Cosine Thoughts

I'll start with "bad idea" and "won't go as planned". What makes the Alberta plan so enticing is also why it will fail. Basically, a study concluded that Alberta could be entitled to as much as 53% of the funds assets. And IF that were paid out, then Alberta would be able to start it's own pension fund and pay out more for less. The problem is that they won't get that much, and they aren't realistically entitled to that much. To frame the problem better, under the most loose and beneficial interpretation, the same company ended up at a number which was 118% of the funds assets. That's right, the wording of the act is so flawed that it can create interpretations of it such that Alberta could be construed as being owed more funds than the pool has. Clearly. CLEARLY that is insane. Alberta's relative share of the contributions is 18% and their population is about 16% of the people's involved. But, if they only take 16-18% it is NOT a bet...

I read this article  and now I'm convinced that people do not think before they speak. First, I don't know exactly HOW to read the article, but I can divine two possible interpretations: Not cleaning after each night increases odds of improperly cleaned rooms Sense of entitlement to ritual cleanings combined with a lack of understanding of economies of scale I don't know which is implied because there are elements of each which are complimentary and at odds with each other. Either you're mad because YOUR filth is not being cleaned up nightly or you're mad because the hotel ITSELF is generally filthy. While neither is mutually exclusive, the act of changing rooms nightly as a way of avoiding one issue or the other IS mutually exclusive. And so using both arguments for the same complaint makes little sense. To tackle that inconsistency; if you're changing rooms for both reasons you're A) creating more work for the cleaning staff and thus reducing their capacit...

I think the idea here is simply to be polarizing. Then again, maybe the Premiere of Alberta is actually an idiot. Let's start with the simple; creating a separate Provincial CPP replacement is a gamble. Period. The strength of CPP comes from the size of the pool, both in terms of money and participants. Yes, an aging population hurts. But it hurts more slowly with a larger pool of people. Alberta's population will eventually age as well. Their birth rate is lower than 2 and changes like this make it immigration a harder sell which is how most Provinces are currently offsetting aging populations. With a smaller pool of contributors this shift will hit harder and faster. The other problem is the "ask". The claim that Alberta is owed more than 53% of the pool is absurd. That number is an inaccurate fantasy. There is quite literally no way it represents the actual, relative contributions of Albertans to the fund.  Some quick Googling yields the following results: Canada...

For reference I'm talking about this . I want to keep this short. I don't affiliate with any particular party, though I do generally find myself against most Conservative party policies. As such, I find this particular topic slightly refreshing, while also annoying.  Annoying because the Notwithstanding Clause was invoked yet again and because I don't believe it is actually needed here. Refreshing because, on some level at least, I find myself in agreement. In fact, my primary issues of the aforementioned clause being abused again is really just that anyone felt this law was needed.  To me, the response here is a knee-jerk reaction. It feels like rights are being stripped away and that a vulnerable portion of society is being targeted. On this matter however, I don't feel that is accurate. And maybe I'm wrong about that. Here is my thinking anyway. The only reason I can think of to allow a child to change their own personal pronouns/gender preference at school is b...

I intentionally avoided any specific penalty in the title because I don't really care what the punishment is. It could be a slap on the wrist for all I care. As to whether I not I *think* that they should be found guilty of something however, the answer is; yes. Now, I'm not sure if what I'm about to describe actually describes anything criminal or not. I'm simply making a case for why I think that their behavior, constitutes something which I think should be illegal. The short version is this; whether or not they were encouraging lawlessness, they were facilitating it. And they continued to do so, even after it would have become obvious that this was the case. Calling for your supporters to "protest peacefully" or to continue to "protest peacefully" are all fine and good. But, once it becomes apparent that: A faction of people are not protesting peacefully AND Your calls to protest peacefully are being ignored/are ineffective AND It is clear that yo...

