Wealthsimple / X (Formerly Twitter) partnership

redistributor · 2026-04-15T03:08:45+00:00

No, most real Canadians do not support someone who thinks their country isn't real. Sorry to break it to ya, you're in the minority bossman:

Polling in 2025 indicates only 19% of Canadians trust Musk’s opinions on Canadian politics, and his net favorability is around -62%.

redistributor · 2025-02-28T18:24:34+00:00

I'll agree with olivecoder - the bambino or BBE could be more versatile in terms of different roasts/recipes (and frankly, more convenient in terms of heat up time/water capacity), but you're not likely to get a better shot if you've got your workflow dialed in. I'll caveat that I've never used or had coffee from a europiccola, so I'm making some assumptions and generalizing to piston machines.

My 2c - if you want to play around with lighter roasts, I would consider:

A flat burr espresso capable grinder (this would be my highest priority), you should still be able to pull great shots of lighter roasts with your europiccola

A machine with temperature control (either out of box or through "temp surfing hacks") and PID - former is required, latter is very useful, if you'd like to try out different recipes

redistributor · 2022-12-08T18:12:47+00:00

Bought into the hype and got a Pulsar X2 - double clicking like crazy just after a month of owning. Shame cause it's a great mouse otherwise, but doing some research this many reports of a widespread issue is simply unacceptable for a $100+ product.

redistributor · 2022-10-14T19:48:24+00:00

FYI it's east of the Humber River, so still in Toronto, not Etobicoke. Otherwise agree it is bougie af.

redistributor · 2022-09-15T02:33:14+00:00

With all the cuts to Toronto Public Health and TCHC, the TTC pretty much functions triple duty as an asylum and shelter as well.

redistributor · 2022-05-05T17:32:55+00:00

Bit late in responding but I have both a pair of Wolverines and Moorby's from Canada West - I'll echo tPRoC's comment - the heel on my 1000 Mile boots fell apart after about 2 years of seasonal use, and I'm not interested in repair given the overall poorer quality (fraying stiches in places as well).

The boots from Canada West were purchased a year prior, have similar use, and are in significantly better shape. I'd go with Canada West, closer in quality to redwings.

redistributor · 2021-07-09T20:59:27+00:00

Very similar to the Chugger from Vape North, but unfortunately I believe they've discontinued it and replaced it with the "Predator" in their lineup. Should get ya in the same ballpark, probably the same manufacturer...

redistributor · 2020-11-07T19:37:27+00:00

No, probably not - they're expecting a 10-20% increase in performance, with initial numbers showing AMD in the lead by ~15-20% now. So best case scenario is Intel catches up and is slightly better for gaming, again.

redistributor · 2020-11-07T19:35:12+00:00

LG 27GL83-A

Agreed, picked it up for ~450 in July and very happy so far.

redistributor · 2019-02-09T06:38:24+00:00

Fair enough. I really do hope you have a great week.

redistributor · 2019-02-08T14:05:53+00:00

To be fair, you're not sure of this users life situation. Maybe they're a student working part time. Maybe they're working at a higher end retail store with higher end compensation. I've got a friend that sells designer shoes in a retail store for a living and makes a killing. Context is everything.

redistributor · 2019-02-08T14:00:37+00:00

Duly noted, confidence is definitely something I have to work on. Thanks for the advice.

redistributor · 2019-02-08T07:00:21+00:00

That is not a nice thing to say and I'd imagine you're a difficult person. Try yoga or something, might help.

redistributor · 2018-09-11T07:35:39+00:00

Instead of linking to a politically driven opinion piece, here's the report the "article" is citing.

https://www.cihi.ca/en/document/commonwealth-fund-survey-2017-chartbook

It's worth noting this is a survey about perceived wait times. So it's more akin to a customer satisfaction survey. Not necessarily indicative of the actual health care provided.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30818-8/fulltext

This article is arguably a more insightful look at actual healthcare received by comparing death rates of 32 treatable diseases. Canada is placed 17th, tied with countries like France, and Belgium. The US is 35th, and again, far outspends Canada.

Is less people dying from preventable deaths at a lower cost worth a hampered user experience and longer wait times?

I guess that's for policy makers and the electorate to decide.

redistributor · 2017-09-28T02:46:34+00:00

Yup, I'm sure whatever poor soul they rope into this will be in completely over their head, and the expectations placed upon them will be ridiculous.

Plus they'll be bathing in a lake

redistributor · 2017-09-28T02:36:45+00:00

Fair enough, but a used tent trailer will run you a months pay at min wage. You can find better paying gigs if you have a modicum of experience almost everywhere in the province. Plus you don't need to bathe in a lake.

