Category: Editorial

  • A Wild Election (Probably) Appears

    I’m pretty annoyed that the entirety of political discourse in Canada consists of playing in to conservative propaganda that Justin Trudeau has done a terrible job the last 10 years and his time is now up. I’m not saying the liberals are perfect (they are not), and they are nowhere near as progressive as they talk about.

    However, despite missing some key legislation I’m still mad at (electoral reform), they have done a competent job running the country for near a decade now.

    The narrative that the party has to go and we need to usher in a conservative government as a matter of course is a false dichotomy, and since all the media (or any political parties for that matter) want to talk about is PP, that is what we’re going to end up with.

    I’m not worried about myself, but I am worried plenty about the state of political discourse and civility in general, and I think whatever happens next will probably be really bad for the country.

    For the purposes of the next election, there is absolutely no excitement to be had for any even purportedly progressive party (NDP and Liberal are both pretty close to the center).

    I’m probably going to be discouraged from talking about politics very soon so I want to say this now while I still can, but I would love to see an actual popular progressive party pitch something truly revolutionary. The blueprints are there, it’s just a matter of using them.

    I don’t think we should cede the entire political landscape to those who’ve completely given up on kindness and decency to those they don’t completely agree with, and I wish we had a chance to have that conversation with a party leader who was charismatic and showed they care deeply about Canada and its people.

    The last 2 elections I’ve done a Vote Compass policy rundown thing, and while I don’t think I’ll go through that question by question like I have in the past, I am certainly going to talk about my own policy positions, and since there are plenty of positions I hold that aren’t held by any major political party, I don’t think I’m in any danger of breaking the political neutrality public servants are supposed to pretend to have.

  • Skype is Good Again

    This post is all about how I came to start using Skype early in 2020 after more than 10 years away. We’re going to get to the reasons why, but first, I think it’s important to go back and figure out how we got here. If you don’t need convincing, you can catch up with me on Skype right now!

    First, let’s go back in time

    I think a lot about communicating with others, especially when it comes to using technology, and the pros and cons of the rapid pace of change in how we can stay in touch with another.

    When I first started using cloud instant messaging and video chat, Skype was pretty much the only game in town. It turns out, a lot of people who experienced the early internet also got accounts on Skype, even though the odds are very good that they don’t use the account(s) anymore. In addition, the service has gone through so many transitions and consolidations that most people probably don’t remember their account credentials or have access to their 15 year old email accounts anymore.

    To give some context for my rediscovery of Skype, we have to go back a ways. Early in 2019, I made the decision to delete my Facebook account. The company has simply had too many privacy disasters and I wasn’t particularly interested in the ‘pros’ of using the Facebook service. Basically the only reason I wanted to still have a Facebook account was to use Facebook Messenger, because for my group of friends, it’s very much the ‘default’ messaging service.

    Deactivating Facebook (the social network)

    Sometime in the last few years, Facebook made it possible to use Messenger while having the social networking part of your account deactivated. At that point, I untangled the complex pieces of my Facebook account from the other parts of my life, including my websites, Facebook Pages (moved administration of those to the equivalent of a shell account), all my ‘Sign in with Facebook’s, and anything else that I didn’t want to take down completely when I deleted the account.

    With that done, and after exporting 5 GB of data from Facebook, I deactivated my account. I spent almost all of 2019 without a Facebook account, and in the end, I found only one thing to ‘miss’ about Facebook. This was the fact that people who host events use Facebook as their canonical invite pool, and therefore invite only people on Facebook. This is in spite of the fact that Facebook makes it *REALLY* easy to invite people to events via email, and even let them RSVP. Very weird that people let that filter bubble control the social circles of their events (it turns out that you basically don’t exist if you don’t have an account), but who am I to judge.

    One of the reasons I wanted to make this set of changes to my internet social life is that Facebook has a terrible record on privacy, and so in parallel to making these changes, I was doing a lot of work to try to find and convince my friends to use a more secure messaging service, preferably one not owned by an advertising company. I went through lots of different options, including apps that were TOO focused on privacy like Signal. I explored open source options hosted on a server of my own like Mattermost, which is a really great application which is super cheap to run and lets teams of all sizes chat.

    Starting to move away from Facebook (the company)

    In the end, having explored what I thought were all the options, my friends and I landed on an app called Wire. It’s respected in the industry for being secure, in that you can create a cryptographic link with somebody in person so you can have complete confidence you’re chatting with somebody who is who they say they are. I don’t get that intense about security, but it’s good to know the option is out there.

    Now, we can fast forward to the beginning of this year, 2020, and the day I decided I needed to get rid of all ties to Facebook1Side note here, I also deactivated Instagram as part of this, because even though I hadn’t really used the service at all in about that same one-year period, having the account still helps the company (Facebook), and I saw no reason to do that. Once again, I downloaded an export of all my photos, and I was gone., because it’s a company that just doesn’t deserve more chances. Basically the last set of people who I was chatting with on Messenger is my immediate family, and I knew they would have no interest in going to Wire, and frankly it’s not a great looking app and I wanted to try again to see if I could find something better. The other point here is that since I wanted to video chat with my family, I needed solid video and Wire didn’t have that for groups.

    If I wanted to move away from Messenger, I would need to find something that would replace the functionality that I wanted with my parents and family.

    Finding Skype (again)

    It’s at this point that Skype comes back in to the picture, and where things get most interesting, from my perspective. Having spent about 15 years learning everything I can about technology and multiple apps platforms, I know good software when I see it. There was a good long time when Skype was NOT a good app, but honestly that time is behind us.

    The app is owned by Microsoft, it’s not run by an advertising company, it runs on every platform known to man (including the web), it’s updated frequently, and with a very consistent and complete set of features on all platforms, and it keeps up with the trends and new features of the platforms it’s on, like dark mode. There is a reason TV stations often use Skype for interviews, and it’s because it’s rock solid and you can easily set it up as a base to stream live video.

    For all the reasons listed above, and so many more, I thought it was worth giving Skype another shot. Honestly, I’ve added the app to my phone and computer now, and it just keeps impressing me. The biggest problem the service has in my view so far is that a lot of people don’t remember the credentials for their old accounts and so they end up needing to make a brand new account to use it again, and honestly that only bothers me and other nerds who care about data and account consistency.

    My family used Skype for our first family video call on it this past weekend, and it was honestly excellent. It might be unmatched when it comes to features used for actual human interaction, and the video and sound quality was unbelievable.

    Yes, you should try Skype

    Honestly, my next step here, and my main purpose for writing this ridiculously long piece, is to tell you that I think you should be using Skype, potentially more than any other chat/video platform out there. Depending on the operating systems you and your friends use, this is almost always a very good choice.

    So yes, I think you should try Skype, or give it another try if you haven’t recently, because while I had written the once great app off a long time ago, it is BACK, and definitely better than ever!

    You can find me on Skype using the username rob.attrell, or by following this link. Hope to see you there!

  • Proposition 1: First-time home buyers (FTHBs)

    Proposition 1: First-time home buyers (FTHBs)

    As somebody who just bought a house in June, I know surprisingly little about what help the government offers to FTHBs. We didn’t qualify for the benefits that exist for FTHBs, since for my wife this is her second home purchase, and that meant that I didn’t even look at what would have been available, since it didn’t apply.

    I think FTHBs get a tax credit, or a loan from the government at a lower interest rate, or something to help them be able to afford a house. My understanding is that most people use these incentives to buy a bigger house than they otherwise would have, which doesn’t necessarily help them financially, as it just gives them a bigger mortgage payment, which under equivalent circumstances means that while they may be more likely to buy a house, they’re also more likely to buy something they can’t actually afford.

