DriftingLynx

joined 2 months ago
[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 18 points 7 hours ago

Roblox is only interested in exploiting you as cheap labour.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Carney, closing the offshore loophole? Not likely.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

More than just a bit.

The article opens with:

I just finished reading the late David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs and it’s got me thinking about the reforms to the civil service that Prime Minister Carney has been promising.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well you helped them errode local options, good you're ditching them finally.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Once there's no governments to make stuff like pesky anti-slavery laws I'm sure he'll find a way to justify whatever cruelty pleases him.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

More than you or I will get 🤷

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 days ago

ICE isn't "imprisoning" people, that implies some sort of due process.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because what they want is an injunction against a law that has vague limits + goals and a clear path to violating treaty obligations. Carney didn't run with this in the platform, no Canadians were consulted on this.

The harm of failing to consult on such a rushed piece of legislation is the harm. Just think what PP would do with these powers? Even if we believe Carney will act honouably, this legislation opens the door to all sorts of damage in the name of "projects of national interest" for all federal gov't's to come.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago (9 children)

They will be safe in their air conditioned, walled, armed guarded, coal powered compounds. The rest of us are expendable to them.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If they don't ask for damages the implication is that there's no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.

"And so, we simply applied precedent. There's no magic in the dollar amount. It's a substantial amount because the breach in this case is substantial ...."

Villify these folk however you want but they're the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

This is how bringing a lawsuit works. You need to quantify the "harm" and the amount here is to signify the scale of the harm to the court, not to seek this amount. The lawsuit uses this 100 million amount because of precedent, according to the article, which means similar cases specified similar amounts.

However what they're asking for is the injunction, not damages; there's unlikely to be any amount paid. Even there was an awarded amount this would be like a highball offer to start a haggling process, not a final selling price.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I don't actually know, just going by observed behaviour 🤷

view more: next ›