[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

There's a communist party of Israel? Are they actually communist?

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

IMO, simple fact that the majority of drunk drivers survive accidents that kill their victim instantly shows that no higher power is looking out to punish the wicked or protect the innocent.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The aggressor, in the process of atoning for their atrocities, has no right to say that the recourse proposed by the victim is unreasonable.

We are the colonial aggressors, Indigenous people are the colonized victims.

Let's say a man and a woman live in the same house, and the man hits the woman. If the man is truly seeking to atone for his crime, and the woman tells him to move out because even seeing his face is traumayic for her, would it be reasonable for the man to complain that he has nowhere else to go? To ask the woman where she thinks he should go? To try and guilt the woman into letting him stay? If he does any of those, is he truly sorry for what he did?

You're right that most Indigenous people don't want mass expulsion. We should be incredibly grateful for that and it's a testament of their compassion and desire for equality among all people. What we shouldn't do is tell them that they can't tell us to leave or that we'd refuse to leave because we have a rightful claim to this land. Doing so is completely unproductive and will only serve to make us less deserving of getting to stay.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in “waging a multi-generational genocide”; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.

The goal is not to punish anyone, nor is the goal to kick everyone out. The only goal of decolonization is to give back control of the land which was forcibly taken. Like Cowbee said, you give them the reigns, and then you let go. The logical extreme of this is that if they wanted everyone to leave, they could in theory, but that's only a logical extreme and it doesn't mean it will definitely happen. The majority of Indigenous groups make it pretty clear that's not what they want out of decolonization.

Indigenous peoples are not interested in punishing you. Most aren't even interested in having you go anywhere. They're reasonable people with empathy and compassion. The notion that you were born here not by choice is not lost on them.

I think this thread is focusing way too much on the notion that Indigenous people could force you out of their land and many people are under the assumption that they will definitely treat you worse than the current government treats you for not being Indigenous. But honestly, the way the current government treats even non-Indigenous people is absolute shit and getting worse by the day, so there's no reason not to think our lives would be better under Indigenous sovereignty.

I recommend the book The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save our Earth if you're interested in what decolonization looks like from the perspective of Indigenous people. They certainly don't solely think about benefiting themselves.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

At what scale? I'd say it's definitely closer to colonialism than it is to Indigenous wars. No doubt some Indigenous groups were capable of immense cruelty to those around them, but a continent wide ethnic cleansing is something utterly incomprehensible to even the most expansionist Indigenous groups.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago

The thing that gets me is that even if we catch sight of what is indisputably signs of intelligent life from another planet, due to the magnitude of the universe and the comparatively slow speed of light, what we're seeing is thousands or millions of years in the past. Even if we get a transmission from an alien species, they're likely long extinct by the time we receive it, let alone the time it will take for a reply to get back to them.

Same for us too. Any life that can see us will not be from our time, they will be eons in the future by which our species will be long gone.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

As if indegenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother.

Not at the scale colonialism has, no. Skirmishes and even conquest between individual tribes is fundamentally different from the systematic genocide of an entire continent's population.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The human population is the highest it's ever been and is only increasing, yet the average person has never felt more alone.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Not having to use JS is below all of those.

I hate how that's the language everything is slowly converging to. Even if you don't work on websites, you always have this fear in the back of your mind that one day your project will be infected.

It's not even easy like people claim it is. I find JS significantly more difficult than Java because there are way more things that can go wrong and troubleshooting is way more frustrating. Just because the app will launch even with errors in the code does not make it easier in the long run. Compile time errors are good actually.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I'm not saying it's okay or not okay to treat you like anything. I certainly don't want you to be treated badly. I'm saying it's not my place to say what Indigenous people want out of decolonization.

I admit I was being snarky in a lot of my replies because I was ticked off by your comments. You mentioned deportation and jail and I just said "yeah those are possibilities." Reading it back I can see how I should have put more nuance into this.

I should definitely have stressed this in my previous responses, but Indigenous people are naturally extremely diverse and there is no single agreed upon narrative of what decolonization will entail. There will be some Indigenous groups that only want to be left alone on their land, but there will be others that don't have a problem with anyone living on their land. You can see some of this diversity in the different Indigenous groups' views on immigration, but those views are likely different from the views they will adopt after decolonization. The notion that all the Indigenous groups will either unanimously let you stay or tell you to leave is not the correct way to think about it.

Also, Indigenous territories overlap and Indigenous people generally have more nuanced ideas of "territory" and "ownership" compared to European cultures and their strict borders for property and sovereignty. Go to native-land.ca and see for yourself. Indigenous peoples tend to focus more on mutual agreements and understanding between neighbors as to who uses what resources, agreements which are fluid and based on the needs of the people living there, as opposed to drawing lines on a map. Concepts like citizenship and deportation are based on the European framework of sovereignty, not Indigenous ones.

As to what all this entails for the settlers living here? I can't say. Everything in North America is built around colonialism and we settlers can't really imagine what it will be like for all of that to be removed with any degree of accuracy. But I highly doubt there will be large scale forced expulsions. I'd say it's more likely that the notions of property and land titles dissolve in favour of a more nuanced and community oriented approach to where people live. We will have to adopt this paradigm if we want to continue living here.

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 hours ago

That's supposed to make it better?

1
26
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Getting tired of this bullshit.

Text of the article at the time of posting:

Trump threatening 35% tariffs on Canadian goods across the board

Trump and PM Carney have been locked in negotiations to reach a trade agreement by July 21

Darren Major · CBC News · Posted: Jul 10, 2025 5:46 PM PDT | Last Updated: 15 minutes ago

U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to slap a 35 per cent tariff on all Canadian goods as the two countries have been engaged in negotiations to reach some sort of trade agreement.

Trump's latest threat came in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney that the president posted to his social media site, Truth Social, on Thursday evening.

"There will be no tariff if Canada, or companies within your country, decide to manufacture product within the United States," the letter reads.

Trump said the tariffs will take effect on Aug. 1, and wrote that he will increase the levies if Canada retaliates.

Trump and Carney have been locked in negotiations to come to some sort of trade resolution by July 21. CBC News has reached out to the Prime Minister's Office for comment.

In his letter, Trump again cited fentanyl "pouring" into the U.S. from Canada — even though data continues to show that minimal amounts of the drug are crossing the Canada-U.S. border compared to the U.S.'s southern border.

Trump has been complaining about fentanyl crossing the northern border since he was re-elected in November, and after taking office he imposed tariffs he said are designed to punish Canada for not doing enough to crack down on the fentanyl drug trade.

Now, the president seems to be taking the border-related tariffs a step further by promising a 35 per cent levy. The U.S. is currently imposing a 25 per cent tariff on all non-CUSMA compliant goods coming from Canada and a lower 10 per cent rate on energy and potash as part of a border-related tariffs regime.

Ottawa announced a $1.3-billion investment in border security and named a fentanyl czar to address the fentanyl concerns coming from the White House.

The U.S. has also hit Canadian steel, aluminum and autos with an import levy, which have been particularly damaging to the Canadian economy, leading to job losses and a drop in exports.

Trump has also been promising to slap a 50 per cent tariff on copper coming into the U.S. According to federal data, Canada exported some $9.3 billion worth of copper and copper-based products in 2023, with a majority of that — 52 per cent — going to the U.S. China and Japan followed, with 17 and 12 per cent of Canadian exports, respectively.

24

I don't fly that often, and when I do, I pick the cheapest airline possible. Maybe I'm just lucky but I've personally never had budget airlines screw me over all that much. The delays and getting upcharged for everything is expected, but I've never actually been in a situation where a flight got cancelled and they just left me to sleep in the terminal overnight or anything like that, so I never really considered paying more for one of the "normal" airlines.

I'm curious as to what economy is like on a non-budget airline. They can be over double the cost of a budget airline ticket so do you actually get double the service? Anyone who has a lot of experience flying both want to weigh in on how they compare?

708
241
44
13
10
submitted 2 weeks ago by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/android@lemmy.ml

Currently using htop on termux but would ideally like something similar to the system monitor on KDE, that can show a graph of individual core usage as well as memory usage. Does anything like that exist that's open source?

10
8
22
97

Archive of the article at the time of posting:

‘We have all the cards’: Trump ending all trade talks with Canada ‘immediately’ over digital services tax

By Spencer Van Dyk

Updated: June 27, 2025 at 5:29PM EDT

Published: June 27, 2025 at 1:53PM EDT

U.S. President Donald Trump says his team is ending all trade talks with Canada, “effective immediately,” citing disagreement over Canada’s controversial digital services tax as the reason for shutting down negotiations.

He made the announcement in a post Friday on Truth Social, calling the levy “a direct and blatant attack” on the U.S. and its technology companies.

Trump’s announcement is a wrench in ongoing trade discussions between the two countries, which have been in the throes of a trade war for months, since the president’s first slate of tariffs on Canadian goods in February.