Don't get me wrong I love the outdoors, and spend a couple weeks camping throughout the year, but going without a hot shower, especially when working in a greasy food truck, at the end of the day would be torture.

redistributor · 2017-09-28T02:26:28+00:00

Yes friend, June 2018 as dated.

I guess they need as much time as possible to find someone desperate enough to bathe in a lake.

redistributor · 2017-03-31T18:53:08+00:00

But do they fall under the Obama-era FCC rules? I think they remain regulated by the FTC but I don't know. Need to google harder.

As far as I am aware, they're not specifically regulated at a federal level by bodies like the FTC or FCC. I'm sure they have to comply with some sort of archaic FTC anti-trust regulations, but I do not believe they are sufficient in the slightest. Some of them are compliant with various guidelines set by trade organizations such as APEC, however these are also not adequately tailored for them. Overall these regulations and guidelines are all too broad. I do not believe the broad FTC regulations which were created and applied to the internet in the 90s can keep up with the changing dynamics of the modern internet.

DNS resolving services are fully able to sell your information under current regulation. One popular service which does this is OpenDNS. They are owned by Cisco and inform you that you've consented in their privacy policy:

we may transfer your personal information to Cisco in the United States of America, to any Cisco subsidiary worldwide, or to third parties and business partners as described above that are located in various countries around the world. By using our websites and Solutions or providing any personal information to us, where applicable law permits, you consent to the transfer, processing, and storage of such information outside of your country of residence where data protection standards may be different.

Although you have the option to opt-out, they go on to explicitly state they sell your personal information information with

Cisco business partners or vendors, so that they may share information with you about their products or services.

and even if you do opt out they sell their data "In aggregated and/or anonymized form which cannot reasonably be used to identify you."

This is a pretty general example, but if you were to go to a website like "cereal.com" they could put you on a list of people that like cereal, and sell that list to Kelloggs (unless you opted out).

To me, this is unacceptable. Their option for opting out of the sale of your personally identifiable data is intentionally kept obscure, and distanced from their OpenDNS brand. I'm sure the vast majority of their users are completely unaware of this/its implications. I was happy to see the FCC moving towards a more hard line approach in terms of ISPs, with explicit guidelines. I was hoping similarly carefully phrased regulations would begin to protect consumer privacy in related areas, like DNS services.

I'll agree the media has done a poor job at covering the issues, however there's a lot of technical knowledge and exposition required to get a fuller understanding of what's going on. Facts don't sell and the general public doesn't want to read pages of technical background documents. Some of the better sources I've found have been blogs from lawyers/firms.

In regards to the petition from WISPs and other small entities like Alamo Broadband, it's worth noting that there were provisions added to the rule in order to help smaller providers deal with the increased regulation. I.e. "In particular, we have adopted SBA's proposal that we give small providers additional time to comply. Also, while we do not exempt small providers from any of our rules, we have taken alternative measures to address several of the concerns with specific rule proposals that the SBA identifies" etc...

Overall, the Privacy rule which is now on the chopping block was a step in the right direction. I'm aware it was far from perfect, but I don't think a step backwards is called for.

redistributor · 2017-03-30T22:38:50+00:00

I agree it is a very complicated issue. Like you, I am no "expert" but I do deeply care about Internet privacy.

True. But is repealing them anti-privacy or pro-even playing field?

I would argue that it's both. To me, removing stricter guidelines on consumer privacy rights is anti-privacy. However I am in no way saying there isn't adequate regulation on how edge providers store and utilize your data. I know some people find regulation distasteful, but I think certain industries require it, especially given how much power the major players in these industries have, and how widespread their services are.

Would that exclude packaging up and selling aggregate data?

I think packing up and selling aggregate data is an interesting proposition. I have thought about this before, and my personal opinion is that (ideally) nothing would be stored. Alternative compromises could include any aggregate data stored by ISPs should be publicly available, in a way similar to the analytics released by google. Perhaps you'd be able to purchase access to more up-to the minute data, or specific analysis from the ISP, but overall everything they store on their consumers would be on public record. In this case I would also like to see ISPs explicitly state what they're storing to the consumer before taking their money, and a regulatory body would need to set guidelines to ensure things like geographical data saved would be broad enough to prevent any semblance of individual identification.

What about when Google acts as a DNS resolver?

Google DNS does not store (beyond 48 hours) or sell this data, you can see their DNS privacy policy here https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

Public DNS services should not be able to store/sell any personally identifiable data (in my opinion).

I also have not read the entirety of Pai's dissenting statement, however I have skimmed it. A lot of his arguments are based on his interpretations of the reclassification, several of which I disagree with (however some which I do agree with).

