"Wrongthink". Lol man, if you think that taking money from a country whose head of state has recently said that they may need to forcibly annex your own country, and then using that money to illegally obtain the personal information of citizens so you can attempt to break your country apart is merely "wrongthink" then you need to completely recalibrate yourself.
The really galling thing here is that as an American you would absolutely never tolerate a country like, say, China, supporting, both monetarily and otherwise, a group agitating for California to leave the union. You'd all call that treason loudly and proudly, but now that your country is doing it to someone else suddenly we have to slow-roll this.
> you would absolutely never tolerate a country like, say, China, supporting, both monetarily and otherwise, a group agitating for California to leave the union
No. But I don’t think we’d put people in jail for it unless they were ready to overthrow the government. (Hell, we didn’t even charge the actual people trying to violently overthrow the government with treason.)
creating the petition and getting it approved through the alberta government is actual action to overthrowing the government.
it left the thinking and talking side when it became actions.
"we" in this case is canada and the canadian government, and have had no such armed attempted to overthrow the government.
For a similar item you should instead compare to the truckers thing, where a group similarly collected agitation money from the US, then did the agitation. Their bank accounts are still frozen afaik, and some are finishing their prison sentences now
That's not true, a number of Jan 6 people were convicted of seditious conspiracy, it's just that those convictions have now been vacated because the coup plotters have now ended up in charge regardless through other means.
Respectfully, as an Albertan who still lives in Alberta, and who wants to remain a part of Canada I don't think that the persecution complex is 100% bullshit, and dismissals of it as such by eastern Canada only serve to reinforce it.
Re: equalization, of course the massive economy of Ontario makes a big part of GDP, but the point of Alberta's importance is that its economy allows it to make an outsized impact compared to its population. This surplus GDP/capita makes a huge difference in contributions to the equalization program wherein a province with 1/4 the population of Ontario can make the same size of contribution to the program. If you remove Alberta from the pool it becomes much much harder to retain the same size of payments to other provinces on the back of Ontario among others.
Second, Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government, and that trend has gone on for decades. Lured by Alberta's economy people keep moving here and our ridings keep getting more and more people while we retain the same number of seats. This has been slowly changing as the government is basically forced to allocate more seats to Alberta and now between Ontario and BC, Alberta is no longer the most disadvantaged, but it still isn't a great situation.
Finally, there's all the one off issues that add up over time. As an example in the mid 2010s oil was in the gutters and Alberta was facing real economic issues. In 2015, there were roughly 35,000 job losses, and in 2016 there were another 25,000 direct job losses in the oil and gas sector. In 2018 when GM announced they were going to close their oshawa plant and put 3000 people out of work the federal government held an emergency midnight meeting to discuss how to help the workers. Those types of optics don't go unnoticed, that Alberta could lose roughly 100k jobs over 2014-2017 and that 3k jobs in Ontario gets a midnight cabinet meeting. Alberta still paid into equalization as a "have" province during that time, despite huge deficits as the provincial government tried to backstop revenue losses.
All of which is to say that the separation crowd is a bunch of bad actors and the flames of western alienation are certainly being fanned by people with ill intentions, but the core of that alienation stems from a real place and from real actions both current and historical, and glibly dismissing it is just not something I can agree with.
> Alberta has been one of the most under-represented province in the federal government
Each time Albertans (I'm a 4th generation of that group) complain about lack of representation within federalism, I remind them of the many golden opportunities that came and went with their popularly elected and re-elected federal parties in power for long stretches of time, with Harper even representing an Alberta riding, yet here we are with complaints that rehash the same old, same old stuff. Nothing about federalism is ever good enough for them even after all those years of pro-AB feds in power.
You're misunderstand my point here. Alberta, until the most recent seat redistribution, had the largest federal ridings by population. Now they're only the 3rd largest. That means that the average Albertan's vote was worth far less than the average Quebecer's, and faaaar less than the average maritimer's vote. It gives disproportionate power above and beyond just representation due to population. Its not about which party they vote or don't vote for, although we could dig into that too, as its not nearly as cut and dried at the reductionist take would make it seem.
