Applying the Online Harms Act to AI chatbot conversations now risks reopening the very issues policymakers previously sought to avoid. In fact, it is difficult to see the difference between something posted to an AI chatbot or similar content entered into a search query or included in text message or email correspondence. If proactive monitoring of searches, emails or texts is subject to privacy safeguards, so too should be AI chatbot engagement.
I’m all for smart regulation of AI, but agree that this isn’t the way to go.
But boredom needn’t be destructive. The discomfort of boredom, even the anguish of it, can spur us into flights of imagination, resourcefulness, and invention. It can prod us to seek more absorbing circumstances: a career more aligned with our interests, a partner more aligned with our needs, a livelier town, better hobbies, new forms of beauty and inspiration.
Boredom is the price we pay for a life rich with meaning. Recognizing this makes the feeling more endurable.
Even though my meditation practice helps with this, boredom is still tough to embrace. My best strategy so far is to generally leave my phone by the door, rather than always carry it around. Then, those moments when I’m tempted to pull out my phone for a distraction, can’t be avoided.
The optimized self must remain unfinished, because only the unfinished self consumes, adjusts, updates, and corrects itself.
Permanence would be inefficiency.
It is important to know when we’re actually improving something, rather than just changing it. I’m learning to be comfortable with leaving somethings alone. I really don’t need to check out that new notes app or blogging platform. These are just self generated distractions.
Every once in a while, a result comes along that make stop and remember that heavenly objects can be pretty darn cool. This is an asteroid about half a kilometer in diameter that is spinning once every 1.88 minutes. That’s 112 seconds. That’s crazy talk.
I should read more posts like this and less about politics.
Young Canadians are increasingly seeing homeownership as out of reach. While 86% of non-homeowners under 30 and 75% of non-homeowners between 30 and 44 still aspire to own a home one day, only 51% and 47%, respectively, are very or somewhat confident they will achieve this goal. The combination of higher interest rates, stagnant wages, and a two-decade-long increase in price-to-income ratios has made it increasingly difficult for them to qualify for a mortgage. Their ambition has turned into uncertainty, and for many, that uncertainty is turning into defeat. The issue is not willingness to buy, but rather whether they can afford to enter the market at all.
Some good recommendations in this paper. I think that part of the solution also needs to be a cultural shift away from seeing home ownership as necessarily a desired outcome. That said, for those who do want to own, we have a lot of work to do to make this possible.
In arguably one of the biggest bits of news for outdoor-focused Apple Watch owners in years, Komoot just announced true offline mapping and routing for their Apple Watch app. Up until now, their app required some sort of connectivity, notably to the phone, in order to have offline maps/routing.
This looks quite promising. I’ve been using the WorkOutDoors app for offline maps, but Komoot looks much easier.
There’s a lot to like in Mark Carney’s speech at Davos. I certainly didn’t expect Thucydides and Havel to get cited.
Carney was clear about the problem. For example:
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.
Along with ideas about how “middle powers” should proceed:
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities. Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.
But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
And a pitch for Canada:
Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
Nor can we trust the American people to rise up against tyranny in any great numbers: they are not who they think they are, and far short of what they once were. Americans as a people today are unequal to their nation’s history and to their own sense of greatness. This is being demonstrated to us, every single day, in the clearest possible terms.
Out of a swirl of emotions that include anger and fear, I think the dominant one for me is sadness. America was obviously not perfect, but it at least had aspirations that I could admire and a long friendship with Canada that brought us both prosperity.
Of course, as Gerson points out, the real test will be what Carney and Canada do next:
In short, the Canada that Carney is describing is one that isn’t satisfied with half assery and speechifying. What would be truly provocative is if Carney didn’t just say the right things, but also demonstrated he was dead serious about following through with a plan to make this country tough enough to withstand America’s increasingly crazy bullshit.