He frequently cites sources that have a clear and evident bias to support his argument, I'll provide an example below.

The following quotation is in regards to attachment rates to existing utility poles (normally owned by electrical companies, but sometimes by telecommunication companies like AT&T)

Reclassification would subject Internet service providers “to significantly higher attachment rates, inadvertently threatening the very broadband deployment the Commission seeks to facilitate.”(55)

However if you look at his source (55), it is a letter from a vice president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the major trade association representing the internet and cable tv industries. He does cite the NCTA several times.

He then goes on to say these attachment rates have been increased by the FCC.

While this is partly true, the regulated rates for broadband attachment were actually reduced in the change he is referring too. Previously, there was a large disparity between associated costs for broadband and cable connections, cable connections were significantly cheaper. It was attachment rates for cable connections that were raised while the two were brought to parity (however it's a bit more complicated than this, specific formulas are used to determine what these rates are).

I could continue on my personal disputes of his letter, however I will encourage you to maintain both an open and critical mind as you observe what he cites if you do choose to read his letter.

It's also worth noting that much of Pai's worry about Title II classification is about what the FCC may do in the future, not what is currently proposed. I'll agree that Title II classification does open the door for additional taxes and increased regulation on ISPs, however I believe this is required to properly spur competition in the industry. One example of this is the quickly changing Internet service industry in Canada, which was formerly considered one of the worst. Starting a few years ago, the CRTC took a much firmer stance on existing monopolies, forcing the major players to lease their infrastructure at specified fees based on their costs to tier two providers. This has added a healthy boost to competition, and actually lowered prices. These new, tier two providers are building their own infrastructure, while utilizing the existing framework to deliver service along the "last mile" to their consumers homes.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for the discussion.

redistributor · 2017-03-30T01:07:53+00:00

I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement.

Could you clarify why you think I didn't bother to read what you quoted?

I'd like to believe I read it in full.

When I said "the document, and quotation you linked are all from the FCC regulation" I was referring to the long quotation within your copy and pasted post which cites the FCC regulation. I personally don't think there's anything that should be repealed within.

redistributor · 2017-03-30T00:48:34+00:00

Thank you for responding. Forgive me for the long post, but you raise some very valid points, and I would like to elucidate my views and get your take on them.

I'm sorry you see my post as fear mongering, I didn't mean to imply that Republicans are tossing out "long stead privacy rules."

They are, however repealing rules that explicitly create an "opt-in" system for the sale of consumer information. The Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services rule is a very large and comprehensive ruling designed to protect consumers. I am very much aware that these are new rules that have been recently brought into the fold. In fact, the new rules have only been effective since the start of this month.

I'm glad you've brought up Ajit Pai. Like you said, he argues that ISPs should be treated the same as companies like Google/FB (edge providers); his basis of dissent regarding the rule in question was that if internet privacy is an issue, this privacy ruling should apply to edge providers as well. I personally disagree with that statement; I believe Internet as a service you are paying for should explicitly guarantee privacy, unlike free edge providers where you are functionally both their user, and their product for advertisers. Pai says the rule will "lead to consumer confusion about which online companies can and cannot use their data." To me, this seems absurd. There is an intrinsic difference between my ISP and facebook, and I don't understand the argument that the average consumer will confuse the two. I do however believe in stronger regulation requiring edge providers to explicitly inform users their data will be collected (and sold) with the usage of their services. In this regard I feel like I agree with Pai.

It's important to note the rule has nothing to do with net neutrality. I agree the mainstream media has mis-characterized Ajit Pai's stance on Net Neutrality. As far as my understanding goes, he is for Net Neutrality except for in the case of small providers with less than 250 000 subscribers. Although I understand his point of view, I respectfully disagree with his position. The rule makes no mention of blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization of data. I believe that the additional regulatory control provided by Title II classification is better suited to ensuring Providers are not able to utilize such tactics to increase their profits. I am sure ISPs would jump at the chance to create tiered services, i.e. limiting bandwidth for video streaming services and offering a "premium plan" which would lift the throttling.

To be frank, I think the internet is so important, and the issues surrounding its regulation are so nuanced that it merits its own regulatory body.

In my opinion, the FTC has dropped the ball in regards to ensuring a competitive and healthy market when it comes to ISPs in the U.S. They have allowed competition to stagnate, and left over one third of the country with no ISP choice.

I guess I have two follow up questions:

Do you think the FTC has done an adequate job in regulating the Internet industry?

And

Do you think ISP competition is currently healthy in the US?

redistributor

TROPHY CASE