    In terms of policy, I would support helping young families to buy/rent housing, but perhaps through subsidized housing rather than cash/tax breaks which really help people who can already afford to buy more than those who still can’t under the FTHB policy. My own personal views are that for essentials like housing, nobody should be refused on the basis that they cannot pay, but that subsidies shouldn’t exist for everyone, they should ramp down as a person or families income ramps up.

    Summary: I don’t actually know what the FTHBs policy is right now, but I think there’s definitely more than can be done to support young people in securing affordable housing that is sustainable and safe for them. In giving my answer, I went with my gut, without knowing what each party actually plans to do on this issue.

    Table of Contents

  • Making the CBC Vote Compass even better

    Making the CBC Vote Compass even better

    Preamble

    The CBC Vote Compass project has been around for as long as I can remember, and long before I was as politically aware as I am now. When I first started taking the Vote Compass ‘quiz’, it was the only real way of knowing where parties lay on a given set of issues, as I was just starting to care about or realize the impact of politics.

    The policy questions that make up the Vote Compass ‘survey’ are a good spread of what I would consider to be important policy issues in a given election, but recently I’ve started to notice some holes in the concept that could easily be improved. Taking off my ‘bias’ lens (as somebody who is more socially and economically liberal, small ‘L’) and looking at these questions objectively, I believe that a few additions to the questions would really go a long way towards informing voters and framing the issues for the electorate.

    While the idea that the news media in North America and around the world is ‘fake’ is atrocious, there is a real sense in the world today that you can only trust sources that agree with your existing point of view. We could all do with a little more trust in objective journalism, provided reporters and editorial boards can demonstrate that they deserve some of our trust as they cover stories that affect the world around us.

    In this series, leading up to the federal election, I am going to run through each policy proposition in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election Vote Compass, discuss the question, whether I think there is important context missing, and how I think the questions (or the way the questions are asked) could be improved.

    I would love to hear from you if you have any points on any of the questions or issues you think I’ve missed, and will be updating this as we go depending on feedback or if I’m rethinking things.

    Note: As I mentioned, I lean heavily towards traditionally liberal viewpoints, and I’ve highlighted my selection in the Vote Compass for each question, but in this series, I’m going to look at each question objectively in discussing what information I think is missing. We may disagree on individual policy choices, but I think all of us can agree that these improvements would help inform voters of all stripes.

    Editor’s Note: Rob is dumb, and doesn’t know a lot about a lot of things, probably not that different from your average voter. He says “I don’t know” a lot. He is not doing any extra research in to policy for this post, since that’s the whole point of this exercise, so there will be a lot of dumb/wrong assumptions about policy because the Vote Compass doesn’t help you out there.

    The Policy Propositions

    • Proposition 1: First-time home buyers (FTHBs)

      As somebody who just bought a house in June, I know surprisingly little about what help the government offers to FTHBs. We didn’t qualify for the benefits that exist for FTHBs, since for my wife this is her second home purchase, and that meant that I didn’t even look at what would have been available, since it didn’t apply.

      I think FTHBs get a tax credit, or a loan from the government at a lower interest rate, or something to help them be able to afford a house. My understanding is that most people use these incentives to buy a bigger house than they otherwise would have, which doesn’t necessarily help them financially, as it just gives them a bigger mortgage payment, which under equivalent circumstances means that while they may be more likely to buy a house, they’re also more likely to buy something they can’t actually afford.

      In terms of policy, I would support helping young families to buy/rent housing, but perhaps through subsidized housing rather than cash/tax breaks which really help people who can already afford to buy more than those who still can’t under the FTHB policy. My own personal views are that for essentials like housing, nobody should be refused on the basis that they cannot pay, but that subsidies shouldn’t exist for everyone, they should ramp down as a person or families income ramps up.

      Summary: I don’t actually know what the FTHBs policy is right now, but I think there’s definitely more than can be done to support young people in securing affordable housing that is sustainable and safe for them. In giving my answer, I went with my gut, without knowing what each party actually plans to do on this issue.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 2: Handguns

      I am strongly against guns and violence in every way. I realize it’s a means to an end in circumstances of defending your freedom, but carrying or owning personal firearms for the ‘purposes’ of self-defense or security just seems completely backwards to me.

      So, you’re probably thinking to yourself “Rob, why didn’t you put strongly agree?”. I see where you’re coming from. But I read the question and it talks about banning handguns, with no limits whatsoever, and I think that only works in principle. Would I love to live in a country with zero handguns (or other guns)? Absolutely! But if handguns are banned, but the law is only loosely or selectively enforced, it will be the lawless who own guns, and police will be at a disadvantage (again, the question could, and should, clarify).

      I think that the police having guns is kind of important, but I also think that they need a LOT more training on how to use them safely, and especially on cultural sensitivity, issues around racism and mental illness, and de-escalation.

      I do think that people should have the ability to purchase guns for some reasons, but that training to get a permit should be long and challenging, and that it should be renewed regularly (like lifeguarding or CPR training). And I also think that military-style weapons or automatic firing features on all guns should be made illegal, and that improper storage of firearms should also be severely punished.

      Similarly, I think that you should need extra training if you want to own a gun and store it in an urban area, where things are very different than rural farms or places where you might actually need to protect yourself from wildlife or for other such uses.

      Summary: After all of that, do I support the ban of handguns? Yes, clearly, but I also think it’s not that simple, and knowing what policy proposals parties have on this issue is very important in determining how I vote.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 3: Child Care

      This particular question is framed poorly in that given the way I feel, it presents the participant with a flawed premise. The way I read it, it’s asking whether I think the money that currently goes to parents (the Canada Child Benefit?) should instead go to child care centres to let parents who want to work the flexibility to do so.

      However, my particular opinion is that the Canada Child Benefit is great, but having the government subsidize child care in addition would really benefit parents too, especially those who might not be able to afford child care otherwise (it’s HECKA expensive).

      Answering ‘disagree’, like I did, could reasonably be interpreted as meaning that I think money should continue to be given directly to parents instead of going to child care centres. But in my case, I don’t think it should be a ‘one or the other’, I think parents should have affordable ways to make sure their kids are in a safe and engaging atmosphere during the day if they want to work (until kids go to school).

      I find that with a lot of these questions, with the way they’re phrased, the most ‘extreme’ positions aren’t addressed at all, or the problem space the question addresses can’t be answered with a one-dimensional ‘agree/disagree’ scale.

      Summary: I support the ability for parents to receive cash each month to help raise their kids (dependent on income), AND the ability to access subsidized (affordable) child care if they need or want it. Not everybody has other options.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 4: Health Care

      This question is REALLY tough for me, mostly because it exposes some flaws in my understanding of how these systems are run. My understanding is the health care is currently administered on a provincial level, and most of my basic procedures and medical appointments are paid for by OHIP (the Ontario Health Insurance Plan). This is a public sector system, but private companies can handle all kinds of procedures which are then billed to OHIP.

      I think the balance between private and public that we have in Ontario is pretty good, so I thought that things should pretty much stay the way they are (I certainly wouldn’t advocate for more private health care). I will say clearly that I’m also very ignorant of these things though, other then hearing about proposals for national drug coverage (Pharmacare), which I’m also fully in support of. This question/answer didn’t really help me at all, because it doesn’t give you any information about how much the federal government determines these things, and how much the private sector is actually involved in health care in Canada.