This gap, between the world as it is and how we’re told to see it, comes down to a choice about what we do with our attention. Mission control doesn’t ignore danger. It’s acknowledged, monitored, taken seriously. But knowing which emergencies require immediate action means you need to watch all the instruments, not just the alarms. That’s the difference between panic and an effective response.
An important reminder about the sensationalization of news
Canada conducted a decade-long experiment. The experiment’s principal investigator was the Trudeau government, assisted and enabled by the provinces, the business community and much of the higher education sector. They were opposed by essentially nobody.
The hypothesis was that Canada, already one of the developed world’s highest-immigration countries, could jump start its slow-growth economy through higher immigration, and lower standards.
The experiment was not a success.
Important context for current debates about immigration in Canada
If we properly re-characterized our military procurement system as the federal money-distribution, political-delaying, and accountability-avoidance system, we’d all be raving about what a success we have on our hands here. Because it’s great at all of those things. That is what the politicians and the bureaucrats want it to be. They might not admit it, but that is exactly the way they have designed the system, and they are getting exactly what they pay for.
Advice for big, daunting projects: do something right away. When a major project lands in your lap, perhaps with a deadline weeks or months away, make it your business to take some kind of concrete action on it as soon as you can, even if you won’t get to the majority of the work until later.
I’ve found this works really well. For me, this typically means writing a short, clear sentence about the objective of the project. Too often we launch into busy work before confirming what we’re actually trying to achieve.
Do you go with One Notebook to Rule Them All? Everything goes in there? Or do you have lots of different notebooks, each dedicated to very specific purposes?
Although I’m currently a lumper, I’ve been thinking of splitting out a daily journal notebook from my usual Field Notes that currently holds everything. The page size of the Field Notes can be a constraining with longer entries.
Why do we assume the same government that is, for instance, struggling to fill potholes in my city, or hire enough nurses in my province, or fix a federal payroll system, is going to be more competent when presented with something totally out of the blue? This flies in the face of all of our lived experiences with government. It’s a generous assumption of state capacity that is, to put it charitably, unearned.
For all that we know about human performance, it is still wildly mysterious. A blackbox algorithm cannot predict how you’ll perform. If you think you must have full readiness to perform at your best, then you will leave so many of your best days on the table. It is a fragility mindset that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Absolutely something to be careful about. I know I’ve sometimes been influenced by a poor readiness score and have learned to treat it as a general indicator, rather than prediction.
It’s 167 days since Carney told Jon Stewart he was an “outsider” who’d “just started thinking” about running for a leadership role in Canadian politics. He thought fast, and announced his candidacy three days later. Now he’s been prime minister for longer than Charles Tupper and John Turner were. How’s he doing?
We put too much burden on our leaders, and it makes them act silly. They shouldn’t be the perfect weapon of our vengeance, or the model of every virtue we admire but never quite get around to practicing. They don’t need to know everything. They can’t possibly get everything right on the first try, and we court trouble when we ask them to pretend they’ve managed the trick.
What I always find so striking is that these ‘clever’ a-historical solutions both batter suspension of disbelief but are also a lot less actually clever than the historical solutions.
Bret Devereaux continues his fun series of critiquing The Ring of Power from the perspective of a medieval historian.
The premiers can and must break the stifling complacency that is such a hallmark of modern Canadian politics and use the power of social media, and simple shame, to get the ball rolling. To do something. And then do another thing, and another thing, and another thing.
It may seem priggish to say it, given the current “vibe shift,” but we really can’t give up on personal integrity just yet. The day we celebrate our children for their selfishness and cruelty will be the point of no return.
With that in mind, here are a few lessons I’ve learned as an aging athlete who can still run pretty fast, but is having a lot of doing it.
Stop short. Almost always.
There’s an old adage in running that you should have one more rep in the tank. It’s also called the no hands on your knees rule. Both get a simple point, the risk of pushing to get that final repeat is seldom worth it. The benefit is small, if it even exists.
I’m tempted to write this on my shoes. