Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters

Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.

We can’t say that. We don’t know what would’ve happened in Canada if Trump lost.

If Trump lost:

• Trudeau might not have resigned
• if he did, Carney might not have became liberal leader
• The election probably wouldn’t have even happened yet, and the campaign likely would’ve been longer when it was.
• Every party would have run very different campaigns since the top issues wouldn’t have been US relations

A lot of things could’ve been different, but most notably:

• PP might not have run a Trump-esk populist attack campaign.

For all we know PP wouldn’t be seen as “the same MAGA threat”

Careful I hear the guy who lives there is known for not paying his contractors.

Their process is more complicated.

For congress to remove Trump first the house needs to vote with a 50% majority to impeach Trump for “Treason, bribery, or high crimes” the house does get to decide if something Trump has done meets that bar.

Then the senate needs to decide to have a trial not a criminal or civil trial, but a trial to decide of Trump should be removed from office.

Then the house gets to present its case proving the crime, then if the senate votes with a 2/3rds majority to convict, Trump would e removed from office, and barred from any future government office. If convicted, VP Vance would become the president until the next election.

Impeachment is a remedial process, not a punitive one, it can only remove Trump from office it can’t punish him for his crimes, though he may face a separate criminal trial for the same crime at that point.

Genuinely curious: What do you see as the significant differences under such a scenario? What are the pros and cons of these differences?

No one should ignore Trump’s tariff threats. Tariffs would hurt the economies of both countries involved. Literally no one wins in a trade war.

The last time America passed large blanket tariffs like the kind Trump is threatening was the Smoot–Hawley Act of 1930. Which had the effect of reducing both imports and exports by almost 2/3 and was broadly considered to have significantly prolonged the Great Depression.

I’m not sure why Trump thinks tariffs are a good idea. He talks about it like it’s a way to get other countries to pay money to the US… but that’s not how tariffs work. Tariffs cause inflation for the US consumer, which is bad for the economies of both the USA, and the country being tariffed.

I suspect Trump framing of this as “external” revenue will be used to justify income tax cuts which will predominantly benefit the wealthy in the US and the expense of both middle class in both countries.

Countries being threatened by Trump should focus on diversifying their trade partners to mitigate the damage,

Americans should be calling their representatives and demanding they put a halt to this nonsense.

I’m confused friend.

The article you linked to says:

… Canadian lumber producers would not be able to absorb this, the price of lumber will adjust upwards ….

Is that not, quite literally, a direct contradiction of your earlier statement that:

90% of the tariffs will be absorbed by Canadian companies

And if the price increases, is that not the consumer paying the tariffs?

Ummm no.

In the real world consumers ultimately end up paying the tariffs.

Domestic suppliers have a tendency to raise prices is response to increased demand and decrease competition from imports.

When Trump implemented a tariff on Washing Machines in 2018 during his first term. The price of imported washing machines went up, the price of domestic washing machines went up, the price of dryers… which weren’t tariffed went up.

Eventually it did led to more washing machines and dryers being manufactured domestically. Which did lead to a small increase manufacturing in jobs. But it was a net loss for the consumers.

Tariffs function as a flat tax on goods. Like all flat taxes this benefits the wealthy and hurts poor and the working class.

this just feels more like an suped up Switch model.

To be fair, the last 2-3 generations of PlayStation and Xbox consoles have also been a little more than a bump in CPU/GPU specs. Anything else they added was just gimmicky fluff like Kinect that never really caught on.

Were we really expecting Nintendo to come out with something that wasn’t also just a souped up version of the last console?

Dear Mexico,

How about instead of fighting each other because our mentally disturbed neighbour is threatening us with Tariffs. Let’s instead increase trade with each other to strengthen our economies and let the Americans enjoy the shithole they just elected themselves into.

• Canada

If crime is that predictable, that would mean crime is isn’t caused by people’s choices but something else… like say mental illness, poverty, hunger, lack of social supports and that lots of cops locking up people in prisons as a deterrent won’t work to reduce crime… hmmm wait a second…

If Russia is permitted to annex any part of Ukraine it sends the message that they can attack any country and eventually take over parts of it.

If the world doesn’t stop Russia from taking Ukraine, Russia isn’t going to stop once they’ve taken Ukraine.

That looks like marketing, let their six-year-old design the logo. Half the letters or lowercase and half are uppercase.

You seem to be misunderstanding friend.