      Summary: This is not the worst question, but with no context or information, I find it really hard to come to any conclusion other than to say I’m happy with how things are in Ontario, and we have some balance of private/public health care.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 5: Basic Income

      I’ve been extremely vocal about my support for a basic income program in Canada. This question is quite straightforward, but I think it takes a certain (liberal) leap in thinking compared to how most people view this policy proposal. Most people hear about basic income and think about homeless people or ‘freeloaders’ on the system who will end up costing the country money.

      However, those same people will also complain about having to work 40 hours a week, or liberally use sick leave, EI, or pension in their careers/retirement, but not think about it the same way as with others. They see themselves as complex beings who deserve a break, but the homeless person who can’t get a job due to mental illness or not being able to afford a shower at the YMCA made too many mistakes in their life.

      I think giving each Canadian enough to ultimately bring them out of poverty, by charging what would be considered a very high relative tax rate, is a great way to let the most successful of us (read: the lucky ones) support those who haven’t had as many breaks in life. Nobody is suggesting billionaires need to live life poor, they will still be billionaires (just slightly less so).

      Summary: This question is quite straightforward, I think because it doesn’t rely on context or knowledge of the current plan in place (because there is none!). It’s a broad question about a proposal that some parties want to have in place, and lets people answer as they will.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 6: Quebec Separatism

      Oooh, another question I like (in that it’s basically a yes/no)! I mean, to be honest, I think it would be silly for Quebec to separate from Canada (is that what ‘formally recognized as a nation’ means), but if they really want to do that, I don’t personally have a good reason not to let them.

      I’m not going to dwell too long on this question, because it comes down to the will of Quebec (and like a woman’s right to choose, I don’t think I really have any say in the matter).

      Summary: This question is fine, I think. Quebec should be allowed to separate, even if the rest of Canada (like me) doesn’t necessarily think it’s a good idea for them.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 7: Unions

      As somebody who’s literally never been part of a union or been in a situation where one impacted me directly, information-wise I’m not really sure how much influence this question assumes unions have now. There are all kinds of small up to very large unions who have almost no sway or who control or influence everything about their industries.

      The majority of the work unions do, as I understand it, is to protect their individual members from being taken advantage of by more powerful ownership. In that sense, standing up for the little guy, I don’t see how a union becoming ‘too influential’ is even possible, because at that point they’d basically have to be running the organization itself, and then you’d need a union within the union, right?

      In any case, unions seem like a good thing, so I’m not even sure how limiting their influence through policy would work. Maybe I’m just naive, in which case I really hope somebody can fill me in.

      Summary: This question assumes knowledge of unions that I don’t have, and I don’t know what laws exist that would limit the influence of unions, but I think that they’re very important and nobody who wants to be part of or form a union should be stopped for it by company ownership.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 8: Climate Change

      Oh boy this question is a dooooooozy for me. Watching the adults in the room lately completely bungle what’s necessary and good for our planet for the sake of the economy and ‘good’ politics makes me very upset, to say the least. The science on climate change is quite clear at the moment, and building a pipeline is maybe even worse right now than selling weapons to oppressive regimes, in terms of overall harm to the world and everyone on it.

      Anybody who answers anything other than ‘much more’ to this question either has their head in the sand on climate change, or is actively disinterested in the consequences of our continued impact on the environment. Whether that is for politics, or their personal wealth, or any other reason, it’s not good enough, and we deserve political parties who are willing to step up and do what’s right for the world, politics be damned.

      Summary: I hate this question only because it makes something political that shouldn’t be political. If the Earth becomes scorched, you’re going to suffer the consequences, and it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor (but it will be far worse for the poor).

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 9: Reconciliation

      This question is pretty subjective, as probably amounts to virtue signalling in its responses, since the question “How much does the government currently do to make amends for past treatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada?” would likely have wildly different answers depending on who you ask.

      In addition to the ambiguity of the question itself depending on your perspective, many people would say that Indigenous peoples in Canada are *still* being treated in a way that we will be ashamed of looking back from the future.

      Summary: To put it simply, as a progressive who’s family/ancestry came to Canada, there is no real answer to this question besides “Much more”, even if this is a question that doesn’t really give any information.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 10: Quebec Separatism (2)

      Since I’m not particularly interested in the nuances of provinces joining and leaving Canada, this question is effectively the same as Proposition 6 for me, except that it doesn’t take any kind of slant.

      I have no opinion about whether Quebec should separate from the rest of Canada, except that I think it’s kind of silly to want that. But then again, I think United Nations could formalize and create one whole world government holding each nation accountable for the things they do and the people inside their borders.

      Summary: This question is fine, nothing unambiguous about it, but it doesn’t mean I have to have an opinion on it.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 11: Equalization Payments

      I’ve always been an egalitarian at heart, in that I think that as long as everybody has enough to go around, people should be able to share their wealth without really thinking too hard about it.

      I don’t expect provinces who have more to bankrupt themselves in order to pay other provinces, but the whole point of the equalization payments are that some provinces happen to have a lot of natural resources which are valuable, while others don’t.

      The only question that this proposition leaves me is how much equalization payments actually are currently, information which isn’t given in the question. Another piece of info that’s missing from the question is what these equalization payments actually go towards, which is pretty important context I think a lot of people lack when thinking about these payments and their importance to the provinces which receive them.

      Provinces like Alberta with their oil and gas deposits aren’t wealthier because of their wild business savvy and economic acumen, it’s because of those resources that Alberta is richer, and I believe Canada and Canadians should have access to that richness too.

      Summary: There’s a lot of info missing about the amounts of equalization payments going to provinces, and what this money is actually used for. This would be very helpful to put the question in context, and to decide whether voters in a given province think they should continue (and increase or decrease).

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 12: Trans Pronoun Rights

      This question makes me feel a lot of things. For one, it’s the only question on trans rights in this vote compass, and I think that protections for LGBT people should continue to increase until they are as safe and protected in their everyday lives as straight and cis people.

      For another, I think respect for the people who live in our midst is extremely important, and one sign of that respect is something as simple as referring to people by the names and pronouns they choose.

      You’ll notice, though, that I actually somewhat disagree with the idea of making it illegal to refer to somebody by a gender pronoun that is different from what they would prefer. I’m not sure how well researched this is, but I suspect that most trans people don’t want people who disrespect them and refuse to acknowledge their preferred gender to be charged with a crime.

      While immensely disrespectful, this act probably shouldn’t be a crime, and there are already laws in place which do protect trans individuals from discrimination because they feel their gender was mis-assigned at birth.

      I would be very curious to hear if transgender people (especially those who have been deliberately and repeatedly misgendered) want criminal prosecution for those who commit these acts.

      Summary: I think the phrasing of this question is flawed in trying to advocate for increased protections for the human rights of trans people, because fixing discrimination is simpler than convicting them of crimes for being rude and disrespectful in their speech.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 13: Corporate Taxes

      I don’t know exactly how much tax large corporations pay, but I know it’s not a lot, and I know they should be doing more with their money than paying executives bonuses and paying dividends to mostly rich shareholders, while employees suffer with low wages and stingy benefit packages.

      I know next to nothing about corporate tax law, but hearing the amounts of income tax that large corporations pay each year, it’s inherently clear that something massively unfair is going on. There is no reason anybody who isn’t an executive at a large corporation would ever answer anything but “Much more” for this question.

      Summary: It would be nice to get some information on the existing corporate tax rate in Canada on this page, and how much large companies tend to pay in taxes (obviously, this is complicated, but it doesn’t mean you can’t do it…the information is out there).

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 14: Abortion Services

      This is one of those questions where not only do I feel like the question doesn’t contain enough information for the average person to answer, but I also feel like no man can actually give a reasonable, informed answer to this question.

      First off, I wish I knew how available abortion services were for the average woman in Canada, but I also know from the news that many women face severe scrutiny when trying to access these kinds of services. Being yelled at or seeing protesters outside a clinic necessarily limits the accessibility of these kinds of services, which has to factor in to these questions for me.

      In answering this question, I assume that in general (in cities, for instance), abortion services are generally pretty accessible, but I also expect that there are more remote areas where women who need abortions find it much more difficult than it could be. That in itself is not as easy problem to solve, but that’s what the question is about!

      Summary: This question doesn’t have much detail, so it really comes down to how you feel about abortion, but I guess they get to ask the question in a less ‘controversial’ way? They’re not asking if it should be illegal, just if it should be harder, or easier? If I had to guess, I would say that’s why the question is phrased this way.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 15: Supervised Injection Sites

      I’m of the opinion that drugs are bad. However, addiction is a thing, and honestly, if somebody is taking drugs, I would rather they have the option to administer them in a safe way, and in an environment where nurses or doctors are available to help, in addition to clean and sterile needles.

      I have read a fair bit of research to show that these sites not only help reduce things like the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis, but that they also lead to fewer overdoses, and even reduction in the numbers of drug users (in cases where using drugs is decriminalized, and doctors/nurses on staff can administer or at least suggest addiction therapies). Selling drugs is an entirely different issue, and I reserve the same level of disdain for drug dealers as I do for tobacco companies and pharma companies pushing stronger and stronger synthetic opioids.

      Summary: This question is OK in that it’s mostly a yes/no, and in a society where many people still feel drug users should be ‘punished’ for their ‘sins’ and suffer the consequences of drug use, I fall on the side of compassionate support for users and think everybody should be able to work through (or even potentially indulge) their drug habits without having to suffer through other medical issues relating to their injection. This is true even while I also think using painkilling or hallucinogenic drugs for recreational purposes is not a good practice.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 16: Oil and Gas Subsidies

      This question is a weird one for me, because it’s phrased like the industry definitely gets subsidies (which…why?!?!), but it doesn’t give any information about how much they receive (and whyyyyyyyy?).

      Regardless of how much they receive, it kind of seems like there’s no reason for these companies to get any money from the government, seeing as how they’re already unbelievably profitable, and they’re in the middle of causing the wholesale destruction of our environment extracting fossil fuel from the ground to be burned.

      If anything, I would say that these companies should need to pay more given what they’re doing, and that maybe they could apply for tax exemptions/credits if they’re doing research on things like developing biodegradable plastics or fuel systems that burn cleaner (no emissions, less harmful combustion byproducts).

      It’s not going to be ‘easy’ to reduce human reliance on the current generation of plastics and combustion engines, but it’s been around a century that we’ve had either of those, and we can certainly get to a point where we’ve moved beyond single-use plastic and gas engines.

      Summary: This question is not as bad as some others, but having information about how much oil and gas receive as subsidies (perhaps as a percentage of their profits?) to really put this question in context.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 17: Asylum Claims

      F off with this question. Some of these Vote Compass questions have nuance and are complicated, but not this one. Asylum claims are not something that should be taken lightly like it is in this question, and the fact that people would come in to our country looking for somewhere safe demonstrates to me that we should absolutely not be treating them like potential criminals or deport them at will, potentially right back to the dangerous place (home) they were escaping.

      Summary: This question is the Maxime Bernier of the Vote Compass, in that making it political is xenophobic and racist. We should not tolerate this kind of hateful rhetoric as Canadians.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 18: Defecit Reduction

      Another question that as a progressive just makes me upset. Ontarians of various walks of life have been feeling the effects of these public services cuts since Doug Ford took office, and the CPC finally released their budgeted platform last week.

      I think a lot of people don’t really understand how government budgets work (I’m not saying I do understand), but while being ‘in debt’ is obviously not ideal, it is by no means impossible for a society to function that way.

      Many counties (the US being a great example) have a massive national debt, but it’s not so bad because other countries also owe them money, and it all kinda/sorta balances out over time, as long as you don’t just keep spending more and more.

      Based on no information, I assume the Canadian government works the same way, and it’s actually kind of good for international relations to borrow money from other countries and to loan them money as well. It keeps the world smaller and keeps us on good terms with allies.

      I strongly believe that we should be finding other ways to reduce the deficit slowly and reasonably than through cutting public services *cough* TAXES *cough*. Paying for things we all benefit from is solid public policy, even if conservatives definitionally believe in their own self-interests over paying for services collectively (when it doesn’t benefit them not to).

      Summary: I wish this question put the actual deficit in Canada in to perspective, because at the moment there is absolutely no reporting out there saying the deficit is too high and we’re heading towards catastrophe, but if our economy is strong, we should be investing that money in to our citizens’ wellbeing.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 19: Immigration

      How many immigrants does Canada currently admit per year? Does that include refugees who are immigrating to Canada out of necessity? This is information I could really use to help answer this question. Many people like to say that “America is full” (North and Sound America), but if people are being honest, that’s just bullshit.

      We learned in high school in Alberta that the average population density of Canada is about 3 people per sq/km. Considering that almost everybody in Canada is crammed within 100 km of the US border, I absolutely believe that’s still basically unchanged, regardless of the amount of immigration we have in Canada.

      It’s been shown through research that immigration helps the economy, and getting exposed to new and different cultures from our own really broadens our horizons and makes us better people, something which is sorely needed in North America today.

      We should honestly take it as a huge compliment that people want to live here, and given that we already have a system in place to make sure that the people immigrating here aren’t escaped criminals, or anything remotely like that, I think we should be open to letting even more people in every year than we currently do. Canada isn’t full, and the more people come here, the more work there is to be done, so we shouldn’t be afraid to have a few more helping hands.

      Summary: I wish I had information about how much immigration Canada currently has while answering this question, and I would like to know the plans of each of the parties if elected, mostly to put the rhetoric of those parties in context.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 20: Military Spending

      As I’ve said before, I don’t like war/violence, but I understand it’s necessary to a certain extent. I don’t know exactly how much Canada spends on its military each year, but I have no doubt it’s a lot. Canada has a lot of peace-keeping forces, and we have a lot of allies who we support in different battles around the world.

      All of that being said, however, I think there is a lot of military spending that could probably be reduced over time, especially on things which are becoming or have become obsolete, like older jets or helicopters (I admit I have almost no knowledge in this area).

      Summary: Once again, this question really makes me yearn for more information about the amount of money we spend (as a percentage of GDP, maybe) on the military, and what we get out of that. I think that information would go a long way towards informing people as to how they should feel about military spending.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 21: Single-Use Plastics

      This question is totally fine, as it’s basically an agree/disagree again, with no real ambiguity of the current state. However, the single-use plastics thing is still kind of weird because while of course throwing away plastic is bad for the environment, the blanket language of these kinds of laws means that there’s no real distinction between different kinds of plastics, especially the kinds of plastics which are currently being developed.

      I think we can all agree that current replacements for single-use plastic items are worse in almost every way, and the only things we’re actually replacing only contribute very minimally to plastic waste. Instead, what I think we should actually be doing is doing research in one of a few things:

      • Biodegradable plastics which otherwise have the same properties as non biodegradable plastics (this really should take that long if we put some thought in to it, and the profits this research would yield would surely be VERY high).
      • Bacteria which break down commonly used plastics, so that these materials will break down normally in nature the same way trees do when bacteria evolved to break down wood pulp.
      • New materials which are somehow easier to recycle or require less effort, to account for human nature/laziness.

      Plastics were only developed in the 20th century, and science has come so far in the years since that I have no doubt that our best scientists working on this for a few years could crack it no problem.

      Summary: This question is fine, but I think the policy itself is much more complicated than ‘ban single-use plastics’ if we can get biodegradable plastics.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 22: Employment Insurance

      This is one of the worse questions of the bunch in that the VAST majority of people probably have no idea what is even required to qualify for Employment Insurance. Even just a list of the simplest stipulations of the program would help voters decide whether they think it should be easier.

      Since what I would actually prefer is that everybody could qualify for employment insurance (a basic income, if you will), obviously I think it should be much easier, but I also spent about 6 months on EI about 4-5 years ago now. Having a work contract end and no job lined up immediately after, I was one of the ones who easily *qualified* for EI, but one of the worst aspects of the program is that any money you make while on EI needs to be reported, and you get correspondingly less from EI as you start to make money.

      This is incredibly annoying because it literally gives you no incentive to work at all unless you’re making more money than the maximum you’re eligible for under EI, which when you’re trying to pick up work part time here and there, I can tell you is always less.

      Summary: All in all, this question is missing a lot of information, especially for a commonly misunderstood program like EI.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women

      All they are asking for is recognition? Geez what a low bar, and a bad question. This one is a no-brainer.

      Summary: Next!

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 24: Wealth Tax

      The only people who think that wealthy people should not pay more tax are wealthy people, and people who’ve been duped by wealthy people to believe that all tax is bad. Learning a little about marginal tax rates and seeing the amount of money that rich people have left over *after* paying would convert a lot of people I think, but we’re left with no information based on this question alone.

      A wealth tax is a really obvious thing, and I think hope people will start to demand it soon.

      Summary: This question is lacking some information, but I think it’s clear enough that this gets more of a pass on lacking sources than other questions.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 25: Gender-Balanced Cabinet

      I’m not too concerned about a direct 50:50 split in the cabinet, but we need 2015 to have been the end of mostly white dudes in decision-making roles in politics in Canada. Sometimes, you might have more women in cabinet, sometimes more men, but the important thing is slowly tearing down the walls which were built by literally millennia of powerful men lording over everybody.

      This question is fine, but it’s not like it would be written in to law or anything I don’t think, but hopefully parties will continue to pledge something like this (for candidates being placed in ridings too) to correct the long historical imbalances.

      Summary: This question is fine, but might be one of the wish-washiest ones of them all (which is too bad because gender imbalance is an important issue that with a little attention we could completely fix.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 26: Pharmacare

      Again, I feel like this is a provincial thing (OHIP+ does this in Ontario for kids under the age of 18 who aren’t on their parent’s insurance), but I am just all for it.

      The question here is passable because again it’s an agree or disagree with no prior knowledge required, but even seeing some stats on the average annual household spending on drugs (with or without insurance) would be really interesting to add to this discussion.

      Summary: Question is fine, obviously as a proponent of covering the basic necessities of life for everyone, I am in complete agreement.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 27: Monarchy

      Of all the questions you could ask in an election season, this might be the weirdest. None of the mainstream political parties would actually do this, whether or not they actually supported the idea in principle. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the question itself, but asking it amidst all the other ones is a little odd.

      At this point, much like in the UK (where it seems anarchy reigns), the monarchy is simple a figurehead who rubber-stamps decisions made by elected officials. While it does add an extra level of bureaucracy, I am in favour of the world being more interconnected politically, rather than less, so unless we’re ditching the Commonwealth for a new World government, I see no rush to do this.

      Summary: The question as posed is fine, but I don’t really see the point in asking it.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 28: Foreign Policy on Human Rights

      Yes. I don’t know how this is controversial, but yes, duh.

      Summary: I’m not a politician, but obviously we should take a stand against human rights abusers, even if our counties happen to share a border.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 29: Carbon Tax

      As a planet, we need concrete ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and research has shown that taxing pollution in this way is a good way to curb emissions. I think this question is still OK because it again gives a solid agree/disagree, but the idea of a ‘carbon tax’, and especially the specific implementation in Canada could easily be cited here to give context.

      I think in this case in particular it would really helpful because a lot of people don’t really understand a carbon tax, and descriptions of it by its opponents do not do it justice, or try to give any context for it.

      Summary: This question itself is fine, but some sources of additional info on the page would be REALLY helpful.

      Table of Contents

    • Proposition 30: Religious Minorities

      This is a weird question for me, and because there’s no context, I’m also going to call it a bad question. How much are we saying is currently done to ‘accommodate’ religious minorities, because from my perspective it doesn’t seem like much outside of the bare minimum (for a secular state which for Christianity has all major holidays off and anybody who is not Christian arouses suspicion if in positions of influence).

      I don’t want to say ‘much more’ should be done, because I know things are already done, but I don’t think we should be bending over backwards to make any possible accommodation for religions when what they want accommodated can potentially hurt others (eg. anti-vaccine people). If somebody can have their life improved through ‘accommodations’, I absolutely think they should be able to if it’s not hurting anyone, but I don’t think ‘because religion’ is a particularly good reason for making these accommodations. We should just do it.

      Summary: The question is tough because it lacks context, but what context would you even give? It doesn’t mention what laws or legislation it’s referring to, so we’re just left to guess based on what we know about ‘religious minorities’. They shouldn’t be treated any differently than anybody else, religious or not.

      Table of Contents

    • Propositions 31 & 32 (QOTD): Religious Symbols Ban

      I hate this new law so much. It’s so clear from the way it was put in place and the way it’s been defended that it’s just about racism against Middle Eastern people, mostly women specifically.

      The two ‘Questions of the Day’ when I took the Vote Compass were all about this law, and though they are different questions, I can’t imagine most people answering them on different sides of the political spectrum (I guess it comes back to the question about the independence of Quebec).

      I don’t know much about the way that the government of Canada could challenge the laws in Quebec, but given how racist the law is, I hope it is widely contested by whatever civil liberties bodies could be responsible for standing up for the rights of these civil servants.

      Once again, the question itself is fine, with the exception that there could probably be some contextual information on the page about the specifics of the law available. It pains me to see that places in Canada would come up with something like this, but that’s where we are now.

      Summary: Disagreeing with a law that most reasonable people would consider racist (was there a problem with religious people interfering with their civil duties, or is the problem with people using civil services complaining about feeling uncomfortable with non-Christian religious ‘symbols’ like burqas and complaining about it) shouldn’t be political. Do better and get back to me.

      Table of Contents

    Conclusions

    • Ways to Improve the CBC Vote Compass (Conclusion)

      See my preamble for this exercise and analysis of each of the policy questions here: 2019 CBC Vote Compass Analysis.

      First things first, let’s tally up the questions based on whether they simply ask for a policy position (good/OK), whether they could use more information for context (bad), or whether they’re based on an extremely racist proposal (awful).

      Good Questions: [2, 5, 6, 25, 26]

      OK Questions: [8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30]

      Bad Questions: [1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 28]

      Awful Questions: [17, 23, 31&32]

      By my count, that’s 5 good questions, 11 that are OK but could probably use more context, and another 12 that are just bad. Overall, in my opinion, that is just not a great ratio, never mind the 4 outright awful questions.