If I remember correctly, the guidance from the Supreme Court on riding sizes is plus/minus 15% difference from average, with special cases of low population density over large geographic areas allowing as much as plus/minus 40% from average.
Electoral boundaries commissions in Canada have been obligated to take input from all who submit complaints about riding sizes. That's different than those commissions being able to actually achieve something asymptotic to ''parity'', of course, but the net effect is that all those golden opportunities in long term AB-friendly power were missed, as I say.
Confederation isn't a business transaction where everything needs to zero out every year.
Alberta's strong financial position today is thanks to all the work the rest of the country (private or public) put into building the infrastructure and economy - prospecting, railways, roads, military bases, etc.
Albertans may pay more taxes to the federal government than they get back in services but thanks to oil they probably have a positive trade balance with the rest of the country.
There is also zero guarantee that in 50 years Alberta won't be in a worse revenue situation than its neighbours and needing equalization. In fact it's likely.
Not just because there's the off chance that human civilization decides burning hydrocarbons is a really bad idea. But because Alberta is profoundly vulnerable to drought and water shortage due to deglaciation as a result of climate change.
I mean one of the opening paragraphs of that article is as follows:
"This is not because Alberta’s grievances are illegitimate. They are not. Albertans have real and long-standing concerns about energy policy, federal–provincial relations, and economic fairness within Confederation. Those concerns deserve to be debated openly and democratically by Canadians, among themselves, on their own terms. The danger is who has joined the debate and why."
This is my point. The separation stuff is clearly completely illegitimate, but the underlying causes of the grievances, several of which I've pointed out in my post above, are entirely real and legitimate, and just blowing it off as "meh, its just russian disinformation" etc, etc, is just a really lame way of not dealing with the issues at hand.
Appreciate the response and respectful tone, but almost none of this conversation makes sense to me because it's based on a strange assumption that Albertans should and must identify their own interests directly with the interests of the oil industry.
I do see that people often do that. I also think it's kind of a messed up perspective.
It's a destructive industry doing just as much harm (actually more, see forest fires, etc) to Albertans as it is doing to the rest of the world. Also as an Albertan who grew up watching his father cycle in and out of brutal unemployment on the cadence of erratic oil prices -- it's kind of a shitty patron to have, frankly.
There are other industries in Alberta. And new ones developing. But I just watched Smith's government sabotage renewables, so...
You're also seemingly making the giant assumption that people in Ontario somehow do the same around car manufacturers or something, or that people in "eastern Canada" have this monolithic view generally about either the west or whatever.
Ontario is actually often a giant sea of blue seats with red and orange in urban centres. It's actually a strong core of conservative support, historically.
But when conservatives take out of mainstream positions on cultural issues -- such as, I dunno, blockading the streets of the capital city, or effectively denying climate change -- they suffer at the ballot boxes even from people who often vote conservative.
I hated Harper, but he was smart enough to avoid this whenever possible. Can't say the same about the latest batch.
Anyways, I'm out there often. And my kid is going to do her BFA at the U of A (knock on wood, acceptances are this month), so I'll likely end up buying a house there long term and our family often talks about moving back there...
(BTW when Harper was in power we had the same blatant regionalism happening. I'd go out to visit family and find huge "stimulus" projects being built all over the province [e.g. Henday north construction, etc] while projects in Ontario failed to get funding ... unless the riding was a conservative one [see Vaughan subway extension, blatant vote buying]. The Canadian dollar sky rocketed to above the USD which severely harmed central Canadian manufacturing in ways it still hasn't recovered from. Should we have talked about central-Canada-alienation at that point?)
