Great article, thanks.

Unfortunately and as with everything, the actions of a few cause a reaction that affects so many. The rise of the right has been driven primarily by immigration of people looking for the promise of democratic freedom and opportunity. These incidents are used to prevent this migration entirely.

Is this right? Should people have a right to migrate in hopes of a better life? Some you might identify as far left don’t feel boarders should exist at all. Others believe that borders should be sealed and only people who would benefit the society within should enter (sadly based on the colour of their skin as well). The obvious answer is that the best practice probably falls somewhere in the middle.

I have two takes on this. The first is that immigration should be ended as we are entering the end of our societies ability to support existing populations with food and shelter, due to climate change. The second is that regardless of circumstances, never flee your country if you don’t like what’s going on. Fight to change it, even if you have to die trying. That is what I plan to do.

Although I think the volatility of sourcing is probably not a factor in most business (I’m not just talking food), I agree as with everything there would be details to work out. A reasonable exception with regard to information on packaging could be accommodated with a posting on their website. This whole packaging issue has recently been exposed as BS given how quickly and efficiently company’s recently changed packaging and labeling in order to deceive their customers. From my perspective I’ve had enough of corporate crybabies. Thanks for your thoughts and example.

Thank you for adding more substance to my rant. Is the reason for a private business not to disclose the origin of their inputs exactly that by not doing so it deprives me of my right to express my beliefs? Obviously any existing laws or regulations are exactly where I am trying to force change. I don’t agree with the protections offered under trade secrets as I am only suggesting they are forced to add a list of countries and only a percentage of the inputs they represent. In addition I’m already tired of corporations hiding too much under the “trade secret” banner. In general I have not been a fan of corporate governance for some time and feel it is time to bring them to heal. I know this opens up a whole can of worms but I would argue it to the end. Thanks again for your thoughts.

You said it fellow human, lol.

I’m a lazy, not so bright contrarian who doesn’t know the details enough to have formed a sensible defense. What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage and I’m currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.

I understand the many inputs that are involved but if you take the accounting side of things it would take nothing to identify a % for each country involved. The difficulty you suggest sounds more like a marketing complaint. Company’s have all been only to quick lately to demonstrate how convenient it is to change their packaging.

For years I’ve been thinking about forcing a change to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act mentioned here by issuing a charter challenge. My stance would be that not forcing company’s to list all countries of origin and the percentage of material and labour that they make up denies me the information I need to make an informed decision. I have a right to this information so that I can express my support for or against areas of influence that affect my life. Anybody think this would work?

I’m late to the game so I’ll probably skip that step.

Another big winner here is China. I would love to know the contents of that meeting between putin and xi, I think back in 2022(?)

When you wake up in the morning and no ones there, do you rejoice or do you despair. When you bump your head on the end of your bed, does anybody care. Will you end your life with no friend or wife, who will be witness to bare. In that case for you, the solitude true, and the judgement would be that its fair.

I’m happy to support the loops site but how about a volume control.

By that logic what you post on the internet is you ISPs speech and should also be subject to their control. No that I support a “FUCKYOU” plate but the law has to be honest with it’s prejudice.

There is a lot to be said for the positives of an end to democracy. The electorate of Ontario shouldn’t be trusted with these important decisions. This has been true since I started paying attention in the 90’s (so not party relevent). I regret not taking a different path in life to kick ass and chew bubble gum.

Like any word, use it too often for political efficacy and you will inevitably get arguments. It’s all too stupid. It takes the act of killing one person for any reason and conflates it into a competition as to who has suffered the most. Words are unimportant. Actions speak.

Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

Something to do with generating an interference pattern of the wavefronts but nothing that explains it where I’d understand.

Thanks for the info. Really disappointing, but not surprising, that Canada would spend the time and effort to establish the declaration but not promote it through their travel advisory information. The tightrope that is foreign relations is a real problem.

Edit: The link you provided didn’t work for me.

I wonder if a good approach to this would be to get ahead of the AI problem and declare AI sentient (right word?). Then all IP produced by an AI would be owned by that AI and the creator of the AI would have no rights or say over it or the proceeds generated by it. Some would argue that would really hurt the progress in AI but I think that is a possitive in this regard. AI could still be used as a task performer that would generate lots of savings/revenue, it would just stop the IP issue.