I'm not sure, but I can think of two reasons for this:
Being a single parent is more expensive than being a couple. Because you can't share costs with another person, a greater proportion of your income goes to required expenses like food, housing, and utilities.
Along those lines, food is cheaper per person the more people you buy for. Buying in bulk is a huge savings. This is presumably why they give you more money for the first child than for each subsequent child.
But weirdly, every time Singh or the NDP propose things like a windfall tax of better regulation, the comments are dominated by criticisms.
We can't just be loud when we criticize. We need to vocally support progressive policies when they come up.
On a related note, you can think of wildfires as forests transforming themselves into deserts.
Albertan cities have been very good about planning for future supply. Former Calgary mayor Nenshi explicitly zoned for future housing, which cities like Toronto and Vancouver refuse to do.
Yes, they are awesome.
From a macroeconomic perspective, lowering inflation is exactly what taxation does.
Economists were initially skeptical, but they are increasingly in agreement that so-called "seller's inflation" (called "greedflation" by the media) is real. "Excess profits" means profits in excess of what would be expected under competitive market conditions. Here's the economic puzzle: when costs go up, profits should go down. But the opposite is happening. There must be some market failure.
Correcting this failure doesn't "drive away competitiveness". Excess profits are a market failure precisely because of a lack of competition! I think what many Canadians confuse is "defending industry" and "defending competitive markets".
Coddling uncompetitive industries is precisely how we get things like the worst telco industry in the world, and super high grocery prices. That is what actually stifles competitiveness.
The headline of this article is very strange. It implies that 3 in the top 100 falls below expectations. What number would have met our baseline expectations?
Japan, a country with 125 million people that puts a big emphasis on education and research, has 4 universities in the top 100. France, a country of 68 million, has 4 universities. Germany, 84 million people and 4 universities. The entirety of Latin America has 3 universities in the top 100, ranked at #85, #93, #94.
If anything, this is a huge win for Canada. This article almost feels like propaganda.
These are good ideas and I share the concern. The dynamic is similar to city government, where an active minority of usually wealthy retired homeowners has outsized power because they have more leisure time. It's undemocratic.
Another idea to ensure that decisions are not made by an unrepresentative minority is a minimal voting threshold. For example: Only threads with a minimum of x votes will be considered. (Where x might be a percentage of total users of the instance, so that it changes over time.) It would be silly to make important decisions based on a thread with just a handful of votes.
I was curious about this topic, so I looked it up and found this Atlantic article.
It begins:
if the purpose of academic grading is to communicate accurate and specific information about learning, letter, or points-based grades, are a woefully blunt and inadequate instrument. Worse, points-based grading undermines learning and creativity, rewards cheating, damages students' peer relationships and trust in their teachers, encourages students to avoid challenging work, and teaches students to value grades over knowledge.
Also, to clear up a possible misunderstanding (that I had and others may have), getting rid of letter grades does not mean getting rid of evaluation. Instead, students are assessed on whether they are achieving/not achieving proficiency in specific skills.
Could you explain the contrast? On its face, bringing back cursive seems totally compatible with removing letter grades.
Not a native speaker, but Quebecois, especially spoken, can involve pretty deep differences in grammar and syntax. Much more than the difference between British and American English.
Example:
Contractions: "M'va le mettre s'a table." = "Je vais le mettre sur la table."
Shortenings: "J'avais plus de nourriture faque chui allé à l'épicerie." = "J'avais plus de nourriture donc je suis allé au marché."
Question particle: "Il veut-tu quelque chose à manger?" = "Veut-il quelque chose à manger?"
I think it's closer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE) or Scots. Most people who speak AAVE/Scots can code switch to standard British or American English, but not vice versa. Some people even seem to hold similar class and discriminatory connotations, unfortunately.
Why? Is there a problem with it or is it just a question of too much centralization of users?