Equally, you are being fed a narrative. Yes, yes, every Canadian pays into federal taxes that are then dispersed amongst provinces to give a relatively "equal" standard of living, hence the term equilization payments. But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives? Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes? And of course that doesn't even get into how the equalization formula is created and applied, what sorts of things are factored into a province's "fiscal capacity" and what things get factored out, and whether those parts of the formula could be slanted to benefit certain provinces more than others. Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
The bottom line is that since the big oil and gas discoveries of the 60s Alberta has sent roughly 300 billion more to the federal government than it has received in return. This is of course part of being a province in a country, instead of a country itself like Norway is. And of course there has been mismanagement of the Heritage Fund, so Alberta is not blameless here. But the oft repeated talking point that Alberta doesn't actually really contribute disproportionately to the country is completely false. Why doesn't Alberta have a wealth fund on par with Norway? Because that money has instead been used to help fund hospitals, roads, schools and more across the rest of the country. I think that's a pretty good investment and I'm not upset about that, but I am upset when people don't even see that and choose instead to recycle a bunch of trite talking points that are basically lying by omission.
>But why does Alberta consistently send far more money than it receives?
The Province of Alberta sends no money at all. What part of this is so hard to understand?
I live in BC, and we also are considered a "have" province, and we also do not send any money.
The money comes from the Federal Government. It was never provincial money to begin with. It's tax money that is paid directly to the federal government by Canadians, and businesses. It does not come "from Alberta" or "from BC".
>Just what is it that allows Albertans to pay so much more in taxes?
Every single Canadian is subject to the exact same Federal Tax schedule. If you and I were in the same income tax bracket, we'd pay the exact same rate.
If Albertans are "paying more in taxes" (doubtful), then that's Danielle's problem. But not a single cent of provincial tax revenue gets put into Equalization payments.
I'll try one last reply in the hopes that you're not just playing willfully ignorant here. Alberta doesn't send money but "Albertans" do. Sorry for not being insanely pedantic with my terminology. Critically the federal government then dispenses money to provinces, so even if we want to be clever about the source of money, when it comes back it goes to geographically bounded provincial coffers, not the pockets of citizens. When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere. And those borders matter when that money is being spent. I send money to the federal government and the federal government does not spend money in the geographical area where it would impact me. I'm happy that a person in Manitoba gets a new hospital, but that doesn't actually improve my life directly. So when people say that Alberta sends money to other provinces, that's what they mean. That provinces are able to create things for their citizens that they would not be able to fund otherwise because they received money from other geographic locations. The net in-out transfer is the bottom line. The people of alberta send X billion dollars to the federal government every year and the federal government sends X-10 billion dollars back to the provincial government, because that 10 billion is going to other provinces. This isn't rocket science unless you're trying hard to misunderstand.
The point about Albertans paying more is that they have higher incomes, so they are subject to progressive taxation (same as everyone, you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point). A combination of oil and gas revenue and a relatively business positive environment have made it possible for Albertans to pay more in taxes because they earn more. This is a good thing, but the point of contention comes out of the fact that there is no incentive for other provinces to try and improve their "fiscal capacity" when they can instead backfill their lack of revenue on the backs of the provinces, like BC, that are net contributors. If other provinces were faced with the having to cut services, or figure out how to improve their economies, they might undertake the work of improving their economy. But instead they can defer the hard choices and let Alberta, and BC provide that revenue.
At the end of the day I do just fine as an Albertan. One day oil and gas will be less important worldwide and Alberta will have to adapt. Luckily our economy is already more diversified than say, BC, which relies on real estate for a bigger proportion of its GDP. Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy. And even more importantly, once oil and gas subsides and Alberta can no longer provide per capita incomes ~15-20% higher than the rest of Canada what does the equalization formula look like then? I think that a lot of provinces are going to suddenly find out that they were taking things for granted and the money tap just isn't there any more. We'll see what happens at that point I guess, I feel pretty confident that Alberta will be fine, and hopefully it will force the rest of Canada to make some painful choices that will be better for the country in the long-term. But its going to suck in the short-term.
>When people say that "Alberta" sends money, they mean that Albertans pay money to the federal government and then federal government spends that money elsewhere.
I don't actually think most people mean this when they say it.
But hey, sounds like we both are on the same page, and I'm glad we agree that Alberta as an entity doesn't pay equalization payments.
