After having gone through a number of setbacks in my life that challenged my self-identity, I realized that I needed to reassess both what I considered to be what made me “me”, and what made me worthwhile, which is similar but not the same.

You are not your job or your salary, and you are worth more than your salary. Find new target for what makes self-worth for you. It will give you better rewards than cash when you strive for them, and will give you a better perspective about money than if you tie your identity and self-worth to how much you can make.

One of the best things I did was raise my kids ad-free for the first 5 or 6 years of their lives. The first time they saw ads, they were baffled about what they were, then they were baffled why people would put up with them.

The other argument I’ve heard is so that people will see how much the government is taking from them, and be angry about it. This would be particularly useful for politicians who campaign on smaller government.

Well, you’re both right. IQ means something, but it’s only a predictor for outcomes. Many high-IQ people have led very mediocre lives and many low-IQ people have had very successful lives. Certainly, a high IQ can make life easier for you, as can being born in a prosperous country, having a wealthy family, knowing the right people, or getting lucky. The other half of that equation is hard work.

From what you’ve said, you don’t have good family connections, high IQ or know the right people. You haven’t said where you live. There may be resources there to help you, or not. Either way, accessing those resources or getting ahead without them will be hard work. If you decide to go down that path, there will be pretty menial jobs, long hours, and not much money. There will be a lot of hard work in your down time to see what you can do to improve your abilities so you can improve your prospects in the future. Likely you will find none of this fun. There’s no guarantee it will succeed. But, like with many people, those are typically the only options before you to get someplace better.

Or vice versa. Why can’t I access features in the phone version of my banking site, but I can in the desktop version on my phone? Now why, if you have two versions, can I not even access both from my phone or computer?

Anything along the lines of “birdy num nums”?

I was also confused. Thanks for the clarification.

You’re talking about the guy who said he’d use the notwithstanding clause? Sure, maybe you like the idea of longer sentences for criminals, but I would still question whether you should love that more than respecting the constitution.

The charts seem to show the time span for each country where the opinions of men and women were fairly similar and how they’ve diverged since. Some countries started diverging more recently than others.

The horrors persist, but so do I.

“I can fix her” vibes.

I just love how outlook is supposedly their best effort in the email segment, yet I have literally had it show me that a new email has arrived, then hiding it, and the only way for it to become visible again is to restart the app. This happens at least once a week.

Being the most homogenous population of any significance is neither bad nor good. If you felt that was an insult maybe you should consider why. Homogeneity due to isolationism is bad because of isolationism, which is strongly linked to the idea of regional parties at the national level. Thanks for your help in displaying the flaws in those ideologies as demonstrated by your taking offense when facts you apparently don’t like are displayed in the open.

“Well, my point has been proven wrong, time to focus on pedantry.”

In the name of pedantry, I could change the text to “the province with the single largest ethnic group”, which I think could be argued as a suitable definition of the term “most homogenous”. Or would it make you happier if I disparaged the smaller provinces by saying “the most homogenous province of any political significance”?

And I can’t see if it’s you who’s downvoting or not, but commenting and downvoting gives a real “my comments can’t stand on their own” vibe, which is fitting.

I imagine you actually could count their ruling as it’s an original work, based on research from other papers. Which I find kind of funny, because that would mess up so many professors…

Yes, and I don’t see Ukrainian, German, Polish on that list, let alone the more relevant two I referred to, British and French.

If you look at the Wikipedia page for the 2016 census you will see that about 89% self-identify as Canadian or French. So what counts as Canadian? The Wikipedia page for that says they’re mostly French Canadians and British Canadians, with a few other of the United Kingdoms thrown in for good measure.

So let’s focus on French Canadians. There are about 5 million of those in Canada, and about 85% live in Quebec, or 51% of that 60.1% who identify as Canadian in the above census.

Now, back to that 2016 census. 89% as one thing, more or less, just isn’t accurate. But 79.8% is. And that nearly 80% is more than enough to overwhelm the rest into irrelevance in FPTP voting unless those who don’t consider themselves French or French Canadian are concentrated into a few areas, in which case they won’t be completely irrelevant, but they will still only take away a few votes for a party whose primary interest was to the demographics listed above.

Now go ahead and find me another province nearly that ethnically homogeneous. And since I was never talking about skin color, instead of using the visible minority page, try out the Ethnic Origin page instead.

You’re missing out on a lot of ads telling you how much you need to ask your doctor for certain drugs. That’s about it.

If you count all white people as one group, yes, it is more diverse than some provinces. Given the years of wars and political division between two particular groups of white people that is behind those divisions, I don’t think visible minorities are a particularly relevant point in this topic.

The only provinces where this would have any impact at all are Quebec and Ontario. Ontario has just over a third of the seats, Quebec has about a quarter. British Columbia and Alberta have just over 10%, everyone else has less. If everyone in New Brunswick voted for the hypothetical New Brunswick First Party, whoever actually ran the show quite likely wouldn’t even think of the whopping 10 votes they could bring to the table. Moreover, Quebec is the most homogeneous province in Canada, so a province first party has better odds there than anywhere else.

I’d much rather we had national parties that were looking for the best interests of all the regions, and citizens that didn’t seem to firmly believe that a benefit for someone else implies harm to them.

The quote does say, if you did these things, and say as much in this community. Now, certainly, Trek has politics baked in, but advocating the clearly fascist choice is kind of what they always go against. If they were checking user history to do a little purity test, I’d agree that would be going too far.