"Just let me live the life I want to live, by fucking up others' lives way more than the other party may have mildly inconvenienced me for sound policy. Wait, why is this affecting me now?"

It's a tale as old as time.

and they ignore our laws in favour of their own

Well, we can at least tell you learned zero Canadian history.

I live in Ontario, Canada. You're an idiot, and don't speak for me. There are idiots everywhere on the planet. You're one. See you at the polls.

~22% (I'll round it to 25%) of Canadians speak French as a first language, and using rough numbers that would be ~10 million Canadians, which equates to 1/8th of 1% of the world population. If forcing kids to learn a language that ~0% of the world uses seems rational, you've lost the point of education.

I'm unlikely to read anything dumber than this today. French is a single class, its easy. You remind me of when I was in grade 7 and two morons in my class took up the cause to protest that we had to learn the subway stations even tho, in their words, 'they would never use it'. So that's fun, you make the same fundamentally stupid mistake that some grade 7 kids were making about the value of learning things - the point isn't to teach things that you need, the point is to teach you thinks so that you learn how to learn. That French *can* help you if you're not some kind of moron allergic/scared of the greater world is part of the point.

3 Inches of Blood

ROFL. Youre whining about CanCon then complaining about a Canadian band that isn't being played on the radio? The stupidity astounds me. I dunno what small town you're from, but it's doing you no favours.

the fucking country speaks English

I hear French all the time on the streets of Toronto, parents at school, in public transit. I am from Toronto. Despite being from an Anglophone family with two parents who don't speak a lick French, all of my school was in French until I was in grade 6, and then half of it was in French until I was in grade 9. I understand French fluently (although I don't really need to speak it) and I know many other Anglophones who are fluent in it here in Toronto.

You're a moron. Don't talk about things you don't know shit about.

Netflix doesn't "broadcast" anything. Users pull it, if they so desire.

Netflix makes content available, and they choose what is available, based on the geographic location of the person watching it. Doesn't sound much like a pull model to me. The ask of Cancon is simply to regulate that there's a particular balance of Canadian produced content. Suggesting Cancon is about regulating the balance of consumption belies the fundamental stupidity at the base of your argument.

And oh, when's the last time you saw the majority of US media (incl Hollywood, to look at the bastion of American cultural power) saying /nice/ things about the US?

Literally any time it would improve their bottom line? What are you, an idiot? Your entire post sure makes it sound that way.

He was over-leveraged and didn't manage risk well. In other words, he was a terrible fund manager.

Well wtf does he mean by speedtest then? If he's doing it from his phone or wifi connected laptop, then it's going to reflect the speed of his wifi. If he's doing it from his router, and complaining that the speedtest is wrong because his wifi is slower than his router uplink, I'd say that's a statement only a doofus would make.

"Now I'm currently using fiber at the speed fast than my wifi router, which makes my speedtest always wrong."

oh please expand on this - this is gunna be hilarious

No, the worst part about ads is that they exist at all in a form that intentionally disrupts your attention.

That fundamental issue is then exacerbated by the current societal tolerance for lies, and you get intrusive advertisements that are deeply misleading.

So, why are you tolerating current advertising at all when there are tools that effectively eliminate it?

The assumption is that using your phone / infotainment system to search for, possibly purchase, and play a new release is an attention-demanding task that takes substantial time. The consensus above is that Spotify's UI, in particular, is poor, and thus requires extra interaction, and thus attention off the road, exacerbating the problem. We know that attending to a phone, even briefly, is mutually exclusive to attending to the road. That alone is an explanatory mechanism for the increase in fatalities.

But then we augment that supposition by the additional effects that new music is also a distraction, albeit much lower grade than operating a phone. It might be a lesser effect, but listening to a song or three is also expected to span longer time than interacting with a phone, so might have substantial cumulative impact.

An additional effect that I have not seen mentioned above is the expectation that the demographic listening to top releases is likely to skew younger, and thus contains drivers with less experience than the population. Less experienced drivers are at far greater risk of accidents of any sort, and are more sensitive to distraction.

And, as a parent of teenagers, the solution is clear to me: do not frelling use your phone when driving, period.

From TFOriginalScientificArticle: "Additionally, death certificates included a field for reported usual occupation (the occupation in which the decedent spent most of their working life), generally completed by a funeral director with help from the decedent’s informant."

Looking at Figure 1 from the paper, taxi drivers and ambulance drivers are clear lower-bound outliers in terms of risk from Alzheimer's. But they also die a full decade before the eyeballed mean of the population. There are a couple of data points in the middle plot from that figure that have just slightly higher adjusted risk of Alzheimer's, but have lifespans at ca. 80 years that are well *above* the mean. Regrettably, the paper does not discuss those data points -- me, I'd want to have those occupations since they trade a very slightly increased risk of Alzheimer's for 15 more years of life.

And, then, the bit that's also not in the headline and TFS is that taxi drivers and ambulance drivers have *increased* risk of other forms of dementia, especially taxi drivers.

Also, disappointingly, the paper does not show the full ranked list of occupations (even in the supplementary data), highlighting only a small handful (taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, airline pilots, ship captains, and CEOs).

At least someone realized that it would be a good idea to scan outgoing traffic.

One hopes that the internal reaction amongst the leadership was more than just, "bloody hell."

You're making a classic mistake of reversing an association: "this A is a B" does not mean "every B is an A".

Which is to say, you're ignoring the fact that junior associates have attributes and capabilities that LLMs lack, in a wince-inducing oversight. Indulge me with a Sophoclean interrogatory: what can humans do that LLMs cannot?