The telecom company is looking to cut costs amid an industry-wide slowdown
Did I just wake from a coma? Did everyone start cancelling their cell phone plans and internet connections?
I'm blown away AI wasn't mentioned as a reason lol.
While there is scant evidence that AI is having much of a tangible impact on productivity, it is a fantastic tool for justifying mass layoffs.
People are getting smarter about what kind of fees they'll tolerate for mediocre service. I also bet TV service subscriptions are on the decline.
Did everyone start cancelling their cell phone plans and internet connections?
Cable packages and streaming have been on the decline for a while.
And, despite still being higher than some other countries, cellphone plans have been getting cheaper over the last decade.
At the same time, the Telcoms have been spending capital on expanding their networks and replacing older hardware with newer faster equipment.
Rogers makes money. They make shit tons of money.
Ah, but they could make even more money firing their experienced and expensive staff, tanking their product quality and juicing the stock in time for the CEO to golden parachute out while blaming AI
I am not posting often in 'Canada', but isn't the Financial Post a US-owned media company that is often criticized as unreliable by tankies? Or is it good if the article aligns to a desired narrative?
Refusing to engage with media because it contains bias you don't like is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. Meanwhile, socialists are secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Being an adult with a functioning brain gives me the capacity for critical analysis. Thus, I can read a piece of liberal slop and separate facts from the ideological framing it uses.
Being an adult with a functioning brain gives me the capacity for critical analysis.
Aha.
He's an Independent Thinker ^tm^
Buddy you didn't even know what proxy meant in another thread
Lmfao.
I wish I could live as blindly as the ml crowd does it has to be freeing to be free of critical thought all the time.
literally had to explain it to you in that thread, love how you moved to commenting on this instance where you might get more sympathy
Lmfao no I came across this gem of a comment and realized it was the same idiot who dizjt even know what proxy meant.
Also you defined it after provided a dictionary excerpt on what it meant, after you said it meant something else, And then regurgitated what the dictionary said. You realize what you write is still right there right?
Do you realize that?
Let me explain this to you in this thread as well. A proxy not a nation being used by another more powerful nation, which it is a client of, to fight their adversaries. Let me know what part of that you're still struggling with.
I'm struggling with understanding how
You said
"Meanwhile, Iran isn’t a proxy war because Iran is not a Russian proxy. Russia does not control the government in Iran or make decisions for Iranians. Amazing that you don’t even understand what the word proxy means."
Because I do know what proxy means and read the definition. So I'm struggling to understand why that would make Russia helping Iran to fight us not a proxy war.
Can you explain it to me?
Can you "approach my claims with knowledge"
yes, it's quite evident that you're struggling with the basic understanding of subjects you're attempting to discuss
"Amazing you don't even know what proxy means"
here's an idea, why don't you go read a book instead of continuing making a clown of yourself in public here's one https://www.sup.org/books/politics/proxy-war/excerpt/introduction-excerpt
You realize this is this guys opinion piece right? He uses "I would argue" and language like that multiple times throughout. He's a us air force dude but not exactly the supreme authority on the subject and his opinion on how a proxy war should be portrayed in his opinion does not change the actual definition of what a proxy war is.
"Amazing you don't even understand what proxy is"
You said
"Meanwhile, Iran isn’t a proxy war because Iran is not a Russian proxy. Russia does not control the government in Iran or make decisions for Iranians. Amazing that you don’t even understand what the word proxy means."
See now a normal person with normal reading comprehension would read this as" this person thinks the other party has to have control of one of the governments fighting in the war for it to be a proxy war" and see I provided this definition to show you no, that is not the case. That's not what proxy means. My "western education" you claim I'm a victim to actually taught me that in a fifth grade civics class.
You see proxy war doesn't mean that one of the parties using the other party to fight on their behalf means that they own or control them. It means that they see an opportunity to help an enemy of their enemy defeat that enemy.
You could read the definition a couple more times I posted it for your benefit so that you can learn something.
"Amazing you don't know what proxy means"
Oh wow you wrote a whole essay and still missed the point. That is honestly kind of impressive.
Let me explain this slowly for you. A proxy war requires a proxy. A proxy is a client state or a dependent group that does the bidding of a bigger power because the bigger power controls them or owns their loyalty. Iran is not a client state of Russia. Iran is an independent country with its own government its own military and its own foreign policy agenda. Russia does not call the shots in Tehran. Russia does not control the Iranian military. Russia does not decide when Iran attacks Israel.
