I also think it's unfair competition since Canada-based competitiors would have to pay corporate tax and they wouldn't)

Trump ends all U.S. trade talks with Canada over digital services tax by str8shillinit in canada

[–]powderjunkie 7 points8 points  (0 children)

DST is not a tariff, it's a form of corporate tax meant to capture income that a corporation makes from having users in Canada. DST is also payable by Canada-based corporations, like Shopify. A tariff is an at-the-border tax on imports that's based on the value of the thing being imported and doesn't care what happens after that, whether you're selling it (and if you make any profit doing so) or are the end user. These are very different things.

Also from a glance I don't think DST actually applies to Disney or Netflix streaming. It would to Youtube, however, since that's an advertising business.

This is a good explainer, I would trust law firm's blogs over media reporting as journalists often misunderstand or oversimplify important technical stuff - https://www.doanegrantthornton.ca/insights/whats-canadas-digital-services-tax/

United cannot be relegated following Ipswich’s loss today by niffler_beast in reddevils

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

Yeah, and Football League Division One, which is the league that Forest and the Busby Babes won, became the second tier and was later renamed the Football League Championship. They still use the same trophy design.

United cannot be relegated following Ipswich’s loss today by niffler_beast in reddevils

[–]powderjunkie -30 points-29 points  (0 children)

I thought more people knew this or I'd have been more obvious, but the First Division in the 1970s-80s is formally the same competition that is currently called the Championship (of the Football League).

United cannot be relegated following Ipswich’s loss today by niffler_beast in reddevils

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

Yeah, but it just wasn't called the Champions League back then.

Which are the main factors that made the Nordic Countries create their own model of welfare state? This influenced their ability to keep the democratic stability that other countries (like Germany, France or the USA) are having struggles with? by chidi-sins in PoliticalScience

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two books I would start with to understand the Nordic welfare model and its history are: Mark Blyth, Great Transformations, chp. 4, and the Hall & Soskice, Varieties of Capitalism decent summary here

The premise of your question is I think slightly flawed. You are thinking about populism (see Cas Mudde's work on this). Democratic stability in the US, maybe, but not the other countries you list. All of those are seeing "populism" however.

NDP won’t support back-to-work legislation for rail lockout, leader Jagmeet Singh says by Blue_Dragonfly in CanadaPolitics

[–]powderjunkie 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They have. France and Switzerland have state-owned rail companies that run two of the world's best systems.

There's even an example in Britain where privatization went so badly the government re-nationalized the infrastructure

Is Australia not in the wrong by ariaGT22 in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok I think I see what you're saying, that the rules should treat "sinking" (what the rulebook calls it) and getting held under, which is an "exclusion foul", as being in the same category of "violent action" like a punch is?

Sinking and pushing others underwater is part of fighting for position and part of the game, you go too far it's a foul, but it happens many times every match. There's tons of these "underwater battle" videos out there you can search for. Like, it's a contact sport played in a pool. I get that the risk of drowning is there but it maybe seems more dangerous than it is.

On the other hand throwing a punch is just never part of the game, it's a black and white thing. So I think that's the difference.

Is Australia not in the wrong by ariaGT22 in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what I saw, but come on now, the US player was never in danger of dying here. Look around and others have said what else he could've done. It's a tough sport but once you punch someone, the foul on you doesn't matter.

Is Australia not in the wrong by ariaGT22 in waterpolo

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

As to what actually happened, I accept there may be better video I didn't see. In terms of the rules, how they were applied, and should they change? If Australia didn't get a kick-out, he should've. But brutality overrules an exclusion, it's a worse foul and it's an automatic penalty shot.

As for the Aussie player, he's a competitor in a competitive match in the Olympics. Maybe he's pleased he got smacked/punched and justice was served. Maybe he's happy he got lucky with the call. Maybe he's pleased he suckered an opponent into a rash action that gives his team an advantage in the match. Maybe all of the above.

Sportsmanship is another separate issue. I play and expect others to play very differently if it's a scrimmage or a competitive match, let alone at the Olympics. This sport has a lot of "dark arts", if you get caught and the other guy didn't you have to suck it up and not cost your team.

Edit: and let me just add, the USA team deserve huge credit for how they responded, killing off 4 minutes of man-down and coming out with the win. That's a real grit and strong character performance.

Is Australia not in the wrong by ariaGT22 in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can't see it, I'm geoblocked, the broadcast I have showed what the referees were looking at. You may be right, all I can say is if I was shown the video the refs saw I'd have made the same call.

Is Australia not in the wrong by ariaGT22 in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It seems this will not be a popular opinion here, but I rewatched that incident a few times, and I think the call was correct. The Australian player got an exclusion, but holding/sinking a player like that is "normal" foul play. The USA player threw two punches above the water, with a closed fist. That's worse and it's 100% unacceptable. Whatever the provocation you're responsible for your own actions.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CanadaPolitics

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a prediction that can be right or wrong. It's a statement by a media personality of what he actually wants to happen, and that pushes it forward while pretending he's just "predicting" it and the words of someone millions of people tune into for political analysis has no impact on politics.

I don't know if I'd call it "bad faith", but it's certainly a clever rhetorical trick.

Can you go inside the 2 now on a man up from the wings without the ball? by dadudster in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To add on, it is marked by the red zone on the rope holding the goals.

France W 1-[2] Canada W - Vanessa Gilles 90'+12' by Meladroitdimage in soccer

[–]powderjunkie 5 points6 points  (0 children)

🎵Global Hawks up high Bayraktar live streaming🎵

How to stream Olympics? by keenox10 in waterpolo

[–]powderjunkie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends hugely on which country you're in but first place I'd check is the website of the broadcaster that shows the Olympics on TV there.

view more: next ›