      These bad (not awful) questions usually involve asking whether voters support ‘more’ of something without ever saying what the current state of the policy is. These kinds of questions allow me to give truly unhelpful answers, unless I happen to already know a ton about the topic.

      There are also a bunch of bad questions, mostly having to do with racist or bigoted views, and it’s really unfortunate we’re at a point in politics where we need to ask if Canada of all places should admit more immigrants.

      The good and OK questions from the survey all describe a policy relatively clearly, but the OK ones could definitely use some extra links on the page for information in case voters want to inform themselves before deciding what they think about a policy.

      I find the Vote Compass quite accurate most of the time for me, but I’m not sure everybody else feels that way, and given the large number of people who actually use it (over a million in this election), adding some context to the questions would probably go a long way towards informing voters!

      Anyways, thanks for reading, and get out on the 21st and vote!

  • Staying warm through the fall on a bike

    Staying warm through the fall on a bike

    Earlier this year, I moved in to a new house, which meant my commute went from being about 20 minutes by bike (~7 km) to a little over 40 minutes (~17 km). Fortunately, the area we ended up buying in has a nice, relatively calm ride in, most of the way on 60 km/h roads with a shoulder, or 50 km/h roads with a bike lane.

    Through the summer, when biking is easiest, I’m mostly wearing shorts and an athletic shirt in the morning and evening, so nothing too specific or hard to find. As the temperature begins to fall, though, it gets to a point where you need to layer up, or you’re gonna have a bad time.

    Over the last month or so, I’ve found a few nice cycling accessories that specifically lend themselves very well to biking in the colder weather, which I thought I’d share here. I bought all of these at Costco in Ottawa, but I’ll share as much detail as I can about them since they’ve all made it way easier (and warmer) as we march steadily towards winter.

    Gloves

    These gloves were under $20 at Costco, HEAD brand, and the fingers work with touch screens. They’re thick enough that I didn’t feel the need to double layer even at 0 degrees (Celcius), but not so thick and warm that my hands were all sweaty when I was done. The palms are also quite grippy so I wasn’t worried about losing control of the handlebars.

    Shirt

    This long-sleeved t-shirt is Rough Dress brand, and it was only $12 at Costco. I ended up buying two of these, and I consider them nice enough to wear as a regular shirt, but warm and cozy enough to use as a layer in cold weather or as my only layer in warmer fall weather. The shirt is 90% cotton, and 10% spandex, so it’s quite stretchy but not so much that it feels like it’s skin-tight or confining.

    Balaclava

    This is a piece of gear that I should’ve gotten a long time ago. I’d been using a combination of a neck warmer (used for skiing and very thick/itchy) and a hoodie hood under my helmet, and this is a huge improvement in so many ways. It was $12, BULA brand, and is incredibly versatile in varying weather. For example, you can wear it around your neck only, or independently control the hood portion and neck portion depending on conditions and your temperature.

    This is a much less bulky option than my neck warmer/hoodie combination, and kept me just as warm, if not more so, while also letting me easily cover and uncover my mouth and nose as needed depending on temperature. It fits just fine under my helmet, barely requiring any loosening as compared to a hoodie hood, and it’s not so tight that you can’t fit headphones (mine are wireless, YMMV) under the helmet if you like a podcast or album while you ride. My hearing of the environment was not impacted at all by the balaclava either, and I could actually fit my glasses over the fabric, in stark contrast to my hoodie which is very baggy in comparison.

    Conclusions

    Biking in the winter isn’t for everyone. In addition to what I’ve picked up above, I’ve also ordered a pair of cycling glasses with different sets of lenses, including a clear pair for biking in the early morning when the sun is just coming up. It’s a real challenge trying to see through sun glasses at that time of day, but you still want to keep dust and bugs out of your eyes, and to protect the top part of your face from cold as much as possible.

    I’ll share my thoughts about the glasses once they come, but if you’re considering biking in to the fall, I’d definitely check out Costco, as they seem to be specifically catering to this kind of thing in their options for fall/winter clothing. Safe travels, everyone!

  • The Fable of the Caterpillar

    The Fable of the Caterpillar

    Imagine this scenario for a moment: You’re out driving your car, on a residential street, well under the speed limit, when all of a sudden you smush a caterpillar under your wheel. Picture something like this little guy, hairy and about an inch long ⬇️.

    Photo: Andrew Hill

    I’m willing to bet that you didn’t see the caterpillar, and that now that I’ve told you about it, there’s a good chance you don’t really care all that much that it’s dead now. If you feel bad, it’s OK. These things happen. It’s possible that you have no regard for life at all, and in general, most decent people wouldn’t go out of their way to kill a harmless caterpillar minding its own business. In this case, there was no real way for you to avoid this happening, your car and the road it’s on are not designed or built with caterpillar survival in mind.

    When I was out riding my bike yesterday, there was a caterpillar in my path. I was on the shoulder of a road (the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway, if you’re interested) where the speed limit is 60, and I was going about 30 kph. Because of the differences between cars and bicycles, when I was about 15-20 feet away from the caterpillar, I noticed it and adjusted my path to avoid hitting it. As somebody who tries to be mindful about the environment and my surroundings, this small act triggered something in me that I haven’t been able to shake since.

    As a society, I think we can learn a lesson from the fable of the Caterpillar, about respect for those we interact with in our everyday lives, about how we design our transportation systems, and about mindfulness when it comes to how we treat those around us who wield less power than we do.

    For me, this comes in to focus most obviously when considering the comparison between getting around in large motor vehicles (cars, SUVs, and trucks, for example), and more person-centric modes of transportation like walking, cycling, or inline skating. On city streets, these large vehicles have all the power, both literally in terms of their weight, momentum, and protection from collision, but also metaphorically, in that city streets have been built to prioritize cars around the world since shortly after they were invented.

    Safety systems in vehicles have come a long way in recent years, from seatbelts and airbags to more advanced technology like lane assist and emergency braking systems. However, all these systems are optimized primarily to protect the people inside the vehicle, and less so anybody outside. And while these safety features help increase the safety of driving, other technology lets drivers pay even less attention to the road around them, like in-car entertainment systems, and adaptive cruise control which by human nature leave drivers with less reason to pay close attention.

    The other major factor that shifts the balance of power to the side of cars over human-powered transport is the shape and design of the car itself. With trucks, SUVs, and crossovers, passenger comfort and looks drive the design of the car, which leads to SUVs with hoods that hit shoulder height on a regular adult, and which leaves kids effectively invisible standing in front of a car.

    Another big issue with car design is blind spots, which can be helped with rear-view and side-mirror cameras, but the view from the driver’s seat of most vehicles is obstructed in the front and back corners very effectively. This doesn’t matter too much with proper shoulder checks when dealing with other drivers, but when cyclists and pedestrians are involved it’s all too easy to miss somebody who has inadvertently found themselves in your blind spot.

    Can you imagine trying to see a caterpillar on the street out in front of you while you’re driving an SUV? Of course not, it’s ridiculous to even ask that question, right? But what if we designed not only our transportation, but our streets to protect the most vulnerable road users at the cost of a little efficiency for its most comfortable ones? To me, it’s well worth the trade-offs. At the end of the day, we’re all just trying to get where we’re going safely, and don’t we all deserve that?

    By the way, later on that same bike home, I saw another caterpillar out in front of me, this time on the bike path. And when I saw it, I thought to myself “Nice to see you, caterpillar.”