You keep saying well they fund groups that fight our enemies and that makes it a proxy war. No. That makes them an ally with overlapping interests. There is a difference. The US and Israel are allies. Is the US a proxy of Israel? No. Because the US makes its own decisions. Same logic applies here.
Iran helps groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis because Iran has its own goals. They are Iranian proxies not Russian ones. Iran is not fighting a war on behalf of Russia. Iran is fighting a war on behalf of Iran. That is the key part you keep tripping over being the genius that you are.
So no. Iran is not a Russian proxy. Iran is an independent nation doing its own thing. You can call that a proxy war if you want but only if you do not understand what the word proxy actually means. Amazing that you do not even understand your own argument.
Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.
Yes see you have no grasp on what the fuck proxy war actually is.
A war where two powers use third parties as a supplement to, or a substitute for fighting each other directly.
I posted again friend maybe you will realize you missed a word or something.
The USA helping Ukraine is a proxy war because the USA wouldn't dare fight Russia because of the threat of nuclear annhiliation. So they give weapons to Ukraine and Ukraine fights Russia. They are "using a third party" to fight each other indirectly.
Russia is helping Iran because Russia also woudlnt dare fight USA because of the threat of nuclear annihilation. So Russia is giving weapons and intelligence to Iran "using a third party" to fight USA indirectly
"Amazing you don't know what proxy means"
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about and watching you display it greater increasing detail while throwing a little tantrum about how you're actually right has been surprisingly amusing.
Top tier trolling or you're an absolute broomstick. Both? Both.
I don't know how to provide and lookup what the definition of a word means?
Ok lol its like if you look up communism and thens someone says "well you should really read Trostsky" or whatever. Doesn't change what the definition of communism is, does it?
You're like a poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. I explained to you what a proxy war is already above. It's clear that you're unable to engage with that given the obvious limits of your intellectual capacity. The fact that your whole conception of a proxy war is derived from superficial googling really is the cherry on the cake here.
Here, I got my superficial definition here from Yandex comrade!
proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power. In the term “proxy war,” a belligerent with external support is the proxy. Both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third-party country. 12
It turns out that you can be a communist and possess reading comprehension!! I'm shocked. Might have to look into yandex more often because all this time I just thought you guys didn't have the right definitions to go by or something.
Nope. Turns out you just didn't know what the words you said meant that you were so vehemently defending.
Or is this Yandex stuff just dirty western propaganda too?
"Amazing you don't even know what a proxy is"
You went to Yandex and copied the first definition you saw. That is adorable.
Of course, even the dictionary definition says it is about support and third-party powers. That is the starting point, and you are acting like you found the rosetta stone here.
A proxy war is a political arrangement. It is not just two countries who vaguely dislike the same guy and happen to help each other out. If it were that loose then every military alliance in history is suddenly a proxy war. NATO is just a bunch of proxies. The Allies in WWII were proxies. See how stupid that sounds?
The scholarship is very clear on this. Tyrone L. Groh in Proxy War: The Least Bad Option does not just say support like your Yandex definition. He defines proxy war as directing the use of force by a politically motivated, local actor to indirectly influence political affairs in the target state. There is a hierarchy there with a principal and an agent. Not just two buddies high fiving because they both hate the same person. But of course, reading actual books is too much to be expected from somebody like you.
Your definition is a child's sketch of something that takes entire books to understand. You looked that up and thought you had a mic drop while you had a flimsy entry level summary that collapses the moment you apply it to a real world scenario.
By your Yandex logic the US giving Israel weapons makes Israel an American proxy. Do you believe that? Or do you understand that Israel is a sovereign nation with its own agenda and the US just shares some of those interests? That is the exact same relationship Russia and Iran have.
The mental gymnastics here are genuinely impressive. You dismissed actual analysis and instead pulled up a search engine and acted like you discovered fire. Go read a book then come back and tell me your Yandex definition is the airtight argument you think it is. I will wait. Amazing you do not even know what proxy means.
You linked am opinion piece on how a dude thinks we should redefine what the definition of proxy war is.
Redefine. As in, change what it means. And it hasn't been changed the definition continues to be the exact same
"Amazing you don't even know what proxy means"
You mean the fact that I pulled up the actual definition to show you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about when you said another country has to control that government and tell it what to do for it to be a proxy war. No. For all of modern history supplying weapons and support to another nation that is fighting your enemy has always been regarded as a proxy war.
So I'm able to engage with the fact that you are wrong. And then get all sad when someone pulls up a definition "can't believe you had to look up the definition because you didn't know what it means" and call it superficial googling
hahahahahahahahahaahahaha
"Amazing you don't even know what proxy means" - but hey maybe if you tried some of that superficial googling you would know what these words meant! Shoot, you could even use Yandex friend!