It sounds like you have a problem with federal spending, and you're far from alone in that regard.
> Of course at this point you'd probably deflect and say that the current equalization formula was put in place by the Harper government because you think that I must support the conservatives and this is some sort of gotcha.
>you'd don't need to reply thinking you've made a clever point
>Better hope that trading houses back and forth continues to be a productive way to structure an economy.
These little jabs you keep putting in aren't helping your case. They just make you seem like a jerk.
It's not. It's an incredibly common strawman used in discourse on this topic (obviously it's relatively new to HN). They know it's a bad faith argument but it's used over and over to paint Albertans as illiterate rednecks.
This stupid argument comes up all over X, Reddit, etc... to muddy the waters and refuse to actually engage with the topic of equalization and the current formula used to determine how federal transfers are calculated and allocated.
The standard TI graphing calculator offered to schools is the TI-84 Plus CE, which is generally 140USD and up. This calculator is currently offered for 89USD so you're already immediately incorrect on the pricing. The battery in this one is roughly 50% larger but that doesn't translate to better battery life necessarily. They both allow for programming with Python but this calculator would have to try incredibly hard to be worse at Python that the TI calculator, so I'd probably say it has an edge there too.
I've always seen TI-84s being advertised for $90-$100 new and often being given away for free as hand-me-downs. Amazon also shows me many models from 90-110.
Based on your replies here, one thing it really doesn't seem like is a community of people trying to earnestly exchange ideas or points of view. It really seems like you're viewing this whole thing as some sort of debate contest or point sparring, and its both aggravating and disappointing to read.
What is your hoped for outcome here man? To come off like enough of a jerk or obtuse enough that people just abandon the thread and you can declare victory?
I think people are retconning a lot of things onto Show HN that aren't actually part of the ethos of Show HN. That's not new; in the past, people have tried the same thing to suggest Show HN is about, say, open source software only.
I don't dispute the quality decline on Show HN or the need for some kind of intervention, but this particular argument about how AI interacts with "Show HN" is in fact introducing a new and significant element of gatekeeping to it.
Show HN is not in fact a craftspersons forum! Craft can be one of the things it's about, but it's not the only thing.
You’re asking what motive the author has for the tone of this comment because that is wrong-headed because the author of the comment was an LLM. The real question is why the author would think it’s appropriate at any time, let alone on a thread about someone’s death, to post slop. The fact they didn’t even read the slop to think about the tone is just adding insult to injury.
I always like to do a little digging when I read one of these articles. The first point I come to is that the author is employed by a16z (https://a16z.com/author/david-oks/) and so you have to immediately apply the "talking his book" filter. A16Z is heavily invested in AI and so any sorts of concerns around job loss and possible regulation or associated actions by the public at large represent a risk to these investments.
Secondly David Oks attended Masters School for his high school, an elite private boarding school with tuition currently running 72kUSD/year if you stay there the whole time, and 49kUSD/year if you go there just for schooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_School). I am going to generally say that people who were able to have 150k+ spent on their high school education (to say nothing of attending Oxford at 30kGBP/year for international student tuition) might just possibly be people who have enough generational family wealth that concerns like job losses seem pretty abstract or not something to really worry about.
It's just another in a long series of articles downplaying the risks of AI job losses, which, when I dig into the author's background, are written by people who have never known any sort of financial precarity in their lives, and are frequently involved AI investment in some manner.
Of course there's a heavy dose of childhood nostalgia driving this, but I do love everything about this design style and outlook. It ties into the "early" days of the internet and web, when the vibe was around having a "Library of Alexandria" in your family home, the computer as a bicycle for your mind and just a general feeling of "abundance" that permeated the environment. I would come home from school and watch Star Trek TNG and get a utopian view of the future, flip over to PBS and watch Carmen Sandiego or Square 1, have dinner, then crack open Microsoft Encarta on the family PC and browse through random topics. The world of technology felt like it held infinite promise.
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-administratio...