That would actually be a justified charge, but the court decided not to pursue criminal charges.

Seems to be a trend to simply let truck drivers off the hook for their negligence. The truck driver who killed 16 people in Saskatchewan only got 5 years before he was out on parole. In Toronto, a truck driver with a history of bad driving killed a cyclist and saw no time in jail.

There is no justice for people killed by vehicles.

He’s no longer a truck driver, so that’s irrelevant. He’s allowed to use his vehicle for work, as this was not part of his driving restrictions.

There’s really not much the courts can do to make up for the loss to the family, but an $1100 fine is offensive.

Consider this: the fine for littering in B.C can be up to $2000 with up to six months in jail. Literally, more than negligently killing someone with your truck. 🧑‍⚖️

The context makes it worse, unfortunately.

The collision happened at the intersection of Pacific and Hornby streets. The court heard the intersection was well marked and McIntyre turned right from the centre lane instead of the designated right turning lane. (reported by CTV News)

This is why he pleaded guilty to “driving without due care and attention.”, which ignores the fact that this negligence caused a death.

A $1000 fine, $1800 fine, or even a $10,000 fine would still be insulting to the family of the victim.

Former President Redacted

100,000 microplastics per square meter

For those who are wondering, “microplastics, defined as bits smaller than 5 millimeters, or about the width of a pencil eraser.”

… The Vatican said on Monday in a landmark ruling approved by Pope Francis that Roman Catholic priests can administer blessings to same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies.

… A document from the Vatican’s doctrinal office said such blessings would not legitimise irregular situations but be a sign that God welcomes all…

…It should in no way be confused with the sacrament of heterosexual marriage…

This is gaywashing at best, but it still sounds like blatant homophobia.

Water + rice + frozen mixed vegetables + plant-based protein source (beans, frozen faux chicken, TVP chunks, etc) + seasoning.

Throw it in a pressure cooker and you’re done. Maybe 30 seconds of effort for a healthy, hearty, inexpensive meal

Still more honest than some game trailers. 😂

Except the device is already in your home, and most people leave their account logged in.

People buy products to serve a purpose to themselves and their family, so yes, the device is in their home FOR THEIR USE.

Being logged in isn’t an open invitation to be spied, so laws need to address that.

That’s basically like you inviting someone into your house, they hang out in your spare bedroom…and they’re still there.

The invite, in this case, is not for a company to spy on you and your family. I don’t think anyone would actually want that, especially not for the purpose of targeting them with ads.

People use voice activated devices, which do record and react to voice prompt, but the permission here is given only for that use. A company shouldn’t be able to say “hey, you can use the service you’ve paid for, and by agreeing to use that service, you also agree to give us permission to digitally invade your home and privacy.”

I just don’t see how a proper law/regulation would fix/restrict this, except to make certain personalization attempts (targeted ads) illegal.

Yes, make it illegal. And make everything opt-in without strings attached (i.e. if you agree to use the service you paid for, you agree to being spied on).

I will personally continue to use my wallet to yield power. I won’t buy devices or support companies who are evil, and will support companies who respect privacy and data freedom. The whole enshitification of the digital landscape is incredibly sad to see, TBH.

A proper law/regulation would aim to prevent that. Explicit consent to enter a home must be given, every time. Physically or digitally.

Absolutely, use an adblocker. You might even find that “reader mode” works just as well to force articles to be coherent.

Moral imperative.

One can only hope that we will eventually amend trespass laws to include digital trespassing.

Individuals can work with what they can control, while also pressuring their government to regulate what they can’t.

Can you avoid all pesticides? No.

Can you avoid all alcoholic beverages? Yes.

Edit: clarification

OMFG, the “not now” option (also disguised as an “ask later” button) makes me want to break things. I’m seeing this happening everywhere!

Load up an app? REVIEW THIS APP! (YES/NOT NOW)

Log into your bank account? SIGN UP FOR E-BILLING! (YES/ASK LATER)

Want to order something online? SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER!! (OK/REMIND ME LATER)

Want to pay your utility bill? RATE OUR SERVICE! (OK/REMIND ME LATER)

🤬

you don’t say “who cares it’s already bad for you, lol.” and then moralize about how if everyone doesn’t consume the exact same substances you do, they somehow deserve it.

I think you got that wrong.

The idea to share this information is to empower someone to make an informed decision about the potential consequences that their actions could have on their health.

I can’t possibly blame someone for not knowing better, as I’m certain that their local wine shop doesn’t put cancer warning labels on the bottles.

The thing about carcinogenic compounds, which are also toxins, is it’s entirely about dosage.

Agreed. The scientific consensus is that there is no safe lower limit for alcohol.

The human body can handle a lot more ethanol than pesticides…

To clarify, synthetic pesticides are quite harmful to humans and animals. Biopesticides, found naturally in many plant species, are quite safe by comparison. And plants containing natural toxins (i.e. fiddleheads, red kidney beans, stone fruits, etc.) are quite safe to consume when properly prepared.

Indeed, you are still benefiting from the consumption of those fruits and vegetables.

If you can, stay away from man-made pesticides in all food sources.

My point was that going with organic wine (to not have as many pesticides) won’t stop wine from being harmful at any dose.

Basically, cancer from ethanol consumption shouldn’t be much of a concern.

Well… I’m sure nobody agrees with that. Alcohol consumption is a leading preventable cause of cancer death in U.S, with that study concluding that “there is no safe threshold for alcohol and cancer risk.”.

Both are obviously bad for you, but if you’re stacking carcinogens and other health concerns, eventually you’ll reach someone’s breaking point.

I agree that that happens, and I think it’s crazy that some people will actually double-down on their use when faced with that reality.

Why even have a “breaking point” for something so totally unnecessary to your happiness and future? Are people so hooked in harmful substances that they simply can’t find a less destructive alternative?

I just don’t get why people hate good health so much.

I don’t think anyone is claiming alcohol is healthy

Unfortunately, for quite some time, people claimed that wine was healthy because of the antioxidants it contains. That is, until actual science put a “hell no!” to that theory. It turns out that poison, no matter how many antioxidants it has, is still poison.

I hate to break it to wine-drinkers, but alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen. If the risk of Parkinson’s due to pesticide use scares you, you won’t get away from cancer by going with organic wine.

Even the WHO isn’t afraid to say that No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health, so the choice is in your hands.

I get physical junk mail that makes it seem like I purchased something, subscribed to something, or signed up for something. It’s infuriating to say the least, probably illegal, too.