I literally linked you a book on the subject by a well respected scholar ignoramus.
You linked an opinion piece he wrote about the subject.
That does not change the definition of what proxy war means. He wishes it did he makes arguments why he thinks it should.
But guess what, an opinion is an opinion. A definition continues to remain a definition.
"Amazing you don't even know what proxy means"
Maybe try an opinion piece from NYT or something that holds just as much weight.
Since you appear to claim that Groh is not an authoritative source, then perhaps you'd prefer Andrew Mumford. Who in in Proxy Warfare spends an entire chapter titled What is Proxy War? unpacking the levels of engagement and making it painfully obvious that not all indirect assistance qualifies. Or perhaps, Geraint Hughes and his book My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics which builds a whole framework around the specific strategic relationships that turn a conflict into a proxy war. And of course, we can't forget the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars which is four hundred and fifty five pages long and exists entirely because the concept is so much more complicated than your little copy pasted internet definition could ever dream of being.
But sure, a definition you googled frantically is so much more authoritative 🤣
None of what you link change the definition of a proxy war.
I can share a thousand books about communist ideology, doesn't change any of the pure uncut definitions.
The discussion isn't about changing the definition of a proxy war, it's about your infantile understanding of the subject. All you can share is drivel that falls out from an underdeveloped mind that's not capable of doing any intellectual rigor.
Nope. You said the whole thing about Russia not being proxy because they don't tell the Iran government what to do.
That is incompatible with the definition of what a proxy war is.
You can share a thousand books on peoples opinions on the subject, they have books like that on communism too doesn't change any definition or meaning of any definition, at all.
"I can't believe you don't even know what proxy is"
And by your own books you linked. If USA is fighting proxy that makes when Russia supplied Iran with weapons an act of also being a party to a proxy war. You don't get to just have one side be a proxy war and the other side supplying their enemies not a proxy war. Or at least, I don't because I'm capable of understanding what things mean and able to read definitions and understand them. If you want to listen to the opinion of people who talk about it, then do that the very book you linked agrees that if USA is fighting proxy with Ukraine, then Russia is too with Iran. One side doesn't get to just act like it isn't part of the proxy war, even by the very books you yourself linked.
So are the books you linked valid or not? Is the definition valid or not? Guess it depends on what opinion you want to present at the time? If USA is fighting proxy that just makes Russia an ally to Iran? Not according to the books you linked.
See this is the problem. You don't actually read any of it, you don't actually care about what the definition really is because you just want to say that Russia is doing great and whatever they are doing is just and acceptable across the board. The USA is the only one capable of proxy wars, right?
So which is it, are the books right or wrong?
Oh you really thought you had me with that one just yelling if this is true then the other thing must be true. Let me explain your mistake. You are treating all foreign support as identical. The books I cited do not do that and if you had actually read them, or had any clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate, you would know it.
Tyrone Groh writes about the principal-agent relationship. The patron directs the use of force by the local actor. Not just sells them some hardware. The US supplies Ukraine and also sets the boundaries of what Ukraine can and cannot do. No ATACMS strikes inside Russia without permission. No F-16s until Washington says yes. Ukraine is operationally independent on the ground but strategically dependent on American will. That is what makes it a dynamic of a patron and a client.
On the other hand, Russia sells Iran drones and Iran pays for them, but Iran then uses those drones however it wants against whoever it wants. Russia does not direct Iranian foreign policy, nor does Russia tell Iran when to attack Israel or which militias to fund. Iran does that entirely on its own for its own reasons. That is not a relationship where one party directs the other. That is an arms deal between two sovereign states who happen to share some enemies.
Russia and Iran are business partners while the US and Ukraine are in a patron and client arrangement where the client cannot survive without the patron. Those are different points on Mumford's spectrum.
You also said books are just opinions and do not change definitions. That is the most anti-intellectual thing I have read all day. The dictionary is a starting point. The books are the analysis of how that definition actually applies to real conflicts. You cannot just scream the dictionary says support and ignore four hundreds of pages explaining what kind of support and direction actually constitute a proxy war. That is like saying a medical textbook is just an opinion on what a heart attack is.
You asked which is it are the books right or wrong. The books are right and you are dismissing them in favor of a superficial definition you googled. The US is fighting a proxy war through Ukraine because the US sets the strategic parameters. Russia is not fighting a proxy war through Iran because Iran acts independently. Both conclusions come from the exact same scholarship. You just cannot accept that because it complicates your little bumper sticker worldview.
Can we ban Post Media article posts?
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca