I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:

see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.

if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).

but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.

I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad

Finally some good news! Although I'm sort of surprised this didn't exist already

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.

No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

Could be in vogue and also true

For this to be true all immigrants would have to be wealthy enough to be able to scoop up all supply of homes in Canada. This just can't be the case considering the refugee status of many immigrants.

A complex problem like this has significant other factors including speculation, reduction of public housing, inflation.

We should welcome more people, and continue our Canadian values of supporting those in need through out the world. Learn some compassion for your fellow human beings, or go to Florida, where you can be surrounded by like minded people.

I think the question was retorical

I'm all for women's right to choose. How would we make money, I think we'd essentially be funding US medical treatments, which I'm ethically fine with, but would prefer to have my taxes go towards things for Canadians.

My understanding is that we can't have a private system along side the public system without "funding" the private system by WTO rules. Besides the fact that running a private system beside a public system is parasitic (i.e. we are assuming an infinite supply of doctors and nurses).

I think we should probably focus on paying our existing nurses and doctors better, and getting our hospitals back in working order.

For the lazy https://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/view/measures-for-a-sustainable-property-market

Seems reasonable to me, just glad i'm not a land-lord; wish i knew what the taxes were on.

Is it bad programming

No, it's bad requirements, well ok maybe the programmer came up with the requirements too.

This stinks. I'm not a landlord, I do own my own house.

And at least the corps have to pay tax on their profits

I wish i payed 15%. I'm not even counting on the rebates they get for setting up shop places, or developing "doing research". Corporations quite often do not pay their fair share. Corporations do buy up swaths of real estate.

Private owners who bought when things were cheap and are now multimillionaires got all that money effort-free and tax-free thanks to the principal residence exception.

Almost nobody got their shit effort-free, you still have to go in with the bank and pay them a shit tonne of money. Principal residence only applies to first residence, and you still have to pay taxes on your residence (I know, because I pay them).

And here's some news for you: housing was always relatively expensive, people who bought gigantic mortgages took on a whole pile of risk, made the banks rich, and sometimes came out richer for it; that doesn't make them bad.