  • What’s Missing from Gmail (Compared to Inbox)

    It’s been a long time that we’ve known that Inbox by Gmail is going away, and to be honest, I understand the decision to deduplicate the development time required to keep two apps and sites updated (Gmail/Inbox). However, I’ve never actually taken the time to describe in detail the missing features that never made it over to Gmail, and they’re the things I like the most about using Inbox. So here goes!

    Missing from Gmail (In no particular order)

    Bundles

    When Inbox first launched, one of my favourite new features was bundles. The ability to put emails that are still in your inbox in to different sections, still sorted by date and conversation thread, was just unbelievably powerful. Having the further ability to keep bundled emails from showing up in the inbox right away was another amazing feature that kept me from being distracted by ‘Promo’ emails more than once a day, and let me create any number of other sub-sections of email that wouldn’t interrupt me or be visible in my email until I wanted it to. There are ways to work around this in Gmail with Priority Inboxes, but it’s nowhere near as powerful or customizable.

    The other really neat thing about Inbox’s design when it comes to bundles is being able to open a bundle and have it expand but have all the other bundles/emails stay in context and in order, without disappearing off the screen. It never felt cramped or busy, and you always knew exactly where you were, and the design was the same on desktop and mobile, so it was very difficult to lose yourself in your email.

    Swiping (sweeping) away all the emails in a bundle in to read was also very useful, and one of the big selling points of Inbox when it was released. Having an email set as ‘Done’ or not ‘Done’ in the Inbox was also nice because you didn’t have to worry about the read status of an email when it was done, but coming back to Gmail this month, I have hundreds/thousands of unread emails that I now have to mark as read (and will need to manage on an ongoing basis rather than just archiving them).

    Another feature with bundles that was one of the premiere features of Inbox was for things like trips. Having your flights, hotels, rentals, events, etc. that are part of a trip all automatically show up in one bundle was SO convenient. This going away is going to make travelling and keeping track of emails quite a bit less convenient (could potentially be worked around with a custom label for a trip, but nowhere near as easy).

    Saved Links

    This feature has been a beautiful thing the last few years, keeping a bundle with a list of saved links right next to your emails, and having a share extension on Chrome (desktop) and on iOS (mobile extension). Not only will it be very tough not being able to use this feature, but there’s no easy way to view this list outside of inbox, so I had to manually open and copy each of these links because I don’t know where I’ll be able to find them in April.

    Filing Messages

    With Inbox (mostly, but not only) on mobile, it is simple to drop an email in to a bundle. Now, these are just labels in Gmail (as they always have been), but it’s way more steps to label emails on mobile in Gmail. I realize it’s just a different metaphor, but if you file your emails with labels, it’s really difficult to do regularly on mobile, whereas it was really easy and intuitive on Inbox.

    Reminders

    Having reminders show up (and be created in) Inbox was also a super convenient feature, and I’m probably just going to use reminders less now that it’s no longer going to be integrated in to my email.

    In Conclusion

    To wrap this up, since the first day Inbox was released, I have used it exclusively and preferred it to Gmail in almost every possible way (especially the ways described). It is very sad that it is going away, and I honestly have likened it to Google Reader going away, in that my use of email will probably be forever changed with the disappearance of Inbox.

    Inbox made me hate email less when I needed to use it, and it will be sorely missed.

  • The Case for Owning Your Digital Life

    I’ve spent most of my life on computers, and I would definitely consider myself a digital native (I’m typing this sentence on the iPad software keyboard, in case that helps you put me on a scale).

    My history with technology

    I love technology, and I first discovered its immense power for connecting people when I installed MSN Messenger on my parents’ computer back in junior high school (circa 2000, I’m going to say?). Going through puberty at the dawn of the public internet was quite an ordeal, but I think it was definitely more manageable doing so then than it is now. I really learned how to talk to people most intimately through MSN, and in that space, I formed the foundation of my experience in connecting with others.

    I certainly didn’t realize it at the time, but it’s really cool that MSN would store chat logs for all your conversations in easily accessible and well-presented formats on your computer. This meant that if you wanted to go and look back on your conversations (and you inevitably did), you could easily do so.

    Fast-forward to now

    Things are VERY different now from what we had back then. Today, those of us who chat on Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp, or Slack have little to no control over what we’ve said to one another once it’s been said. The canonical version of our ‘chat logs’ are all online, controlled by the creators of the apps we use to talk to one another. Because the services we use are mostly centered on our mobile devices (phones and, to a lesser extent, tablets), there isn’t a lot of space (or screen real-estate) to permanently store and/or display things we’ve said previously.

    Because of the way the internet has evolved over the last 10-15 years, ‘the cloud’ (servers located ‘elsewhere’ and controlled by corporations), is now the absolute truth when it comes to what we say to one another. In the case of Snapchat, the messages we send are deliberately short-lived by default, and that’s part of the reason why I have stopped using Snapchat.

    In today’s world, our memories are being stored outside our brains on an ever-increasing basis (rather than storing important information itself in our brains, we store the location where the important information is kept). However, when we split our communication between services like email, instant messaging apps, social media, reminder apps, to-do apps, and a whole bunch of others, it’s easy to lose track and forget where things are, even if they aren’t actually missing.

    I’d wager that most people in the their late 20s and 30s wouldn’t be able to list all the apps, services, and social networks they’re members of, even given an infinite amount of time (or maybe I just subscribe to and then forget about more things than most people). The problem with putting your time and energy in to an ever-changing and ever-increasing number of these kinds of apps means our life stories are being spread out over a huge area, with patches and sections disappearing on a regular basis.

    As I get older, I’m starting to see this pattern develop more and more, and it makes me worry a little bit that in 5 or 10 or 20 years, our generation will be missing most, if not all, of our written correspondence and things we’ve shared over the years. Now, one response to this is to say something like ‘we should be writing letters again’, but first of all, I don’t think those are any more likely to remain legible
    on a physical medium, or stay in one’s possession for that amount of time, and I’m also not interested in putting pencil to paper.

    There’s an easier way to maintain your relationships and keep track of our communications with others, and it brings up a concept most people my age have only recently become familiar with…paying for things you care about.

    Paying for (and with) what matters

    When you think about your preferred instant messaging/communication platform, what are the incentives of the company who created it, and how does it benefit them to have you use it? If you can’t answer that question, you may want to find out more about the company, and what their policies are. In many cases today, the incentive is that the company can make money off of information they can learn about you through your interaction with the service, whether directly or indirectly.

    Especially if you’re using a service that doesn’t cost you any money, the company isn’t running servers and using immense resources in order to let you connect better with the people around you, they’re doing it because it helps their bottom line in some way.

    Now, the average person doesn’t really have the ability to build an application that lets them have total control over systems they use to store information or communicate. If I had to guess what percentage of adults in North America own and operate a private server, whether locally or virtually, I would say it’s much less than 1%, and perhaps not even 0.5%. And I’m certainly not trying to say that maintaining your own server is something everybody should do, far from it. However, I do think there is value in having a place that you control on the internet where you can store digital information that is important to you or has some value.

    Virtual Private Servers and Their Use

    In case some of my readers don’t know what a virtual private server is, it’s really quite simple. A server, to put it as succinctly as possible, is a computer that is usually specially designed to run web services or applications efficiently and to be reliable in spite of running 24/7 basically without interruption and with little maintenance.

    Such a computer can sit in your basement, run programs like email, and get you in a lot of trouble with federal intelligence agencies (if you use it for government business). With the advent of things like Google Apps GSuite and OneDrive, though, the need for, and use of personal private servers has undoubtedly dropped quite precipitously (I do not have *any* data to back this up).

