Australia already did. Commonwealth countries share a lot in common, and of course a lot of problems are common across many countries.

But let's be real -- these countries are announcing it in lockstep because the US is a corrupt plutocracy, and the lords of the nation like Mark Zuckerberg will run to Trump and he'll have a little tantrum (tantrums that always, it should be mentioned, just hurt Americans more. Everything is in the service of the billionaire class) about this.

It's tougher for that grifter to do so if so many countries do it simultaneously.

>The idea that this is about surveillance is also interesting.

What idea is that? That firms from foreign nations will gather IDs, of absolutely zero value for the country, to ensure age compliance? How does this silly conspiracy work?

Kids motivated will just get around it. But I think it's pretty clear at this point, given the idiocracies rising worldwide and how everything is getting stupider/worse, that social media has not been a net good.

It's also security theatre. Let's pretend that Anthropic rolls out citizenship verification for every one of its users. So are American nationals less likely to use it to search for exploits? The notion is farcical.

The US has long been catastrophically corrupt, with a pay-to-play government, but this army of grifters and thieves have turned every dial to 11.

The whole "AI slop" noise is, at its core, human slop. It is people applying a hopefully pejorative label, trying to appeal to other slop aficionados that like whatever the current trendy slur is, in an objectively undefinable way.

In this case this guy likes the way Qt apps, they think it looks better, but it isn't a big trick they are revealing: They made it conform to the style they like, but this doesn't translate to anyone else in any measurable way. I think web apps looking like Qt apps feel like the late 90s and it's just weird, but my taste also is entirely subjective and mine alone.

YOU complained about immigration. Immigration and housing allowed the government to basically ignore economic policies, productivity, and so on, for a lost decade. It allowed partisans (just like you) to declare that GDP went up so everything is great and nothing can be criticized, as Canadians got poorer and worse off. And yes, fixing a problem -- unsustainable, outrageously destructive mass immigration -- has consequences, but they're well worth it. YOU are the one who brought up per capita GDP.

>The liberals were literally reelected on the basis that Mark Carney is a master economist and he is our only saviour against Trump.

Eh, considering everything we're doing fantastic, and we're in a much better position for the next century. I hope that USMCA falls apart, personally, however much some small but extremely loud minority of my bootlicking, wanna-be-MAGA countrymen want to be a poor work colony of the US for eternity. Bowing to rapist bullying by a corrupt failing idiocracy is never a winning move.

Yup. We had a housing and immigration based economy.

>Simply reducing population growth is not enough to fix the last 10 years.

Ah, so damned if they do, damned if they don't. Yes, getting unchecked immigration under control was absolutely a problem that needed to be fixed (they still aren't there, and the TFW and "student" pipelines are a major remaining problem), and it was a contributor to our economy getting untethered.

>And it doesn't appear like the government is doing anything to fix it, instead focusing on the stuff we're talking about in this thread.

C-22 is a tiny, minor, law and justice bill that normal wouldn't get an iota of attention (it legitimately is a tiny, extremely simple bill). You think the government is "focusing" on this? Then you have zero idea how anything works. Pretending like the massive arms of government focused on this is necessary for your rhetoric though.

Further, saying they aren't doing anything else...yes, you are 100% a partisan. Nothing will please you. Everything is wrong. Everything is dire. But I'm sure only Saviour Party will fix things.

And it's funny that there are dipshits in here pretending like I'm the partisan. I hate this sort of dipshit politics on either side. When Harper was PM and the far left was apocalyptic about everything he did (doing the same incredibly stupid "everything is going to hell!" routine), it was just as profoundly stupid. I hate when both sides do this nonsense.

You have two conflicting complaints simultaneously, and you should make up your mind. Were you happy when Canada's GDP was increasing courtesy of mass migration?

So are you happy with the changes? I'm super happy with it. I'm also quite pleased with how well Canada has weathered a criminal felon pedo that has tried his hardest to hurt us, many Americans blissfully oblivious.

And yup, the many tentacles are government are going to keep making laws and planning trains and doing pipeline projects and countless other programs -- they aren't restricted to whatever the imaginary pet is of a particular complainer -- and amazingly they can competently do all of this simultaneously! Not always in a way that everyone agrees with, though.

This whataboutism is a go-to because it's universally usable, and is the biggest tell that you're dealing with a partisan spouting worthless noise. Anything the government of the day does, whatabout this other things. It is spectacularly stupid, and is an immediate example that the speaker has nothing of value to add to anything, ever. It is one of the greatest cancers in Western democracies, and is exactly how malignancies take hold.

And the "Bounces off me" tactic is so boorish. I don't like this bill. I don't like a lot of the things this government has done. But the "OMG EVERYTHING HAS FALLEN TO SHIT" is so laughable.

I dunno, man, despite the problems I think Canada's a pretty great country. I'm glad that the government is capable of actually doing many things at once.

All while our largest trading partner explicitly and openly tries to harm us.

And who gives a flying fuck about the Stanley cup. What a weird thing to cite.

You understand governments are large things with many departments and focuses, right? This "whataboutism" angle is always spectacularly boring horseshit, and usually is plied by partisans that just want to piss and moan about everything Not Their Team does.

This bill is deeply imperfect, and I hope it dies. Your comment is just noisy partisan bluster.

There are arguments for all sides, and I do think the narrative gets monopolized by the hysterical. On the one side I like torrenting without concern, but on the other it would be nice if services didn't provide cover for people to send death threats, bomb threats to schools because they fly a pride flag, VoIP swatting, and so on. Though ultimately limiting just VPNs directly operating in Canada just offshores the problem so the solution doesn't really achieve anything.

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r...

The parts that are garnering a lot of negative feedback is

1) requiring core providers (a list as yet undefined), and any others if specifically directed to, to maintain a rolling year of metadata that the government can request on a targeted individual with a warrant. This is obviously at odds with "no log" VPNs in particular. And let's be real: 99% of the industry already logs everything.

2) "the development, implementation, assessment, testing and maintenance of operational and technical capabilities, including capabilities related to extracting and organizing information that is authorized to be accessed and to providing access to such information to authorized persons;"

The #2 could potentially imply secondary decryption keys and the like, though the bill explicitly says the requirement cannot impose a systematic vulnerability, and the government has pointed to that and said they want no such thing.

So VPN providers are saying "we don't want to log", and encryption providers are saying "be much clearer in what you mean by systematic vulnerability. Define this explicitly".

This whole administration is just vile, and are long past the point where there should have been an uprising. Just an absolute idiocracy. A worldwide pariah, spiralling down the toilet.

I didn't feign to comment about presentation style until someone's complaint sat atop the entire thread. As always it gets sidetracked into meta and arrogantly held personal preferences. Could it be HN otherwise?

So I say I like it and why. To, in again classic HN style, to be met by someone declaring that no, nobody on the entire planet likes it.

Upset? LOL, no, I guarantee you nothing on this shakes fists at clouds site upsets me. Humours me? Sure.

I enjoy the presenters and the enthusiasm and nuance that they bring to the presentation. I do not need to see someone figure out how to switch a display or change a slide or fumble with wireless that is overwhelmed in a hall with a thousand wireless devices or... All of that is utterly unnecessary, so pre-recording it, doing all of the post production, reshooting so you don't trip people up on misreads / mispronunciations / fumbles / technical issues, etc, gets the human + the information without the ancillary bullshit.

It's actually funny because I don't stream Google or nvidia presentations for this same reason (I just wait for engadget or someone to just give the bullet list recap), and I suspect many/most of the people whining and gnashing about this one being "too produced" don't either. Somehow it always ends up being 80% in the weeds nonsense.

If that's your evidence to rebut me, lol.

>Yes, let's resort to personal attacks

You took that as a personal attack? That is incredibly weird. It was a general observation about the sort of perspectives that top HN, but not in the general world, or even general technology. You don't have to believe it.

Like seriously, currently the top post to a discussion about Apple unveiling an array of software improvements is some guy whining and bitching about the presentation, whining that it isn't like the olden days.

I feel like I'm about to tell you there is no Santa or something, but did you really not know that Apple always stuffed audiences with Apple employees? Of the remainder it both through intentional and natural selection leaned towards sycophants. Did you really think the roaring response were organic feedback?

It was always controlled. Personally I'm happy to be done with the on-cue tumultuous cheering and whooping.

>But I have only rarely heard anyone who liking the new-style presentations

Well I have only rarely heard anyone who liked the slow, plodding old-style presentation. So...

But yes, HN is overwhelming filled with angry, shakes-fist-at-clouds "it ain't like the olden days!" sorts now. So if you really think this place represents the norm...

Like the root post whining that it's too polished. Christ. Get a grip and go touch grass if this is the sort of pathetic nonsense someone actually takes the time to whine about.

It's actually funny how every single presentation like this always gets topped by profoundly boring people complaining about some aspect of the presentation: The people aren't standing right or moving the way you want. OMG look at his jacket. That joke wasn't funny. Etc. Christ.

Yes, most people just want the information, not some sort of organic, "all-natural" presentation.