"Close down your ancestral farms and do as we say or these horrible tribulations and curses will befall you, your cities will be drowned into the ocean, your lands will glow a fiery red, pestilences and disease will succumb you... probably in about 30 years from now when I'm dead and wont have to answer to you when I am wrong.". This is essentially what you are saying and what you believe. What did it take to put you and so many others into this mindset?
I for one, will be alive for another 50 years if you go by how old my grandfather and father are(both still quite alive).
As long as the farmers are made whole if their farms are indeed shut down. Right now that is a 'fear' not an actuality of any policy. Times change, things change. I am pretty confident in saying that these ancestral farms are not run the same today as they were 100 years ago. So their impact is much different.
Also, I feel the same about people that do not want to leave the environment cleaner on all levels. "Who cares about climate change, I'll be dead when the worst of it comes to pass."
> "Close down your ancestral farms and do as we say or these horrible tribulations and curses will befall you, your cities will be drowned into the ocean, your lands will glow a fiery red, pestilences and disease will succumb you."
This is happening now. Regardless of closing the "ancestral farms." Subsidence and storm surges happen every few months globally. Sea levels are rising. Have you been to Venice, Miami, Bangkok, among other cities lately? Flooding and erosion are a constant issues. New Orleans has not and most likely never recover its pre-Katrina population levels in our lifetimes.
Recordbreaking wildfires in Australia, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have all happened in the last five years alone. COVID-19, monkeypox, avian flu, orange trees succumbing to diseases, valley lung, Lyme disease, dengue fever, etc. I hope the rock you're living under is a pleasant place to live.
Multigenerational farms become incorporated groups with familial ownership or multinational corporate control. I don't know of many bucolic countryside farms these days, but if you look at the numbers they've certainly been consolidated and controlled by fewer groups over time. 'Independent family farmers' are a dying group in developed economies.
> What did it take to put you and so many others into this mindset?
For me it was looking at the data and learning more about geology as well as systems thinking.
It was about a decade ago now that I was curious what the big deal was about CO2 ppm rising so high, and then again a few years after that when we reached a new minimum for global sea ice. Looking into the details of these problems and then learning more about how our global energy economic works I started to realize the situation at hand.
The more you understand the data as well as ways of viewing climate modeling from various different scientific communities the more you realize how dire the situation is and how often our models under estimate variance, and how that variance is more likely to be on the "worse than expected" than "better than expected" side of things.
But, I'm also of the perspective that it's far too late. We can't even tackle nitrogen pollution in a relatively progressive area of Europe, we'll never be able to touch on the larger problems we're facing. On top of that the time for action was around 30+ years ago.
I've done the same thing and come to different conclusions about the degree of severity and about how hard economically it will be to overcome. Not saying I'm right but I do think the debate needs to be had, be open and be free from censorship. If the 'other side' can't offer that, then you'll see more extreme reactions.
>The root cause is the system that is geared to keep houses always appreciating via supply constraints: aggressive zoning, discretionary permitting, NIMBYism.
I don't agree that this is the root cause. The root cause is the artificial demand on housing created though our mass immigration policy. Canada accepts _at least_ 500,000 people per year through various channels, "temporary" foreign workers, international students (many of whom stay), refugees, and of course, normal immigration. And I am low balling that number. It could be closer to 1 million.
When you bring in an entire large city worth of people, it stands to reason that this will cause massive pressure on housing prices. Now sustain that yearly increase for decades, and you have the problem we face today.
There are 9 million people in Canada (a country of around 40M) currently living here on 10 year visa's. - Crazy!
So there you have it. How could you leave that completely out from your argument and only blame zoning laws and nimbyism?
When more people show up, you should build more housing. Canada is a big place with a small population relative to its size — you have plenty of space. Your argument might work if Canada was a small island like Singapore, but it is one of the largest countries by land area in the world.
What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have? Zoning laws and nimbyism.
>"What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have?"
That's the wrong way to look at the problem. Developers can already build in the hinterlands, but there's virtually no demand to do so because the economic activity is concentrated in the established cities. You also run into the Siberia problem where despite having massive tracts of "free/undeveloped" land in the taiga, actually inhabiting it is very expensive because of how brutal the weather can be. Unless you have something like a literal gold mine or oil well, the expense of heating the buildings and maintaining the equipment is not at all economically viable.
