I mean, it probably would’ve been ideal then but as usual, America was recovering from/embroiled in the last Conservative disasters (financial crisis, Afghanistan/Iraq.) And Obama had just burned a lot of political capital giving people healthcare.

“Even if the chances are one in a million” damn. Just think about that the other way! “Even if 999,999 families have to lose a loved one, that seems fair enough to me.”

CBC (Canada’s BBC) article about this, non paywalled:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/john-rustad-fatal-overdose-1.7348135

I think it’s a rose by any other name. As a political name, I think you are right. As a policy, I think it is broadly popular.

Think of Obamacare. It is basically unchanged and now, fairly popular as more have experienced it instead of conservative misinformation. At the beginning, like the carbon tax, it was broadly popular in all but name.

Now, people will absolutely vote based on their misunderstanding of the situation. (This is a program wherein most Canadian citizens get money from the government but more than half of us don’t think we got it and of those who do understand they received it, a sizeable proportion has no idea it has to do with carbon rebates.)

If you took the exact same policy, branded the cheques “Poilievre’s Policies Payback to Canadians” or whatever, it would (minus the chicanery) be broadly popular.

So sure, the name of a thing is unpopular but the thing itself is popular. Your call which you think is more important I guess?

Okay but it does seem odd to claim it’s unpopular when the unpopularity is based on misunderstanding. (Also, would you say trump is unpopular despite his legions of rabid marks fans?)

Let’s go back to Obamacare, which when polled absent the name, was wildly popular. But Obamacare with the name was unpopular.

So, would you say Obamacare was popular, unpopular or complicated? And do you see how this applies to the Carbon Tax, which suffers from the same issue?

Ehhhhhh, I dunno. I mean, it’d be weird to argue donald trump isn’t popular, despite thr majority of folks having an unfavourable opinion of him.

I also think this is sort of like Obamacare which was famously incredibly popular with folks, including Republican voters, as long as you didn’t use the word Obamacare. If you loom at that abacus polling I linked earlier, you’ll note that most folks don’t even seem to realize the cheques they’ve received have anything to do with the carbon tax and many don’t understand they’re getting more than they pay in…

A plurality of Canadians don’t support it.

Though, given that most don’t realize they are receiving the benefits from it, this seems more a messaging issue than a policy one.

But this is kind of the issue. Any environmental legislation is going to have to battle through conservative disinformation. The alternative is the conservative’s plan which seems to “screw it, that’s somebody else’s problem. Specifically, the next generation’s.”

https://abacusdata.ca/carbon-tax-pollution-pricing-carbon-action-incentive-payment-abacus-data-polling/

Deciding that nothing happened or is happening is pretty damned privileged in my opinion.

A good friend and her toddler needed public transit the other week and had to deal with a guy smoking hard drugs at the bus stop who, after boarding the bus and started yelling gay slurs at someone. Is she ever going to be okay putting her kid on public transit alone? Or will she need to take extra time off work to escort her kid everywhere? Or work extra to afford to uber the kid to everything? Or just not leave?

That’s a pretty sketchy but not entirely unusual occurrence here in Vancouver. My heart bleeds for those struggling but that also includes those who need to walk downtown, those who are vulnerable (more than a few girls I know are worried, with good reason, if they have to leave their places alone at night) or the small business owners who’ve given up after replacing their glass windows for the third time in a month. As a reasonable sized dude, I’m fine kind of wherever but I think it’s essential to remember that empathy goes both ways.

My regular stream site started having issues tonight, so this was kind of miraculous timing! Hopefully one of these works!

Awesome, much appreciated!

Fair enough! Thanks!

So say I’m dumb and don’t know how to find a fork like that…

I cancelled prime when they first introduced ads. But the delivery fees without prime, damn. I think I’d pirate shows if I got prime but I’m pretty sure that just makes them think they should invest in fewer shows. And damned if, pre ads, prime didn’t have a lot of my favourites (boys, invincible, end of the expanse etc.)

What a ramble. I’m just torn.

Admittedly, 538 was pretty good about showing their work after. While individual events suffer from the unfalsifiability issue, 538 when Silver was around, did pretty good “how did we do for individual races/states” and compared their given odds to the actual results.

Silver made a prediction. That’s the deliverable.

I see what you’re not getting! You are confusing giving the odds with making a prediction and those are very different.

Let’s go back to the coin flips, maybe it’ll make things more clear.

I or Silver might point out there’s a 75% chance anything besides two heads in a row happening (which is accurate.) If, as will happen 1/4 times, two heads in a row does happen, does that somehow mean the odds I gave were wrong?

Same with Silver and the 2016 election.

You’re conflating things.

Your model itself can be wrong, absolutely.

But for the person above to say Silver got something wrong because a lower probability event happened is a little silly. It’d be like flipping a coin heads side up twice in a row and saying you’ve disproved statistics because heads twice in a row should only happen 1/4 times.

Great, so now in addition to being big enough to kick me to death they can now plan how they’re gonna get away with it.

I just have a vision of trump realizing some rally goer is in trouble and asking his rally attendees to sell him some bottled water at three times the price.

30 years seems reasonable. On an unrelated note, Audrey Hepburn died 31 years ago.

Yeah because rental properties are often shitholes and it skews the numbers

Sure but my point is that this lady has made an extremely expensive purchase and now continues to pay for it.

Most rents are cheaper than mortages.

Yeah because rental properties are often shitholes and it skews the numbers

Rent is usually paying for someone’s mortgage for them, why would they make it lower? Who are these generous landlords?

Ahhh, there’s the misunderstanding. Local/single owner rentals are actually a small proportion of tenancies. Most are large organizations which have purchased a large building etc. It’s actually a kind of fascinating issue but worth reading about!