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...