You don't need to build in the hinterlands. Looking at a map I see space around many major Canadian cities.
Vancouver may be the most constrained geographically but quite a lot of it looks suburban and could be built up if the political will existed.
Or, Canadians could choose to build nothing but single-family homes, but if they make that choice, they should own it and admit it is the real reason rather than blaming foreigners.
>What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have?
There is plenty of cheap, available housing in the hinterlands of Canada. And yet, nobody wants to move there. Why do you think that is? Prime locations are scarce no matter how much land mass you have.
Because people want to move where jobs are available. There is a decades-long trend of urbanization throughout the world, as economies continue their transitions towards services.
Canada has a deep labor shortage in its urban areas, with plenty of pent-up demand for growth.
It's certainly true that if we must perpetually conserve each and every single family home in an urban area, then we'll remain housing-constrained. If that's what everyone wants to do, that's their right, but it's necessarily going to result in lower income and living standards for the country.
Honest question: where are these cheap, available houses? I thought I did live in the hinterlands, and there's nothing in that category here that doesn't need to be torn down. Since I work online, I might be able to move if the prices are right.
In what world are "temporary" foreign workers buying homes in Canada? With what salary? Same with Refugees, students.
Funny how in the first hundred years in Canada, we didn't have any issue with housing costs, despite accepting vast amounts of refugees. I'm not saying it's not making the problem worse, but to SOLELY pin it on them is IMO willful ignorance.
if we banned all immigrants, of any kind, tomorrow, would Canada's housing prices collapse? I'd suspect not: credit is still cheap, and every day canadians still want homes.
In the real world! There's enough rich people in the world, that some of them send their kids to Canada for school. And some of them buy houses.
Why does near every American assume that everyone outside of America is poor.
Temporary Foreign Workers is everyone with a work permit for their first three years (or longer!) regardless of qualifications -- NAFTA means doctors, engineers, and software developers are TFWs for a few years at least until/unless they apply for permanent residency. The idea that they are somehow less wealthy than the average immigrant is incorrect. So to answer "with what salary?": The one from their jobs.
This is factually incorrect. NAFTA workers--TN visas--are not part of the the TFW program, which is something entirely different and requires market assessment impacts.
My residence status for three years under NAFTA was Temporary Foreign Worker. I still have the paper permit. I was exempt from a labor market opinion but all other requirements, such as a single employer sponsor, applied until permanent residency.
If you're referring to mainland Chinese people, China has banned capital outflows in the last two years. It's so bad and strict that mainland Chinese people are freaking out that they can't move their own money outside of China. Game's changed. Wrong scapegoat.
Demand for housing is not artificial merely because it doesn't come from a citizen.
Separately, Canada's population growth rate is the lowest it's been in over a hundred years, and it isn't close. The lower trend continues for decades and decades. The last time the population growth rate was increasing was in the 1950s. So this is a very strange argument to make.
> Canada accepts _at least_ 500,000 people per year through various channels, "temporary" foreign workers, international students (many of whom stay), refugees, and of course, normal immigration. And I am low balling that number. It could be closer to 1 million.
> When you bring in an entire large city worth of people, it stands to reason that this will cause massive pressure on housing prices. Now sustain that yearly increase for decades, and you have the problem we face today.
You make it sound like those people enter Canada and then just sit there doing nothing. Which is wrong.
As long as they're LEGALLY in Canada, I don't see a problem.
They're studying/taking up jobs or whatever, and they're also spending the money that they make in Canada, in Canada. This helps the existing Canadians as well. And some of them start their own businesses. That's how the economy develops. Money should keep rolling.
> There are 9 million people in Canada (a country of around 40M) currently living here on 10 year visa's. - Crazy!
What's so crazy about that? You should check the numbers for USA.
As for the 10 year visa part. From what I know, Canada grants B1/B2 visa with a 10 year validity for businesspeople and tourists. It does not mean they can enter and stay for 10 years. They can enter, stay for sometime (they have to state how long they intend to stay at the time of entry), and then they leave. Or atleast, the vast majority of them do. They have better things to do back home.