    Businesses like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and the aforementioned GSuite and OneDrive all run on massive parallelized private server banks owned by those companies, who use them to run all their web and cloud services, because running a server these days is very cheap and distributed computing is very much in vogue right now.

    However, if you’re a small-medium company, or somebody who wants the benefits of a server for their own purposes, there are big companies out there who run server farms and who rent out space on those servers for a monthly fee. The big benefit of this is that running these (virtual private servers) is that there is no physical space required on-site, and no expensive, specialized hardware to run (and power).

    For a very small fee (all things considered), anybody can run any software they want on a computer they rent and access through the internet, and if you have any interest in technology, you will hopefully see what an amazing opportunity this presents in terms of being able to run things like email, websites, IM, or file sharing without relying on big companies (or at least, your reliance on ‘big’ companies lets you set up your own security).

    What Does This All Mean?

    If you are looking for a stable, free, easy to use system to use email, instant message, web design, or file sharing, and you’re just going to use the basics, it’s very easy to trade your privacy rather than money to use these services. But for less money than you’d think, and if you’re willing to slightly leave the mainstream, you can get a server up and running for pennies a day (quite literally), and run whatever you want on it, without buying any hardware. The possibilities are, quite literally, endless.

    I would gladly delete my Facebook Messenger account (I already rid myself of Facebook) if I could get my friends and family off of it, and I do think that social media is ultimately a bubble that is bound to fall back down eventually, and personal websites will come back in to prominence as people seek to stand out and customize the way they present posts and photos/videos to the world. I think it’s only a matter of time before some *massive* privacy scandal makes most people realize they are far too trusting of Facebook with their information, and a backlash sees the service fade in to a historical footnote over time.

    Rob, What Do You Do?

    The service I use to host my server is called DigitalOcean, but there are many other companies who will allow you to set this up. I’m told that if this is something you’re interested in trying out, you can get up to $100 in credit over your first 60 days if you use my referral link (I don’t get anything for referring you unless you ultimately keep running a server, so don’t start anything for my benefit). I’ve been a customer for over 3 years, and the system is great with hourly billing so you can get something running to try it out, and if you don’t like it, you can just delete it and you’ll only be charged a few cents an hour while it was running.

  • FaceTime Isn’t Broken

    FaceTime Isn’t Broken

    Update: Update is out. iOS 12.1.4 addresses this bug as well as another security issue that Apple found while auditing the code for FaceTime.

    On Monday night (January 28), talk of a serious Group FaceTime bug hit the internet in a big way.

    New in iOS 12: Group FaceTime

    If a would-be attacker used a specific set of steps that were not typical for a regular FaceTime call, they could activate the call recipient’s microphone on their iPhone (or, presumably, iPad) without them answering the call. There was an extra privacy concern that if the recipient of the call declined the request, their camera was mistakenly activated as well, even if the phone looked like it was asleep.

    There is no indication this bug was exploited maliciously, and it appears to have been reported to Apple at least a week and a half before the explosion of attention on January 28. Moving quickly once this story went public, Apple shut off Group FaceTime (a new feature that was introduced with iOS 12 this fall), effectively blocking this exploit from being used. In all, the bug was active for about 2-3 hours with a large audience, as Apple presumably scrambled to find a way to quickly fix it.

    Immediately, Apple put out a press release saying that a permanent fix for this bug would be coming later this week, and shutting off Group FaceTime has mitigated the problems associated with the bug until the fix is released.

    Unfortunately, because the news is effectively entertainment now, the following evening (Tuesday), local news, all the way up to late-night comedy shows, all talked breathlessly about the story, and at least from what I heard, none mentioned that the offending problem has been completely disabled until a proper fix is in place. In other words, the window when anybody at any scale could have been harmed by this was exceptionally small, only a few hours at most.

    Now, though, the viral story of ‘Turn Off FaceTime’ will circulate for years, even though in my opinion it’s probably one of the very best ways for a group of Apple device users to communicate with audio/video, and even when the feature is fixed, there will be no news stories saying ‘You Can Turn FaceTime Back On Now’, even though after Monday evening, there was no need to turn it off.

    There are a few big lessons I take away from this:

    1. Basically every news story is as well-researched as the one you know the intimate details about beforehand (not at all well-researched). Take them with a grain of salt.
    2. Every piece of software has bugs and flaws at some point in its development cycle. Obviously, big flashy bugs like this are a BIG deal, but it’s a reality of software that they will come up. The best thing you can do as a developer is to put systems in place to be able to deal with them quickly, and in my opinion, Apple’s ability to pull the plug on Group FaceTime without taking the entire system down is an example of good design.
    3. Don’t take your privacy for granted. People are going to see this story and turn off FaceTime because this was a huge privacy issue. However, I promise you that there are much bigger and more severe privacy violations going on at huge companies around the world right now, and because it is status quo, we all kind of just give them a pass. You should ‘audit’ the programs you use from time to time, and if you’re able, do some research on the privacy over-reaches of companies like Facebook. You’d be surprised the kinds of things they are caught doing on an ongoing basis, but it’s not a news story for some reason.

    So, I didn’t turn FaceTime off, and unless something changes, I don’t think you need to either (if you didn’t already). If you’re paranoid about being watched/heard in your home, FaceTime is far from your biggest concern (this bug is no longer a risk as it stands today).

    Humans are flawed, so it stands to reason that the software we create isn’t always perfect either. But writing off technology because of one viral news story is harmful to all of us, because the news can’t, and doesn’t, cover everything.

    Please, don’t turn off FaceTime and vow never to trust it again because of this story. Your privacy is, and always will be, at risk, but that doesn’t make this particular piece of software the problem.

  • Climate change is not just real, it’s obvious

    Vox has posted this before, but it was updated recently with new clips to bring it to the present. It highlights the partisan shift regarding climate change in American politics, from acknowledging that climate change is real, to Republicans realizing the best (only?) way to actually fight climate change effectively from an economic perspective is a tax on greenhouse gas pollution, which of course would be very unpopular for their base (and the business interests funding their re-election campaigns).

    It’s particularly galling to me when you hear the Republican politicians early in the ’16 year’ timeline making points that are good and true about what needs to be done, both with respect to acknowledging the outcomes of scientific research, and to the effects of climate change in general. This is skillfully juxtaposed with clips later in the video where those same people are reversing those previous opinions with industry talking points about the economic impacts of climate change in the coal industry, for example.

    It’s very frustrating to see this all play out like this on a linear timeline, because the hypocrisy of politics in general is expertly laid bare by the editor, with no context or narration given other than sound bites. The conclusion this video presents is quite an obvious one to me, and I think I would be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn’t agree.

    It’s politically disastrous for a Republican to support the existence of climate change because it will require a tax increase on businesses in order to actually have an impact in the short term (before non-polluting alternative energy becomes more economically advantageous, which will happen in due course). So those politicians, almost exclusively old white dudes, I note, cling to their voters and the business interests supporting their re-election, rather than taking action to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    We, as humans, are not used to our actions having a global impact, and I think this is why it’s so hard for individual people to accept that something they are doing could ruin the planet and ‘habitat’ of millions of others, but that’s the reality of what’s happening here. Our biology and instincts haven’t caught up with the scale of our civilization, and empathy on a massive scale will be required in order for any real change to come about on this issue.

    Climate, and the well-being of all humanity, should not be a partisan bargaining chip, and I just hope we won’t be too late to fix the problems being caused right now when presented with even more obvious symptoms of the problem. It’s worth bearing in mind this adage: “The Earth will survive humanity, but humans may not“.