abff08f4813c

Well, I guess, how would you actually do that? Like, how do you convince the owner of Toptal to fold shop so your replacement can take shape?

while Beijing is still committed to taking control of Taiwan, it’s hesitant to start a direct war.

Only "hesitant" ? It's a bit reassuring to hear that a war isn't wanted ... but it would be better if war was renounced in stronger terms, especially because

they create a serious risk of miscalculation that could spiral into a larger conflict.

Agreed. In addition, I'd add this to the OC's comments:

It would be like if you were at a pro Palestinian protest and were asked to sign a document saying you’re free to protest but only if you remain quiet about certain things the isralie government is doing

Well, no. It's more like, the Israeli gov't promises that you can get secret information from them about what they are doing, but you can't mention it publicly until they've made it public. But worst case you're still free to protest anything and everything that's already public.

I'm not sure if even that premise is correct, though. From https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poilievre-is-the-sole-party-leader-foregoing-access-to-classified/ (archive https://archive.is/QEbVP)

top intelligence officials have said that secrecy rules would not prevent leaders from acting on the information they receive. On Tuesday, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May held a lengthy news conference detailing what she learned from the classified report.

Likewise, the previous opposition leader did have the clearance, and was able to speak publicly about what he learned, as per https://globalnews.ca/news/9732593/erin-otoole-chinese-interference/

Former Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) found an “active campaign of voter suppression” by China against him and his party in the 2021 election. O’Toole made the comments Tuesday from the floor of the House of Commons

So this excuse rings hollow.

not because of anything you did but because you refused to sign the document.

A refusal to perform a certain action is a choice. And choices have consequences...

If you refuse to sign, a crowd of people all start shouting that

I haven't seen anyone call PP a Nazi specifically because of this, yet. So I think the analogy breaks down here.

Also, signing the document is just a step, it's not all there is. Even though PP had a security clearance in the past that has since expired, presumably he'd have to be rechecked before getting a new one. Unlike just signing a doc, there are some concerns here that PP might actually have something in his background that would cause him to fail this check, resulting in a denial even after he agrees to sign.

As an MP He’s a representative not a member of the federal government.
No, the government is the party that governs

As per https://learn.parl.ca/understanding-comprendre/en/canada-system-of-government/the-branches-of-government/

Parliament is the legislative branch of government. Its main purpose is to make laws and hold the government to account.
Government is a broader term with different meanings. Inside the House of Commons, it usually refers to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other members of the governing party.

So that is accurate.

Let the opposition be the opposition.

How come only PP didn't get a clearance? Every other party leader has one. Think of all the times Bloc Quebecois clashed with the Liberals (e.g. https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ and https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ ) but their leader still has the clearance. Doesn't seem like having a clearance hurt that much.

I can't find confirmation but I imagine the last time that the Liberals were the Opposition, their leader, Michael Ignatieff, would have held this clearance as well. So PP is very much the odd one out here.

Glad to hear your daughter-in-law and her mom are safe. Fingers crossed that the brother is as well.

Conclusion

The Coexistion Protocol embodies a visionary approach to rethinking economic systems, focusing on fairness, transparency, and decentralization. While its principles resonate with the evolving landscape of decentralized technologies and the growing desire for equitable economic participation, the feasibility of its implementation is contingent on addressing several complex challenges. The success of such a protocol will depend on careful planning, user experience design, robust governance structures, and a willingness to adapt to the lessons learned during implementation.

In summary, while the Coexistion Protocol presents a realistic and hopeful blueprint for the future, its practicality hinges on overcoming significant hurdles related to implementation, governance, economic sustainability, adoption, and regulatory compliance.

Challenges and Concerns

1. Implementation Complexity: While the protocol aims to simplify decentralized systems, the actual implementation of a robust and efficient decentralized framework can be complex. Ensuring scalability, security, and user-friendliness will be significant challenges, especially as the system grows.

