It's a collective action problem. One person's subscription will not make the difference needed to improve journalism enough for them to get a direct benefit. Further, the main benefit would be that it exposes corruption, which doesn't generally impact individuals. Corruption's effects are spread amongst all the tax payers. Each individual is better off not subscribing and reaping the benefits of others' subscriptions, but everyone suffers if local journalism isn't funded.
It's similar to the climate crisis: there's broad agreement that things are bad and getting worse, but individuals acting in their own self-interest can't be counted on to solve it.
Further, commercial interests are generally anti-aligned with exposing corruption. They'd rather their bribes/lobbying be unquestioned, driving down the cost of it at the expense of the tax payer. We can't count on business to provide this service.
Finally, this isn't just about québécois and indigenous content. The last I saw, the $ was available as long as you had full-time journalists on staff, regardless of their focus.
I haven't seen anyone put any other alternatives up for debate.
I know Poilievre has talked about defunding the CBC, but I don't know of anything he has proposed that would result in more local journalists.
Do you have an alternative in mind? We need some way to get $ into journalists' pockets while also having some accountability.
Increased CBC funding? It's probably better to have a diverse set (i.e. not just one being subsidized) of news outlets, so the Liberal plan here makes more sense to me, though there's also an argument for not spreading things too thin across lots of tiny outlets.
Instead of taxing the streamers, require they provide local content directly? I think that this proposal is doing that indirectly. The streamers get taxed, but could pick up some $ from the CRTC if they start producing more local content.
Instead of taxing the streamers, tax people directly? That'd probably be less popular than taxing the streamers, so good luck with that.
There's a crisis in local news. It's an essential service that the free market has largely stopped providing -- the number of journalists following local politics has been decimated, and sometimes in a literal sense. Without someone with the time to follow that stuff corruption flourishes, and getting rid of local government is not an option. We need some sort of fix so it's nice to see someone trying.
> The panel said the intrusion, discovered in June by the State Department and dating to May “was preventable and should never have occurred,” blaming its success on “a cascade of avoidable errors.” What’s more, the board said, Microsoft still doesn’t know how the hackers got in.
...
> It said Microsoft’s CEO and board should institute “rapid cultural change” including publicly sharing “a plan with specific timelines to make fundamental, security-focused reforms across the company and its full suite of products.”
You might be able to argue that Postgres' foreign data is a different form of pluggable storage engine. E.g. you can even use a CSV file as a backing store for a table with file_fdw.
iMessage is the monopoly part. They could make an App or even just an API available on other platforms but don't because they want the lock-in.
> “The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in,” was how one unnamed former Apple employee put it in an email in 2016
> “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,”
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
Not getting on board with RCS or any other way to improve SMS/MMS until they were (implicitly) forced was motivated by that desire to lock their users in to a messaging platform that only works on Apple devices.
It seems like they're worried that interning of objects/records would be too expensive to do generally. It's hard to predict though: that overhead would only apply to new code using R&T and has to be weighed against the elimination of recursion for deep comparisons and freezing, fewer re-renderings when value-equal but not reference-equal objects are encountered, the greater possibility of memory reuse across deep clones, and other performance optimizations that would be unlocked by true immutability.
Aside from performance, true native immutability would bring huge improvements to how JS programmers can reason about their code. Not having to worry about mutation makes a whole class of possible bugs disappear. Having to rely on third party libraries (or deep freezing manually) for immutability is really holding back the language.
Sounded like the solution was to tell them that they've been out-ranked. That's the part that was missing from the text conversation. After that, of course they'll be meek.
A lot of the slowest stuff on websites are trackers that are being foist on developers to foist on the users (if the developers even have control over the trackers, like with GTM)
Likely because the list of repositories changes infrequently, so it's a better candidate for caching. They serve what then can quickly, quickly, then pull in the naturally slower stuff later.