I’m all for building as much wind, hydro, and solar power as possible. It is the cheapest option.

I’m not arguing against that.

People here seem to think that money spent on nuclear is money NOT spent on Wind/Solar/Hydro/Storage/etc as if there’s a fixed budget for all energy transition projects. That’s not the situation.

Insurance and financial institutions are losing big money on climate change disasters, and they are getting data from their actuaries and climate scientist, saying it’s going to get massively worse. There is rapidly growing interest from “big money” private sector investors, In any technology that might solve the climate crisis.

There’s more money investors wanting invest in wind, solar, or hydroelectric projects, than there are projects to invest it. The limiting factor isn’t money.

Believe me, no one would be happier than me to be proven wrong that we can build enough wind, solar, and hydroelectric to get off a fossil fuels by 2050.

But if you extrapolate the current data and the current trend lines, they don’t come anywhere close.

If we also invest in nuclear, we come closer.

It’s not a question of viability it a question of time.

Can we replace all fossil fuels with wind and solar power only? Absolutely.

Can we do it by 2050? Not without a miracle.

From an investor perspective, solar farm projects are a slam dunk once they reach the point of being ready to purchase panels.

There are a lot of things to line up to build a grid-scale solar farm before you get to that point. You need to acquire (the rights to) the land, get permits to connect to the grid, which usually includes construction of the new transmission line to the grid. You need to line up panels from a manufacturer (who in turn has supply chains to manage), and labor to install it. And 100 other things. It typically takes a few years of planning, but get all that in order and it’s a small percentage of the total expense of the project.

At the point you need to do the larger capital raise needed to buy the panels and hire the labour it’s a slam dunk. The project can be completed typically within 12-24 months so there’s a quick process to get to generating revenue for investors, and because solar has gotten so cheap it doesn’t take long to see positive ROI. It’s not like electricity demand is going away either. It’s a very safe bet, once all the pieces are lined up, and not difficult to raise funds once you get to the point of needing the big money.

People on Lemmy/Reddit have this mental model that there’s a fixed budget for investment in the energy transition. If that was the case, then yes it would make sense to go all in on the cheapest technology option.

But that’s how it works. Energy projects are competing with the global market for investment capital with non-energy related investments and there’s no shortage of wealth wanting to throw money at a solar project because they’re low risk/high ROI.

Nuclear projects are a different story, long timelines from construction to revenue generation and high upfront capital costs make them unfavourable investments, they generally need government support to derisk the investment before investors jump on board. Which the governments are reluctant to do because they lack a mandate to do so from the populace. In part because of this mindset that nuclear investment impedes solar or wind investments.

Solar has been growing exponentially for the past decade or so, wind has not. Wind has run into supply chain limitations on rare earth metals such as neodymium and isn’t growing exponentially anymore.

It’s doubtful that solar will continue growing exponentially for the next 20 years but even if it does, that only gets us to the point of enough capacity to displace the ~17.9 PWh of electricity generated by fossil fuels in 2023.

To get off of fossil fuels we need to change everything else that’s burning fossil fuels too. That means every vehicle replaced with an EV, every gas furnace replaced with a heat pump. As we do that it’s going to 2-3x electricity demand.

The world burned 140 PWh worth of fossil fuels in 2023, and we only generated 1.6 PWh from solar power. That 1.6 is up from 1.3 PWh in 2022. A lot of that 140 PWh was wasted heat energy so we don’t need to get that high, but we still need to generate something in the area of 60-90 PWh of electricity annually to eliminate fossil fuels.

~4/5th of our energy still comes from fossil fuel, we have a long f’ing way to go. Even with the current exponential growth of solar we don’t get off of fossil fuels within 20 years, and that’s assuming global energy demand doesn’t increase.

Don’t take my word for it. Extrapolate the data yourself. Your rose coloured glasses aren’t helping.

We can’t manufacture and install enough solar farms and storage to get us off of fossil fuel within 20 years and more importantly available investment capital isn’t the limiting factor.

Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.

We can do both, and it gets us off fossil fuels sooner.

It’s not quite as crazy as it seems. The older/larger floppy disk formats were more reliable due to their lower track density.

There was more surface area per byte of data. The old floppy disks could be written once and read for years in harsher environments. New floppy disks we more prone to failure after a few years.

Yes that’s correct.

To be more clear, nuclear waste is only a small percentage of the hazardous waste we’ve been disposing of by permanently burying it.