BlameThePeacock

Plus, the US would massively benefit from having tracking stations outside of their own borders to see much further away. The most direct path from anywhere in Russia or China to the US mainland (sorry Alaska and Hawaii) always passes over Canada with the one exception being from Southern China to Oregon and California, and that route passes over Alaska.

They didn't even realize covid was killing them while they died in droves, so my bet is on never.

You think it's a kids job to learn how to become an adult themselves? What the fuck

I'm 40, with my own kids. I've been teaching them everything I think they should know how to do to be an adult when they move out. How to cook and clean, make a budget, fill out forms, how to show up on time, be part of a team, etc. The school is taking care of most of the academics, but I add some extra things that the school fails to cover as extensively as I'd like such as how to properly use Microsoft Excel.

What they do to grow once they're out of the house isn't my problem, I'm just setting the foundation and that absolutely is the job of parents and teachers.

Practice can also be on using AI.

I think a lot of this is going to boil down to companies figuring out how to determine if someone can successfully use AI to produce output faster, or lack the skillset to do so. If you manage to get through university using AI and the profs are happy with the results, why wouldn't a company be happy with the results?

Nobody asks me if I can do the math behind the spreadsheets I build, but I couldn't do most of it by hand at this point because it's been so long since I practiced that.

You're not wrong, but also you aren't right. The basics that you need should be taught to you by your parents and at school before you move out. AI isn't interfering with either of those at this point.

You couldn't manage your life in the event of every possible problem either, the question then becomes which things should you know how to do yourself, and which things can be delegated.

I don't know how to repair a car beyond changing a tire or the oil, but even that isn't really necessary anymore since many cars don't even come with a spare at this point and knowing how to change the oil is now irrelevant to me, since I'm using an EV.

Knowing how to ferment for preservation may come in handy for saving a couple of dollars, but it's hardly a life saving skill anymore. Even in the event of a massive catastrophe, it's unlikely that fermentation would come in handy before aid arrived or you were able to leave the area.

It's pretty much impossible for it to not include at least a good part of Canada. Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal are all within the margin of error distance/routes to the US for incoming ballistic missiles.

This ain't some iron dome 10km range situation.

You fail to realize that in order to get AI to do anything, you have to understand what to ask it in the first place. AI is not likely to do things you can't accomplish at all, you would have no way to validate the results and therefore it would end up causing problems (like we're seeing with people submitting papers written by AI without reviewing them) or making some code that doesn't even compile/run.

It's just a tool for speeding up that work that you already know, like learning the basics of multiplication, then using a calculator for the rest of your life. You still need to understand what multiplication and division are in order to work a calculator properly.

AI all the things? Bad

AI for specific use cases? Good

I use AI probably a dozen times a week for work tasks, saving myself about 2-4 hours of work time on tasks that I know it can do easily in seconds. Simple e-mail draft? Done. Write a complex formula for excel? Easy. Generate a summary of some longer text? Yup.

It's easy to argue that we may become dependant upon it, but that's already true for lots of things. Would you have any idea on how to preserve food if you didn't have a fridge? Would you have any idea on even how to get food if you didn't have a grocery store nearby? How would you organize a party with your friends without a phone? If a computer wasn't tracking your bank balance, how would you keep track of your money? Can you multiply 423 by 365 without using a calculator?

At the end of the day, rent prices are driven by house prices. If rents become too high compared to owning, people just buy.

The current barrier is the upfront cost, but...

The property taxes I propose will drop the current value of homes through the floor. Some highly inefficient homes may actually have a zero or negative value, because they would cost too much in tax each month for anyone to want to buy. They would be scooped up by developers who can make them affordable by building enough units on that property in order to bring the tax per unit down to something people would pay.

Given that the house prices would drop so significantly, so would rent prices across the board.

There isn't actually a lack of land anywhere in Canada, even our most populated city cores haven't hit the densities that would prevent further growth.

There also isn't actually a lack of housing, as I said elsewhere there are more bedrooms in Canada than there are people. We just need policies which incentive people to use them efficiently.

And the government controlling all rentals is an option, but do you really think they're going to keep everything 100% repaired and up to date for everyone? This is going to be a pain point under both options, and I'd rather be able to take private landlord to court to get something fixed than try to take the government itself to court.

People should be allowed to purchase the rights to control land and buildings, it allows them to make more serious changes (construction, renos, landscaping) that they care about. It also allows for long term stability in terms of not getting evicted.

In my system for renters, the duties of a landlord are still taken care of by landlords, since it would still be perfectly legal to own a property and rent it out. It's the same as now, except instead of the landlord making a profit off the month rent AND the property inflating in value over time, they can only make a reasonable profit off the monthly rent and even then only if they're using the land efficiently. It's not the concept of renting that's broken the market, it's the fact that instead of just being a value added service (taking care of the repairs, utilities, etc.) the current market has made it a long term investment. Force it back to just a value added service (like renting cars) and it will be fine.

And I’ve never heard of anybody getting evicted for non-payment of property taxes.

Governments force the sales of properties all the time over unpaid taxes.

Renting is inherently exploitative:

No it isn't, that's only the case when the market fails like a situation with a finite amount of land in a specific area. There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting cars to people, or renting a garden tool you only use once a year, or renting a paddle board for a trip to the lake, or renting a hotel room while travelling.

Once you push the land efficiency aspect via taxes, the land limitation drops off significantly and we can go back to having apartment/home rentals just be something landlords do to earn a little bit of money for providing a service, rather than it doubling their investment every 5 years.

My suggestion to add significant property taxes essentially does the same thing, since you're "renting" from the government when you pay those. Then it applies properly to everyone, and it's not some half cooked system that people can exploit.

I looked up the statscan data for home ownership and cross referenced it against other statscan data on rental buildings and locations of secondary homes(cottages and lake homes)