In case you don’t understand what I’m saying, that means this is a kill site for human beings.
We understand what the term means when you put two words together, the part that needs clarification isn’t the meaning of the words but why you think it’s a kill site.
Lol Dean Blundell the shock jock? Is this audio legit? Has anyone vetted that it’s not faked?
deleted by creator
Auto manufacturing is already done in North America.
All the posturing about tariffs before the election was about bringing back the manufacturing that has been off shored from North America to countries with lower labour standards (i.e. to India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc.), and in the case of China, to stop being so dependent on a country that is veering on outright hostility.
The tariffs against Mexico and Canada have always been asinine and have never served a purpose, and quite frankly, using your economic weight to avoid competition and steal your neighbours jobs doesn’t benefit the world, it’s just being a greedy and immoral dick.
In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of “density” that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.
Soullessness and rent-seeking is what happens when housing is controlled by for-profit entities, and once you start building housing as system that is bigger, more expensive, or more complex, then one person / small family / support network can manage, then you inherently need to cede control and responsibility to a larger outside entity, which ends up being a corporation.
Even cities like Boston that have a relatively large amount of mid rise housing still have massive housing costs that suck residents dry because it all ends up being landlord controlled.
Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.
I’m no fan of suburbs, but at an inherent level (assuming no crazy HOA), you have far more control of any house that you own over any space in a building that you do. Your average 100 year old suburban home will have far more charm and look far more unique than your average 100 year old apartment unit or condo.
That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels, their maintenance and upkeep, etc. etc.) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar possible from us.
When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want because at a fundamental level a single person or couple can afford the materials it takes to build a home, and after it’s built they can afford to pay a local contractor who lives nearby to make modifications to it.
What they don’t have, is the up front resources to build a 20 story condo building. So instead they can buy a portion of a building that someone else has already built, which leaves them with no say in what is actually built in the first place. Ongoing possible changes and customizations are very limited by the constraints of the building itself, and the maintenance and repairs have to be farmed out to a nother corporation with the specialty knowledge and service staff to keep building systems running 24/7.
Yes, this is more efficient from an operating standpoint, but it’s also more brittle, with less personal ownership, less room for individuality and beautification, and more inherent dependence on larger organizing bodies which always end up being private companies (which usually means people are being exploited).
In addition, when you expand outwards, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities and your elected government, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, but when you build up with condos, you just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.
And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively dense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible. In the case of larger apartment buildings, you’ve effectively fully ceded a huge portion of the ‘last mile’ of municipal responsibilities to private corporations.
Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, and places like Habitat 67 prove that density does not inherently have to be miserable and soulless, however, the act of densifying without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is a huge pressure increasing the corporatization of housing.
Taking shots at Drake when Trump is there seems kinda petty tho.
The article also doesn’t say they couldn’t or wouldn’t intensify operations any further. They talk about the state today, not down the line in the future
Yes it does. It literally says that our supply management system is designed to spread out production across regions so that you can’t ever have that many eggs produced in a single place.
If you’re saying ‘well maybe Canada will throw out it’s supply management system and do something completely different’ then sure, literally anything can happen in the future, that’s not a meaningful point. The point is that Canada’s supply management system prioritizes production being distributed over greater areas which inherently leads to smaller farms and helps to prevent the spread of disease, and is a better system than the American one of mass concentration and racing to the bottom.
The article is literally entirely about how Canada’s supply management system prevents us from moving that direction.
Yeah, factory farming is still shit, but there is a structural difference with allowing farms to concentrate to the level that American farms do. When an infectious disease hits, you cull a far greater proportion of the population.
Supply management doesn’t solve all ethical issues with eggs and dairy, but it is still a better system than unregulated free market capitalism.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/egg-prices-avian-flu-canada-us-1.7450654
It’s not an unsolvable problem. Eggs in Canada are cheap and have remained cheap. The problem is with unchecked capitalism.
America is in the find out phase when it comes to fucking around with letting capitalism min max ‘efficiency’ over resiliency.
This is just mindless bitching from an apparent idiot.
How could you be possibly be benefiting corporations, but perceived by voters as too far left? I don’t know!!! What possible mechanism could ever lead to that outcome!!!? I’m flabbergasted!!. /s
Like Jesus Christ, if that’s your question then the obvious answer is that policy and messaging can be divorced, on top of the fact that social policy and economic policy have very little to do with each other.
Beyond that it’s just bitching and blaming the entirety of our corporate wealth issues on Trudeau like Canada is different or unique compared to literally any other western nation.
By god that seems like the dumbest possible choice given that the Democrats are routinely criticized for being elite and out of touch.
How about a giant, ever gazing, magical, orb displaying our leader’s head with a command for the public? Surely that will make us seem down to earth and in touch with the common person.
As a country, we should be allowed to play a ‘discard your hand and draw a new one’ card.
Pretty gross and classless.
I personally have policy issues with the Liberals, and a couple specific areas where I think they let us down, but this is just pure electioneering politicking that completely ignores the human beings involved. Opening up with “Justin Trudeau is a bastard man who made things worse”, instead of “we may not have agreed on everything, but I do want to thank Mr Trudeau for his years of public service in office”, is just flat out small and gross in my mind.
It’s something PP would do, it’s something Trump would do, it’s not something Jack Layton would do, and it’s quite frankly, not something Trudeau would do. If nothing else, the responses to his resignation have made it clear that he was the only party leader who actually had basic leadership qualities.
Bruh, Musk is a low life piece of shit with more than enough valid reasons to shit on him.
So when you flat out make up reaching bullshit like this, it just gives his fans reason to think his haters are rabid and irrational.
Don’t project your childishness onto others, and don’t make up baseless bullshit about automotive safety. You wanna talk about the, imho, flat out criminally negligent placement of Tesla’s emergency door releases, I’m all there. You wanna talk about how having a strong roll cage around the car makes it more dangerous and I’m gonna need to see something backing that up. Spreading misinformation is still spreading misinformation.
You have literally zero data or source to back that up. You made up bullshit because you’re salty about Musk.
Batteries catch fire, they don’t explode, and the batteries are located beneath the steel floor.
No, it doesn’t, cars don’t usually explode from internal sources that would ricochet off the walls.
Occupants usually die from external things crumpling / penetrating the shell, or just from the internal forces of coming to a stop too fast.
I hate Musk as much as the next person but this an absurd reach. Not every possible factor of everything he’s ever touched has to be bad in every way.
Decades of Republicans and Republican partisan media already did that. Sinema and Manchin were end game symptoms, not causes.
No, that seems incredibly toxic.