jerkface

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago

So is every rank full of people going, "idkh2 play vindicta sorry team," or is it just because I'm in the worst humanly achievable rank

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

A hole through a planet is not a bottomless pit. Like any normal hole, it is bounded on both ends. A bottomless pit has one bounded end and one unbounded end.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If there is an infinite column of air, the air entering or leaving the pit should be more or less constant, all else being equal outside the pit. But if there is a finite column of air falling into a vacuum, then there is an infinite vacuum, and I think the pit starts sucking air at the speed of sound.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I have never watched the whole thing before. That was worth the six minutes.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Let's also remember that he (Jonathan Joss) died successfully protecting his husband's life. That doesn't make it better, but it's important.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Okay but the last couple seasons didn't respect the characters anymore. It was time.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

Not just ignorant, benighted. Which is to say, it isn't an accident.

Agriculture gave us the ability to easily grow enough plants to feed everyone. But what if you're not growing food to eat, but to sell? You can only use so much food, but you never have too much money! Now a farm is capital, and capitalism demands growth. But we're already feeding everyone! No problem, refine those cheap, safe, plentiful plants using the bodies of animals to produce scarce and expensive (if unhealthy) meat. Now the economy can support many times as many farms!

It's in the interests of the capitalist owners of our culture for us to eat meat. There will always be a strong anti-vegan influence exerted through that culture, keeping us ignorant.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

less if you don't mind sweating

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

WE'RE ALL BREATHING THE FUMES.

If anything, it's worse in the middle of the lane jammed up another car's exhaust. You think your car protects you from pollution? It exposes you to pollution!

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Violent? That would be a choice. Maybe I'll try it sometime. Anyway, it feels amazing.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago

Rather on the nose, really

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Actually, it's pretty good for that

 

JFC they FINALLY got rid of the F'ing pumpkins, and now I got to deal with Jesus trees and caroling serial killers??

 

... Dan Gibson ... said while he was up against some "orthodoxy in the community,” he believes the city shouldn’t be encouraging winter cycling because it’s “not safe.”

Guelph’s unofficial bicycle mayor and GCAT board member Andrea Bidgood took to social media, dubbing herself Guelph’s orthodox bicycle mayor.

"Vision Zero doesn’t discourage people from moving by a certain mode. It demands we make movement safe," Bidgood said in one post. "Winter cycling is only ‘unsafe’ when the city chooses not to maintain safe conditions. Not maintaining infrastructure and then blaming the people who use it is the opposite of Vision Zero."

 

Global news is reporting that Bill 56 "streamlines" the Clean Water Act. I had my aintern look at the bill (...) with an eye for what the effects on the clean water act are. The biggest change I see is that the bill removes the power of municipalities to place restrictions on any existing polluters in agriculture (the culprits in Walkerton) or industry:

Bill 56 reframes Ontario’s Clean Water Act from a precautionary, locally driven regime toward a centrally managed, discretionary one. The most direct consequence will be reduced ability of local authorities to block high-risk land uses near wells, aquifers, and intake zones. The language of “designed to achieve” introduces interpretive flexibility likely to favour development interests over strict protection.

It doesn't move this power to the province, it just does away with it. Municipalities can set restrictions on the emissions of future polluters, but existing ones are to be grandfathered in.

Why would we want this?? Even assuming someone doesn't have our best interests in mind, why would they want this? The only reason I can see is that they already own large agricultural and industrial polluters.

Overall, this omnibus is clearly the next salvo in Ford's war against municipalities and accountability.

spoiler

Summary of Bill 56’s amendments to the Clean Water Act, 2006 (Ontario)


    1. Limits on local power to block drinking-water threats

    The bill narrows what source protection plans may contain for activities identified as significant drinking-water threats. Only two policy types are allowed:

    • A prohibition, but only for new or future activities (not ones already occurring).

    • A requirement that future decisions be “designed to achieve” stated objectives rather than conform absolutely to them.

    Effect: municipalities and conservation authorities lose the ability to impose binding restrictions on existing industrial, agricultural, or development activities that threaten water sources. Existing operations gain de facto grandfathering.


    1. Ministerial and regulatory centralization

    The Minister gains new authority to:

    • Order reviews and revisions of protection plans.

    • Dictate prescribed wording for policies.

    • Define by regulation which instruments (permits, licences, approvals) are covered and what standards apply.

    Effect: technical and planning control shifts from local source-protection committees toward Queen’s Park. Political discretion replaces many statutory requirements.


    1. Automatic or “deemed” approvals

    If the Minister fails to respond to an amendment within 120 days, the change is automatically approved.

    Effect: inertia now benefits proponents rather than regulators; oversight lapses translate directly into legal authorization.


    1. Repeal of prior conformity clauses

    Repealing subsections 39(7)–(8) removes older requirements ensuring that all provincial and municipal decisions conformed with source-protection policies.

    Effect: weaker linkage between water-protection plans and actual permitting or planning decisions; easier for development to proceed despite unresolved threats.


    1. New “prescribed instrument” system

    A new section 42.1 replaces the earlier catch-all conformity rule with a narrower duty: the decision-maker must ensure the instrument “conforms to the prohibition” or “is designed to achieve objectives.”

    Effect: practical compliance becomes subjective—focused on intent rather than measurable outcomes. Enforcement will rely on ministerial interpretation rather than statutory clarity.


    1. Predicted outcomes
Domain Likely effect Rationale
Environmental protection Moderate-to-severe weakening Fewer enforceable prohibitions; existing threats effectively immunized.
Regulatory speed Faster Deemed-approval and centralized regulation reduce delay.
Local autonomy Reduced Municipalities and conservation authorities lose discretion.
Industry/development Easier project approvals Fewer binding conformity tests; more reliance on design-intent language.
Public transparency Lower More decisions shift to regulation and ministerial order rather than open hearings.
 

The law school has offered courses before, but the program will now allow students to study the topic more deeply through courses, seminars, fellowships, advocacy outreach and research opportunities.

While organizations like Animal Justice exist to help people navigate animal welfare laws and policies, and law programs across the country offer some variety of courses related to animals, U of T's is the first animal law program at a Canadian law school.

 

The federal government has launched a new strategy to reduce the number of animals used in regulatory laboratory testing across Canada — a strategy that some experts estimate could result in thousands fewer animals each year being subjected to painful or toxic tests.

[Story continues via link]

 

After this post, the moderator locked the thread, locked the community, and then deleted it.

view more: next ›