This article rather enrages me. My first issue is this; the article is quite long, but it only covers 2 points: EV Owners claim charging at home is simple EV Owners don't think people regularly take long trips The second issue I have is that I have no clue what sources they use to draw these conclusion. Let's eviscerate this article, shall we? For the first, the argument largely stems from data which shows that PHEV users are REALLY bad at charging regularly. And this IS actually true. At least from the studies I've seen. It fails however to get to the bottom of "why". Rather, it just assumes that people are finding it more convenient to pay for gas. Let that sink in. They are assuming that all people who act like this are doing so because they FIND IT MORE CONVENIENT TO DRIVE AWAY FROM THEIR HOUSES TO PAY MORE MONEY . The only way it is more convenient is that, when you've forgotten to charge, filling up with gas is faster. If you read the studies, you will...

I love the arguments that Streaming services have become as bad as cable used to be. It shows that we are now so far removed from that era that we don't even accurately remember all of the pains. There is no point in pretending that streaming isn't growing more expensive and less expansive. But, we are still a far cry from returning to that hellscape known as "Cable Packages". Up first is cost. As a Canadian, I realize that others in the US, or even Canadians in more or less populated areas may have different experiences. But, the last time I had cable was over 10 years ago. Basic cable, after taxes cost me $60. This is because I needed to for the terminal, the services and various other charges.  For this price, I watched Jeopardy! and the news on a daily basis. There were some utter crap sitcoms that came on once in a while. And I think once a week I could watch The Big Bang Theory . For SIXTY. F***ING. DOLLARS! Let that sink in. Channels are also a tad regional an...

I know a lot of people right now are complaining about how streaming platforms are just turning into the new age equivalent of cable. I disagree. And maybe I'll get to that at another time.  There are several silver linings that come with the current streaming model. And I think Hayden Christensen in Ahsoka (and the Obi Wan series) really highlight this. I never felt his portrayal of Anakin in the prequels was "bad". There were some bad lines, but I challenge you to think of someone who could have delivered that "sand" line convincingly. No, the biggest issue with Anakin was not the actor, but rather the focus of the prequels. There wasn't enough time to cover everything. Not even in 3 movies. So, they covered the negative parts of his character which lead to him choosing the dark side. Basically, to make it work, Anakin had to be a whiny brat with a moral dilemma. He couldn't be too troubled because he still needed to be seen as someone whom Obi Wan co...

While it does sound a bit ridiculous on the surface it isn't beyond questioning. However, I feel that the answer would be "no". Or rather, pending a very strong reason, he shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, he should still be permitted any reasonable recourse to ensure any trial is fair. But beyond anything major, I think the cases should be expedited if anything. At this stage, judges at both the federal and state levels in numerous jurisdictions have found the evidence compelling enough to allow trials to move forward. So, even claims that this is some sort of witch-hunt or partisan attack are a bit thin. But, even if it were just a political witch-hunt and doomed to fail I'm not convinced that would change anything here. If this came out of nowhere immediately after Trump had begun his re-election campaign then it might seen as meddling. This is why the Clinton emails were a scandal after all. The public was not generally aware of the allegations ahead of time an...

Well this is a new one . So, personally, while I have no vested interest here and I'm not a UK Citizen, my vote would be "no". And this isn't just a personal preference thing. I have a few technical reasons and a few on the more personal side. So let's dispense, shall we? On the technical side, being a "working royal" has never been a factor in succession. In fact, as the monarchy has slimmed down over the years, the number of those with no formal duties who have remained in the line of succession has only increased. The remove the son of the King while many lower in line who aren't working royals still exist would be lunacy. In fact, his place in line and his relationship the King are also very good reasons NOT to eject him. While modern monarchies are not under constant threat of assassination, every monarchy needs a line of succession with heirs who have some level of legitimacy. Being directly related to a living monarch is about a strong a claim...

I'm not certified of anything. So, this is not financial advice. Just some thoughts on my strategy and an excuse to put this in writing somewhere. The hardest part of investment, in my experience at least, has been sticking to a plan. The biggest part of that problem is not actually defining what my plan is. Another part of it, especially in the beginning, was simply the lack of experience and information from which to make a plan. It is hard to get past that latter one without some time. After all, everyone starts out without any real experience. There are a few things I like to define in my plans these days: How am I breaking up my investments? Usually, this is in terms of how long am I planning to invest a sum of money. In most cases you'll have a bunch of different financial goals. All with very different time horizons. Then, for each investment, what does that mean? What does my risk look like? For my retirement funds, I'm still a ways from retirement. So, I'm not ...