Amazing

When you think about it, in some ways it’s not that unreasonable of an assumption. 300 - 110 (who couldn’t get into the building) = 190 (who voted to end martial law)

If you could the votes of those who were actually present, then you could say it was unanimous.

That said, a PPP delegate who was going to vote against probably didn’t have a whole lot of incentive to try and get into the building (suggesting the possibility that it might be reasonable to count at least some of the “unable to get in” folks as no votes).

Good to hear that these are already being used

I think so too, but a couple of things to note here:

Back in 2022 it might have already been clear to someone observant in Canadian politics that Trudeau was becoming a liability and that the Conservatives were on their way to becoming ascendant. Perhaps they even suspected the rise of Poilievre.

Meanwhile, the family’s attempted crossing happened almost exactly one year after Biden defeated the MAGA President, suggesting a turnaround down South. (Also, as a practical matter, I can see a family of four needing an entire year to wrap up their lives in their current city before executing on a big move like this.) We know now that this wasn’t going to last in the US, but back in 2022 I can see why someone would be more optimistic about that.

And of course if politics didn’t come into play, then they may have run the numbers and found parts of the US more affordable than Canada. More details on both points available over at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-moving-to-the-us-hits-10-year-high-1.7218479

Finally, this is an issue that goes both ways. Folks have also tried to cross from the US into Canada and also nearly froze to death, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44865022

Ditto

Good summary. Agree completely with the article - it actually makes sense out of the blind spot that Dems had in this election. Plus that pointer on how Mexico bucked the worldwide trend theorectically gives Dems a pointer on how to recalibrate and take back the initiative.

It seems to me that rather than explicitly trying to listen to the elite and ignore the cries of the common class, the article instead explains that the indicators that Dems were using to get a measure on the economy sort of betrayed them. See for example,

For those focused on short-term macroeconomic indicators like growth and unemployment, that immiseration has been hard to see—and voters’ cries of misery beggared belief.

And also,

rates of homelessness and child poverty predictably resurged. Yet since this was in effect simply a return to the pre-Covid norm, it seems to have barely registered

They saw the traditional indicators said things looked great and rolled with that, instead of digging deeper after a pandemic unprecedented in modern times to see if maybe those traditions had become outdated (as the article hints at).

Overall this is a more positive take, because it means that if Dems just looked at the wrong place and got the wrong idea as a result, they’d be more open making whatever necessary adjustments are needed to avoid a repeat mistake.

Removed by mod

I think this is the right idea. Rather than having a single party that tries to represent everyone (from moderate never-Trumpers to progressives like Sanders to to far-left folks like Andrew Yang (UBI)), have separate parties and platforms for these very different folks.

But maybe keep the DNC as a kind of shell or umbrella - since these folks would need to unify on a candidate for President (to prevent splitting of votes leading to MAGA forever winning the presidency). I’m guessing each party (nevers, progressive party, UBI party, etc) would hold their own primary for a presidential candidate, then hold a “joint group primary” to pick just one to run in the general election.

Do you have a source for the numbers?

I was an insightful post over at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 a little over a week ago. It was made before the final numbers were in, but if you look at Wisconsin and North Carolina for example, Harris did better in those battleground states in 2024 than Biden did in 2020 (when he won). And then orange voldemort somehow did even better than Harris there.

Turnout was lower overall, but the author of that post suggests it is because of low turnout or protest votes in the deep blue states.

Thanks to the stupid Electoral College, that didn’t matter. We can get 100% turnout in California and New York, and have every single vote there go blue, and still lose.

DNC leadership knows this. Without the center, they figure that there’s no chance in holding the blue wall. I’d love for them and myself to be proven wrong (though I suspect it may be too late for that, either way).

I think piefed.social/pyfedi (which is slowly implementing support for all such objects) should get a mention here as well

Hmm… well that’s disappointing. I know the IRS in the US does this (as per https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor ) was hoping Canada was made of stronger stuff.

Wife would be the biggest factor in all this I think, so yeah.

That said (noting for posterity), you’re right - it is pretty challenging to emigrate with a criminal record. But it’s not impossible. See for example https://www.cicnews.com/2023/12/three-ways-to-overcome-a-cannabis-conviction-before-coming-to-canada-1240675.html#gs.i5eu5j

If you got the 13 years due to possession of cannabis in the US for example - that’s not a crime in Canada, so you’d have to disclose it but it wouldn’t pose an issue in moving (assuming you otherwise were eligible and passed all the bars in getting here).

For things which are also crimes in Canada, sometimes you can apply for criminal rehabiliation - so in your case, eight years from now, you’d be eligible to apply for that (five years of good behaviour and no crimes after your sentence/probation/restriction ends).

The article explains,

without verifying what turned out to be sham documents.

In other words, they did have to do the same thing, but instead of spending lots of time and money on the real thing (which was impossible for them anyways because - you know, they’re scammers) they did it for free with tools like photoshop.

Now, the lack of verification is probably a new thing post covid - if someone had tried this back in 2011 I’m guessing the CRA would have attempted to verify, caught that they were sham documents, and serious consequences would ensure.

It’s a separate process as per https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116982 and https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148896 - this resolution is in the UN General Assembly, whereas vetos apply to things that get sent to the UN Security Council.

When the USSR tried to use it’s veto to end the Korean war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly/_Resolution/377/(V got passed to provide authorization to allow the UN members to continue fighting in support of South Korea.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency/_special/_session/_of/_the/_United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly

Is this the same news as described in https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spain-friars-killed-injured-monastery/ ?

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it’s used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 (“Getting additional peers from IPFS API”)

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don’t recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can’t be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole/punching/(networking )

There might be ways around that though.

Consider that when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United/_Nations/_General/_Assembly/_Resolution/2758/(XXVI originally passed, for example, the US was not able to veto this.

Makes sense to me. What’s the use of have a member in an organization when can’t follow the rules set by said org?

Agreed. The current party is trying to be a coalition that brings in folks from as far right as neocons like Dick Cheney to as far left as Andrew Yang (UBI) along with super progressives like the Bern.

I’ve said before that it naturally makes sense for it to split up based on that. I guess without systemic and constitutional reform, the new parties would have to cooperate and agree on e.g. a single candidate for President (maybe a multi-party group primary?)

But if we had a primary this year I feel like a candidate would have been chosen who could have won, so anything that forces primaries to occur (and allow voters more choice) is a good thing.