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?

Need to fix the broken FPTP voting system first. Otherwise any left leaning political party will just take votes away from the dems and hand the election to the republicans.

And Republicans know this by the way, any left leaning fringe party will get financial donations from the Republican Party,

Hmm… TIL The word condone means something slightly different than I thought.

That said, one can still want a murderer to face justice while also not being upset about the victim death.

But I suspect this story has quite few people realizing they do condone murder in some cases.

I want to see a trial.

I also want to start a go fund me for his or her legal defence find.

I’d love to see a well funded law firm make the argument that the shooter acted in defence of self and others and drag all of UHC bullshit under a very large and uncomfortable deposition microscope to prove the CEO was responsible for letting people die.

Maybe we could even start putting these health insurance CEOs on trial for all the wrongful deaths they’re causing without needing someone to take justice into their own hands first.

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…

Not wanting to be “that guy” but……

Ack-sh-wa-ly…. Apple added window snapping in the latest release of MacOS.

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.

I hate to say it but the NDP need to replace Singh with someone more charismatic.

There’s too much Trudeau hate for the Liberals to have a chance. Too many people will be voting “anything but liberal” this election because they blame Trudeau.

Right now conservatives feel like the only other option because there’s also enough racists to not to vote for Singh.

We need another NDP leader like Jack Layton that people will see as a symbol of change or we’ll be following in the Americans footsteps.

During his first term Trump put a tariffs on Washing Machines. The price of imported washing machines went up. The price of domestically manufactured washing machines was also raised. Even the price of dryers — which didn’t have a tariff — went up on both imported and domestically manufactured appliances.

I have yet to see an economist that thinks Trumps tariff plans will benefit the working class.

As a Gen-X’er I read this and started wondering what “Gyatt” means…. As an (ex-)redditor I know not to ask.

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

The same time you stop measuring age in months.

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.