

You’d have to remove half the supreme court
Make that two thirds of the Supreme Court. Most of the worst decisions have been 6-3.
You’d have to remove half the supreme court
Make that two thirds of the Supreme Court. Most of the worst decisions have been 6-3.
The injunction will stay in place. The bike lanes will stay for now.
That quote didn’t come from the Ford government. This is the paragraph before that:
Ontario Liberal energy critic Ted Hsu said prioritizing grid access for major economic projects makes sense — but only if done transparently and free of partisan influence.
The US has a law to limit the liability of gun manufacturers.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.
I’m pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don’t have a right to electricity, or even water. They’ll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.
Probably best to never follow Alberta on anything while Smith is in charge.
“Finally cancelling my Spotify subscription – why am I paying for a fuckass app that works worse than it did 10 years ago, while their CEO spends all my money on technofascist military fantasies?” said one user on X.
You shouldn’t be “paying for a fuckass app that works worse than it did 10 years ago” regardless of anything an executive has done. Be less lazy and cancel subscriptions to shitty services.
Also, if a CEO doing a bad thing is a dealbreaker for them, why the fuck are they on twitter?.
Nah, burn Mar-a-Lago instead to make sure Trump knows it’s personal.
Current regulations allow digital music providers to pay a lower music royalty rate if their paid music subscription offering is bundled with other legitimate product offerings. Seeing an opportunity, Spotify has exploited this regulation by converting all Premium Plan music subscribers into a new, bundled subscription offering without consumers’ consent or any notice. Spotify’s intent seems clear—to slash the statutory royalties it pays to songwriters and music publishers.
Spotify has priced its Audiobook Access plan with 15 hours of listening time per month from a limited catalog of 200,000 audiobooks at $9.99/month. In contrast, Spotify’s music-only Basic Plan—which includes unlimited hours of listening from a catalog of over 100 million songs—is priced only a dollar more. Under the regulations, the higher the Audiobooks Access plan is priced, the lower the music royalty Spotify must pay.
The headline makes it sound like the premier is threatening to cut funding if municipalities don’t cooperate, but the actual article seems more like he was suggesting that resource development would bring in money to help pay for what they want.
Users on reddit and lemmy always seem to think ad-based stuff is going to fail, and then it turns out people in the real world are depressingly accepting of ads. I would bet that this program is more likely to be expanded than canceled.
Australia has never contemplated imposing a similar tax. New Zealand tried but backed down last week after the United States threatened to impose higher tariffs on New Zealand goods.
What happened in New Zealand is almost certainly what will happen in Australia. This will go nowhere.
Well the AI companies and investors should have understood that building an industry off of doing something questionable was risky and risks don’t always work out.
They left it until the very end of the article: