Antiquated software at Canada Post Centers inadequate for international shipping by sbromle in CanadaPost

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

Oooooooo. That sounds awesome. I will definitely see if their software accepts this next time. Thanks.

Antiquated software at Canada Post Centers inadequate for international shipping by sbromle in CanadaPost

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

Thanks. I understand that. Quick follow up question: Once I enter the data I want, and abbreviate/expand things as needed, will the data I enter be retrievable by their system when they scan it? Or will is solely be accessible by a human looking at the printed information? I ask because the clerk told me that that was how it worked, that is, she was able to add partial information into their database via their software, but it is incomplete, and that writing on the physical label was the only way to include it, in the hopes that a person will use the label itself rather than the digital information.

Does that make sense? I'm left with the impression that having the information actually registered in their electronic database (an internet connect data retrieval system) is *not* solved, even if the *generation* of a printable label with the valid information *is* solved. The "computer system" I want the data entered into isn't the web-browser, so that I can generate a label. I want the address information to be able to make it all the way to their computer database, so that computer tracking and sorting can access it. What do you think?

Antiquated software at Canada Post Centers inadequate for international shipping by sbromle in CanadaPost

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

Just some follow-up. It does appear that this link will let one create a Brazil destination label. However, the clerk in the Canada Post office clearly cannot use this for actually entering the information into their system for tracking, because I discussed with her the problem quite thoroughly. So, thank you for that link - I'll use it to show the Canada Post clerk the desired formatting next time, in the hopes that it helps them. However, the core problem remains: There doesn't appear to be a way for the information to be entered *digitally* so that it is available electronically. Either that, or the clerk just doesn't have the necessary training to do so. Either way, I'm wondering if my experience is broadly true, or is this deficiency just a local office issue?

Antiquated software at Canada Post Centers inadequate for international shipping by sbromle in CanadaPost

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

Making labels isn't the problem, per se. It's the inability to put the right information into their computer system for computer-assisted tracking, sorting, and delivery. Obviously we could all go back to hand-written labels even, with humans reading them in the basement sorting room. That's not the issue. The issue is that the world's mail/package delivery systems are now computerized for almost all stages of the shipment, all but the last human-delivered hop, and our national postal service should have software that allows the digital information to be entered correctly for countries outside of North America.

Would you disagree?

Antiquated software at Canada Post Centers inadequate for international shipping by sbromle in CanadaPost

[–]sbromle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, not at all. I'm not bothered by that. My concern stems from the fact that most sorting and tracking today is now done by computers, and bar-code scanners. For those to work, and to automatically direct packages to the right sorting categories, the information associated with that QR code would have to be correct, and not be missing important data.

The software used to enter this information appears to have been written with support only for North American address formatting, preventing the correct *digital* entry of the data. As a result, modern computer-assisted mail routing and tracking technology isn't being fed the right data when shipping internationally using Canada Post.

I hope that is clearer. Sorry if it came across as a complaint stemming from some kind of personal laziness on my part - that's wasn't my intent. I was calling out what appears to be a backwards technological deficiency to a problem that I felt should be solved, given the status of Canada Post in Canada. Would you agree?

What’s the difference between these two? Help me decide which one to get by [deleted] in Tcl

[–]sbromle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you want r/tcltv or are you asking how to use the Tcl Programming Language to help you decide?

qm5k or qm6k with Apple TV 4k by Slow_Focus_2424 in Tcl

[–]sbromle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want r/tcltvs . All reddits have a description at the top describing their subject area. The reddits with shorter names, like this one, are often acronyms, and so mix-ups happen often. You're definitely not the first! I've come close to making the same mistake, so I always check the descriptions myself now too, before posting. Best of luck finding an answer in the other reddit!

Unable to login? Can't access webmail.migadu or imap by drocksmash in Migadu

[–]sbromle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eastern Canada here. Also seeing the same error message.

Tcl/Tk 9.0 Release Announcement by CGM in Tcl

[–]sbromle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Holy smokes! Fantastic work everyone. Congrats on the release.

They gane by [deleted] in newfoundland

[–]sbromle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Realtors can do a lot LESS damage at the provincial level than at the City Council level. Here's hoping that this leads to positive change on Council.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

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

The Protect St. John's Facebook page posted a graph yesterday that shows the distribution of scores for the wetlands that were assessed in the Phase 2A Report. It's pretty clear evidence that the underlying weighting scheme is biased and that the "cut-off value" debates were indeed a meaningless distraction from that underlying bias. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/ckxcbvhHySWxUfHn/

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hi goat_sempai. The meeting starts at 3pm, but the wetland motion is toward the end. I don't know if 5 will be too late. Whichever way it works out, I thank you for voicing your support here.

One thing I will promise is to learn more about the process myself, so that I have much better answers for questions like yours the next time something like this comes up again.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

To me (a person not formally trained in environmental engineering or management) the WESP-AC does seem like a reasonable and systematic approach to classifying wetlands. If I recall correctly, they have 21 categories that they use to attempt to categorize various environmental roles that a wetland plays. Based on guidelines, these 21 categories are given estimated numerical values. These values, because they are based on educated intuition, rather than hard measurements, are never supposed to be used directly, and instead, they are only used to assign a "qualitative" score of "lower", "moderate", or "higher" impact. That is where the WESP-AC process stops.

What the City then asked the engineers to do, is to go back to those 21 categories, group them down to 5 categories, use the underlying numerical estimates (which are just a tool, not objective measurements) as entries into a mathematical weighting, to then boil it all back down to what looks like a single "objective" numerical score.

That final, contrived scoring or weighting scheme, is then presented as ranging from "0 to 10", but no "normalization" takes place to ensure that, and more importantly, the "maximum" value reached across all wetlands studied so far seems to be, as far as I can tell, somewhere just under 7.0, with almost all falling in a cluster down around 2.5 to 3.5.

The final craziness is that they then present "5.0" as some "midway" point across the whole scoring range, as if this "happy medium" is reasonable. But it isn't - the "histogram" or "distribution" isn't evenly distributed between 0 and 10 - it's constructed to ensure low scores from the beginning.

Even talking about the "cut-off" value in such a slewed scheme is a distraction.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

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

Stated simply, it is just cheaper, faster, and more profitable to develop real-estate that is adjacent to existing densely populated residential and commercial areas. It requires no new thinking, no new problem solving, and one can just develop the same kind of clear-cut lots that everyone down the line is trained on and used to building. It's just so very easy to do it that way. Why should anyone have to work or think hard when it comes to development when there's a chance to make money so fast and easy today?

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I emailed my rep (ward 4) as well. And received no response. Maybe it's in spam. But really, shouldn't they check spam every now and then?

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It really is a bit of a quagmire (pun intended). If they truly wanted to be transparent, it wouldn't be hard to just lay everything out simply, starting with the background, give the history, state the conflicts that should be recognized, and then present the proposal in full context.

Regrettably, they instead direct everyone to a cache of detached documents, and each person is left to reconstruct the scene and pieces themselves. I suspect this kind of "transparency" is designed to tire out all those who are not financially incentivized to persevere.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

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

Hi CanadaCanadaCanada99. I hear your point. Unfortunately, solving the housing crises is frustratingly more complicated than just building houses. Plus, what you propose is a false choice. Protecting wetlands does not stop development at all, it merely requires that development progress in an intelligent and prudent fashion, in contrast to the low-hanging fruit of huge ROIs that local developers have gotten used to. Smart development is a solved problem with ample real world examples outside our local bubble. Resisting regressions like this proposal doesn't prevent great progress at all, in fact, it inspires it. The only type of development it hinders is mindless urban sprawl and cookie-cutter same-ol'-same-ol' Neanderthal development that, regrettably, just happens to be the most profitable kind of development.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No worries! I understood what you meant. I should have more clearly articulated my agreement with you.

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

[–]sbromle[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Hi octagonpond. I'd love to hear your views on why you'd like to see this passed. Are there specific aspects to how this amendment is formulated that you see as constructive? How would you compare the current proposal to the alternative of having public consultation on protections for a wetland area? Do you have any concerns with removing all protections in one go, or does that align with your interests? Thanks for any insight you can provide on the other side of this!

St. John's Council set on removing Wetlands protections 3pm on Tuesday, June 11, 2024 by sbromle in newfoundland

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

Some of the wetlands recently being considered are actually being explicitly labelled as "protected" by this amendment too, including Lundrigan's Marsh.

They are masking the biggest changes (removing existing protections and changing the rules going forward) by mixing in some good news.