Trump has since levied a series of sweeping and stacked tariffs on Canadian products, targeting a range of industries. Canadian countermeasures are also in place.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, held a closed-to-media meeting with members of the Prime Minister’s Council on Canada-U.S. Relations earlier Friday.

On his way out of the meeting, the prime minister told reporters he had not spoken with the president since the latter posted to Truth Social.

“The Canadian government will continue to engage in these complex negotiations with the United States in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses,” reads a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office Friday afternoon.

Following the G7 meetings in Kananaskis, Alta. earlier this month, Trump and Carney said they would pursue negotiations toward a new trade and security deal by mid-July, a 30-day deadline from their discussions in the Rockies.

Trump, however, now says he’s ending the talks.

“We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven-day period,” Trump wrote in his Truth Social post.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Friday afternoon, Trump initially refused to answer a question about Canada, saying he was dealing with a “much more important subject,” signing a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

When he was asked again about trade negotiations, however, he said: “Canada has been a very difficult country to deal with over the years,” and calling the government “foolish” for implementing the tax.

“They put a tax on companies that were American companies that they shouldn’t. A very, very severe tax,” Trump said. “And, yeah, I guess they could remove it. They will. But I mean, it doesn’t matter to me.”

“We have all the cards. We have all the cards,” he added. “You know, we do a lot of business with Canada, but relatively little. They do most of their businesses with us. And when you have that circumstance, you treat people better.”

Digital services tax ‘discriminatory’: former U.S. trade rep

The tax — first pitched by the Liberals in their 2021 budget — sees the federal government impose a three per cent levy on revenues over $20 million from tech giants earning money off Canadian content and Canadian users.

It has been deeply unpopular and widely criticized by American lawmakers for years. They argue the policy disproportionately impacts U.S. companies, with former Biden administration U.S. trade representative Katherine Tai calling the levy “discriminatory.”

The first payment of the tax is due Monday and will charge retroactively to 2022.

In an interview on CTV’s Question Period in December, former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau told host Vassy Kapelos that if the Canadian government wanted to make headway with the U.S. administration, it should look at scrapping some sticking-point policies, namely the digital services tax.

Feds standing by controversial tax

Asked about the levy by reporters on Parliament Hill last week, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said the government was still planning to “go ahead” with the digital services tax.

In French, asked whether his government is willing to scrap the tax, Champagne said “we’re not there at all.” He added the tax was a topic of conversation at the G7 meeting earlier this month, and called it a “neutral” tax, which “isn’t directed toward any particular country.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said in an interview with CTV News Friday that Canada will continue to “press in terms of Canadian interests.”

“I want to stress that our negotiations occur behind closed doors for a reason, that we need to continue to ensure that Canadian interests are protected at every turn, and we are disadvantaged if we continue to share strategy externally with the media,” Anand said. “But, I will say that the guiding principle of these negotiations is to ensure that these unjustified tariffs are removed, and that is our fundamental starting point.”

Anand also pointed to the U.K. and France having digital services taxes of their own, an argument often cited by the previous Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau when faced with criticisms of the policy.

Tax should be ‘expendable’ in negotiations: Manley

In a statement to CTV News, Business Council of Canada president and CEO Goldy Hyder said his organization has been calling for the federal government to scrap the tax for years.

“Bottom line is, (Internal Trade Minister) Chrystia Freeland, when she was finance minister, booked the revenues, and now they’re due,” Hyder said. “And these American companies have been asking that we align with the OECD and determine how to manage this.”

Hyder said he’s been in contact with Champagne about the business council’s position on the tax, and while he wouldn’t divulge the contents of those conversations, said “suffice to say, he has no intention of removing it.”

“And, if we were bluffing, the bluff just got called, and we’ve got to midnight Monday to get through this,” Hyder added.

Meanwhile, former Liberal finance minister John Manley said Canada should “keep calm and carry on” in the face of Trump’s reversal, telling CTV News “it’s not a trade negotiation unless somebody throws a tantrum.”

“We’re dealing with Donald Trump, after all,” he said.

Manley said the Carney government should be willing to concede the digital services tax if it gets the two countries closer to a deal, calling the levy “expendable,” but adding negotiators should hold out until there are concessions from the U.S. side before putting the levy on the table.

“If you’ve got something in a negotiation that you’re willing to give up, you don’t offer that off the top,” he said. “You hold back for the end.”

The parliamentary budget officer has estimated the tax will generate $7.2 billion in revenues for the federal government over five years.

With files from CTV News’ Judy Trinh and Luca Caruso-Moro

view more: next ›

HiddenLayer555

joined 10 months ago