By the way, you might also want to look into Canadians emigrating to USA. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Just saying that it happens.
Labor generally ranges from 20-40% of the cost of a home, the land and materials make of the majority. An absolutely massive percentage of all immigrants would need to be in construction to outweigh the increased demand from their presence.
I assume the response would be that with policies that allowed for rampant building/sprawl, the market would sort this all out regardless of the population.
However, these kinds of price spikes still happen in lots of places that have neither a ton of immigration or constraints on building, so it's not clear to me that either one is really a singular root cause.
A price spike, maybe. A long term unending price increase, no. Would love to see an example of a place that doesn't have such constraints on building that has high prices.
Well, it had the ability to be one if a shade tree programmer didn't garbage collect their assets. Something that could easily be tested in an app platform. You could make amazing games that used only a few megs of RAM, or you could make a crappy app that hogs hundreds.
I remember someone posting an article of common nginx config security mistakes but can't find it. Does anyone remember? I would like to read through that again as well.
Not a comprehensive article, but the worst security footgun, by far (IMO), is $uri. It’s completely unsafe to use $uri in basically any directives! You cannot redirect using it, proxy_pass using it, or you will have a bad time.
That's not the metric you should look for (at least you don't need to). You should look at the average age of unvaccinated people. That way you can estimate the prior probability of infection.
From that, you can figure out that there are more people unvaccinated under 12 years old, than in the entire rest of the population, by a large margins - out of 7.6 million people without full vaccination, 2.9 million are between 5 and 11 years old, and 1.9 million people are under 5 years old.
So out of the 7.6 million people who aren't fully vaccinated, 4.8 million are under 12 years old!
And from 2.8 million remaining, 430k of those are under 18, and 1.0 million are under 30.
From this, we can figure out that the pre-vaccine hospitalization risk for the unvaccinated population is much, much lower than for the normal population.
This is without taking into account health status, of course!
Its good to see that its mostly young people who are at lower risk that are of the unvaxed, however the majority of ICU cases in Canada are still of the unvaxed, so that's why I am curious what is the average age of the unvaxed in the ICU. If 92-99% of people over 60 are vaxed, but its the 60+ demographic of unvaxed taking up ICU spaces, what more can be demanded by the government? Forcing younger people who are unvaxed might not reduce ICU cases very much.
I jumped on the train recently after the wife suggested it. And have heard some promising info from watching some John Campbell's videos and a bit of googling around about it. Been taking 4000/day since August and do feel better overall. Haven't caught any colds yet (knock on wood). From what I had read, 4000 was the max suggested amount to be safe. I'm hoping that I won't get any bad colds this winter by doing this.
> I'm hoping that I won't get any bad colds this winter by doing this.
Unfortunately, I was still getting colds regularly while my blood levels were around 100ng/mL.
This is the type of magical Vitamin D thinking I was talking about: Fixing a vitamin D deficiency is a positive improvement, but it's not a miracle vitamin.
No one got colds "regularly" during last year's "lockdown and mask" periods, or during the summer. Maybe, if you had a kid in preschool, but they have been closed during those periods as well. There is something unique about your situation you are unaware of or perhaps not telling us.
I'd stop giving out advice to a population that is almost certainly, mostly deficient in Vitamin D. Sure, don't overdo it, but as it is quite hard to, probably affecting a tiny percent of the population, is a lesser concern right now.
As a fellow computer nerd, I bought into the same narratives. That's how I ended up approaching Vitamin D toxicity as I mentioned above.
That's my point: The narratives around Vitamin D are getting greatly exaggerated. Mild supplementation is usually fine, but this idea that we're all deficient and we all need to be taking huge doses is getting out of control on social media.
I was told by my doctor I was, about a year before covid hit. Now I take vitamin D and C supplements and try to spend more time outside. My guess is that a lot of indoor computer workers are going to be deficient, but it's something your bloodwork can show you.
There is little evidence of any health benefit from oral vitamin C supplementation. If you have a normal metabolism and eat at least a little bit of fresh produce then you're probably getting enough. Any excess isn't absorbed, just pissed away.
Intravenous vitamin C might be another story and there is active research underway as a potential treatment for several conditions. I don't think any conclusive results have been reached yet.
