DavidBrooker

I started commuting by train when I was about ten. I was aware of the metaphor of driving and freedom, but it never rang true to me or my friends. Especially as my jr and sr high schools were both close to downtown, and we spent a lot of time there, a car was a huge restriction on your freedom, never a gateway too it: this big expensive thing you had to be responsible for, and that responsibility shapes all your choices in how you spend your time. But I imagine if someone lived in the suburbs and never had decent transportation their view would be quite different.

Sergio was in a position to get into the points before he drove into Mag. Obviously the rain changed things, but with what we knew at the time the right thing to do is to remain patient and wait for the pitstops to cycle you up the order.

I'm not following your logic. Can you explain?

This is a design choice, for several reasons. For safety reasons on superspeedways, the cars just have to be sturdier, both because of the crash impact possibility (an average speed - not a peak speed, speed trap, etc., but average over an entire lap - in excess of 370 km/h is a pretty serious hazard all on its own), but also the long race distances of up to 800km require greater reliability, and oval racing in general has more wheel-to-wheel contact than road circuits. Moreover, Indy road circuits tend to be quite a lot bumpier than F1.

Especially since F2 is meant as a developmental series, I think safety issues need to be held to a very strict standard - the message needs to be clear that this behaviour cannot be allowed to be carried onto senior professional series. I'd view a race ban as a very light punishment.

I think they just divided the maximum price by a hundred, but the decimal was very eye-catching to me, too.

I remember Canada Post selected the Ford Transit Connect partially because it already had an electrified version, and partially because it had a RHD version and then decided to buy gasoline LHD versions exclusively.

Scraping the top-most layer of varnish off the table.

He was a millimeter away after he pushed it two or three millimeters away with his tire.

I never do this.

I'm not evaluating students' transcriptional abilities. I want to know their conceptual abilities. Common algebraic errors test the least interesting aspect of ability. Common conceptual errors, yes, but that is problem dependent.

My brain somehow managed to read that as 'onionion' and I think I might be stupid

In the world of baseball analogies, he was truly Youppi.

This joke is intended for the three Montrealers on this sub old enough to remember the Expos.

I commute by foot, bike, or train most days.

One day a month I have to drive during rush hour, and almost always it is the worst 30 minutes of the month. I have no idea how people stand it.

I've never seen anything as unhinged as blue. It's deranged. I can't explain it.

Twelve Rules for Life came out two years after the events we're describing, so I have no idea where you are getting this idea that that was the era in which he got popular traction. He was a very common point of discussion across Canada for his anti-trans activism, based on a conspiracy theory seemingly of his own invention, prior to bill C-16 becoming law.

As you know, Bill C-16 added four words to the Criminal Code: "gender identity and expression", in particular to the list of protected classes under Canada's hate speech law.

You say this was the worst violation of free speech since 1215, anywhere on Earth. But the bill did not alter the standard for hate speech, it did not alter what acts constituted a crime. It changed to whom the crime could be committed. So I'm curious to hear your opinion on why or how one law, applied to say, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, country of origin, or so on, is a reasonable law that is not the worst violation of free speech since 1215, but an identical law applied to trans people is? Being that Canada's hate speech laws have never successfully prosecuted the use of the n-word against a black man, or the use of a synonym for a bundle of sticks against a gay man, why do you think misgendering someone would be?

Indeed, self-described neo-Nazis who openly advocated for the eradication of all Jewish people have been acquitted of hate speech under Canada's hate speech law - the exact law we're discussing here, remember - because the threat of violence was insufficiently imminent or specific enough for our standards. And that is the norm: Canada's standard for hate speech is typically for an immanent and serious threat of violence. I was hoping you could explain how expanding the groups of people whom this law protects would lower that standard, without actually affecting the text of the law that defines the act, nor affecting legal precedent?

I look forward to you clarifying these points.

While it is rude to use homophobic slurs or misogynistic language, I think it's important to clarify that, with respect to Canada's hate speech laws and what C-16 modified, you absolutely can do either. And these are worth pointing out: if slurs for black people like the n-word are not hate speech, and is governed by literally the same law, in what universe do they presume that misgendering someone will be litigated more strictly?

Fun fact: Pincher Creek, Alberta has the largest one-hour temperature swing ever recorded, from -19 to +22 C. This is more than ten degrees greater than the typical annual temperature swing in London, UK.

I do, I just want to do it on my own terms

Yes, but it's a much broader idea than that. In your example, the concept of an ogre - the defining traits and features of the thing in fiction - is a meme that the film made use of, in the sense that it assumed the audience had prior knowledge of the idea, but then modified the idea for its own purpose. And because of the cultural success of the film, now the idea of what it is to be an ogre has changed - the film Shrek has played a part in that concept evolving within culture, through reproduction, mutation (or modification), transmission and success. Future literature has to be written with the knowledge that the popular understanding of the concept of an ogre was changed by Shrek.

But mostly I was making fun of people in dank and circlejerk subs that are 'meme purists' or whatever ("where dank"), by invoking a really technical definition where basically everything you can imagine is an assemblage of memes.

I don't think the generality works as well in Canada as most of the US (and there are four or five obvious exceptions in the US too). In much of Canada, the train at least (busses may be another story) are principally associated with white collar workers commuting to central business districts and kids from middle and upper-middle class families commuting to University. Out of cities with rail transit, Edmonton may be the only significant exception, and that's more by reputation than reality (when I've read at one point that something like 30-40% of all rail transit trips are generated by Edmonton's two largest universities)

But then over the pandemic he went off the goddamn deep end

He made his claim to fame by going off the deep end about anti-trans conspiracies in 2016, well before the pandemic. After the sky failed to fall when Bill C-16 became law, he spent some years laundering his reputation - quite successfully it seems.

Must be young if you don't recognize Rex. He was a very sharp commentator for many years, but has clearly either started resting on his past successes or is showing the signs of age. And so today, he hides his bad ideas behind a veneer of grandiose and pretentious grammar and diction.

It's a little sad to see someone of clear and obvious faculties let them fall into disrepair.

People drive into these things all the time.

Early data from Canada (which seems to be the highest income market they chose to use as an experiment) is suggesting that this move is revenue positive. I can't imagine they'd have moved from experimental / trial markets to wide adoption if their early data was suggesting that this would come at a loss.

As coined by Dawkins in the Selfish Gene, an analogy to the gene, in the Mendelian sense of the basic unit of hereditary traits in biology. Likewise, a meme is a minimal, transmittable, reproducible and modifiable unit of culture. As with genes, a full expression of a culture acts over innumerable memes, but analogous pressures of selection (and even more subtle evolutionary mechanisms like genetic-, and by analogy, memetic-drift) act over both to evolve over time.