2. Governance and Decision-Making: Achieving true democratic governance in a decentralized system can be difficult. Ensuring that all voices are heard and that decisions are made effectively without falling into the trap of inefficiency or gridlock is a critical concern. The proposed consensus-based decision-making might face challenges in practice, particularly in larger groups.

3. Economic Viability: The non-speculative value system represents an interesting shift from traditional economic models. However, establishing a stable and sustainable economic model that rewards contributions equitably while preventing exploitation and ensuring long-term viability is a complex task. The challenge of ensuring that value is accurately tracked and distributed can be significant.

4. Adoption and Transition: The transition from traditional economic systems to a decentralized framework like the Coexistion Protocol will require significant cultural and systemic shifts. Gaining buy-in from established institutions, businesses, and individuals accustomed to traditional hierarchical structures may be challenging. Moreover, potential resistance from those who benefit from the current power dynamics may hinder adoption.

5. Regulatory Environment: Decentralized systems often face uncertain regulatory landscapes, and the Coexistion Protocol would likely attract scrutiny from regulators. Navigating legal frameworks while maintaining the principles of decentralization and inclusivity could be a significant hurdle.

6. Technological Barriers: The reliance on technology means that access to the Coexistion Protocol could be limited for those without the necessary digital literacy or access to technology. Ensuring equitable access to the system will be crucial for achieving its goals.

The Coexistion Protocol presents an ambitious vision for a decentralized economic framework aimed at fostering fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. Its goals of equitable work allocation, decentralized governance, and a non-speculative value system are indeed compelling and align with ongoing trends in the digital economy, particularly those driven by blockchain technology and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). However, while the concept is innovative and appealing, several factors must be considered regarding its feasibility and realism.

Strengths and Opportunities

1. Decentralization and Transparency: By leveraging blockchain and decentralized governance models, the protocol can enhance transparency and trust among participants. This is a crucial element in today's economic environment, where trust in institutions is waning.

2. Merit-Based Allocation: The emphasis on merit-based work allocation can potentially democratize access to opportunities, allowing individuals to participate and thrive based on their skills rather than their connections or backgrounds.

3. Integrated Education: The focus on embedding education and skill development within the economic framework is particularly relevant in addressing skill gaps and preparing workers for evolving market demands.

4. Collaborative Ownership: The idea of shared ownership and collective responsibility can foster a sense of community and shared purpose, encouraging collaboration over competition.

ChatGPT seems to approve!

Also, for Express Entry the age limit is 55. Not sure what PR pathways exist for those older.

Though, while not permanent, theoretically you can just keep renewing a work permit under NAFTA. There's no age limit to the permit, so as long as you're able to work (and you have a qualifying employer and meet other requirements) you should be able to do this to stay in Canada indefinitely.

If you're a US (or Mexican) citizen you don't even need LMIA, you might be eligible under NAFTA.

But I work in tech, and when I did this, I found it quite challenging to find an employer who would be willing to do this. Usually the employer needs an immigration lawyer and has to be set up with IRCC (i.e. the Canadian gov't) to do this. An LMIA - if you need one - would be even more paperwork for them.

That's kind of the point though - Canadians and the GoC can be the same, or even just a tad bit worse, than they were say twenty years ago - but at the rate things are going south, down South, it's still better.

Say before you had a choice between a $100 bill and a cheque for $101, so you might have gone for the cheque. But now you know that the one behind the cheque is nearly bankrupt, so of course it makes sense to change your mind here, even if the $100 bill hasn't improved or changed much at all. It's merely become a better deal by comparison, relatively speaking.

As a practical matter - waiting a few weeks isn't so bad. Most folks will need longer than this to get things wrapped up, and I see some folks saying here that they can't make it until 2026. But no harm in putting feelers out now and making plans, since when it comes to being prepared, it's best to be prepared early.

And to the OP - thank you for your service.

Texas joined the US later and has a provision that they can vote themselves out of the United States again if they choose.

This is wrong. See https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/

So if Alberta voters are hoping for the same provision, that they can back out if things go south (pun not intended), that's very wrong.

Don't be fooled.