Victor Villas

I get what they mean but… it’s in such poor taste.

I guess, we’d have to consult with the horse-pilled anon OP if he meant to replace absolutely all driving with horse riding, but I was assuming his take was mostly about day to day trips and not necessarily all trips.

Not in a way amenable to seal the deal a few cities across, unless you get a one way ride up there and you’re prepared to camp/hotel a few nights on the way back

Beyond insane. Every time Doug Ford comes back to mind I’m triple thankful for being represented by David Eby.

Has Singh called for this? Trudeau?

Eby did it, though. And maybe that’s what saved their majority in this very tight election. He surely knows it’s not the effective way to spend, but he also knows that it’s an easy hill to not die on because so few really care about this.

Welcome aboard!

That’s literally what almost every harm reduction activist has been saying for decades, but I’m not saying this to shame you. I barely did it sooner, I was beyond my 30’s when I finally got it. The fact that it takes so long for someone to encounter the rationale for all the effort going into decriminalization, destigmatization, safer-supply and supervised consumption sites… speaks volumes about who really is holding the megaphone of the media apparatus!

That’s my point. The far-right of this country is already working to destroy opposition and we’re closer to implementing climate change denialism policies and going backward on reconciliation than we’re close to having free speech at danger. And in any case, it’s not like the precedent doesn’t exist already or that the far-right needs the precedent to grow fascist.

The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to worry about

Sure. I wouldn’t like to see climate change denialism criminalized in this century and I’d be pretty worried if any government pushed for it - but we’re so so far away from something like that happening. We’re way closer to going backwards in reconciliation.

This slope is not slippery at all. Denying holocaust has been a crime since 2002 1994 in Germany and yet Germany had no issues with upkeeping free speech in the two three decades since.

edit: oops it’s actually older than I thought

:lolsob: tragically accurate joke

Public yes, but not nationalized.

What’s the distinction here? You mean that you want it to be federal instead of provincial? Or that a govt-owned company doesn’t count as nationalized because its governance is too similar to a private company?

What I sparsely understood from your comment is that these agencies need more govt funding and less reliance on fees, which I totally agree. Not sure if that’s what nationalizing transit means, though.

There’s Government Service, and there’s Public Service Badly Managed for Profit. Hint: if our ferry system tries to bill itself as a tour operator, it’s in the latter group.

So is the problem with BC Ferries that it’s badly managed and the way it markets itself… or is the issue that it receives too little govt funding? I think it’s the latter.

Most if not all transit agencies in Canada are already belong to the public (as opposed to private businesses) already, no? TransLink mentioned in the article sure is, BC Transit too. BC Feries too… (kind of, crown is the sole shareholder).

edit: lol what even does it mean to get downvotes for this

It feels like I’m missing something, maybe because I’m not a politician or a transportation engineer. It’s very common that upper spheres of government will provide extra funding focused on capital expenditures like building new infrastructure but won’t commit to operational expenditures like maintenance and salaries.

I wonder if it’s some sort of political game of being able to claim funding for shiny new things, because expansion is flashier than maintenance. Or maybe there’s a real governance aspect to it, considering that OPEX should stay under control at the right level as to not overstep the scope of each sphere of government - transit agencies should not grow accustomed to funding that is supposed to be extra. IDK, I guess I’m not ready to have an opinion on this. I’ll just trust whatever the folks at Movement say.

some might even say a poopyface too

Fair enough. I am in fact looking forward to a future where e-bikes and other electric micro mobility bring the freedom that the oil & gas industries promised and failed to deliver.

Huh, that’s actually a pretty interesting collection. A few I kind of don’t really think hold any weight but some I haven’t thought about before. Cheers.

I mean, there are reasons. But I’m not really advocating for businesses to stop accepting cash, I’m more like curious on why people hold on to having to carry cash so dearly.

especially Canada can and will freeze bank accounts as a back channel way to control people that they disagree with

lol indeed cash is very fit for the tinfoil hat crowd

As for e-payment not working, it happened to me at least 3 times since last year, and it fucking sucks.

Wow, I see. I would not have estimated that many.

How do you imagine elderly people that don’t really understand technology would cope with downloading an app or going to a web site to pay for parking.

Using a card. If they’re able to drive, they’re probably able to carry a card and tap it. Maybe it’s a failure of my imagination but I can’t conceptualize someone being able to drive and park a car and yet this same person can’t use a card.

Edit just to clarify: the article mentions “a smart phone with a credit card to pay for parking” specifically, and I guess it’s my fault for going a bit off topic without a more explicit disclaimer. I don’t think a smart phone should be required for anything. I’m just curious about the anti-cashless movement in general, because a smartphone isn’t the only alternative to cash.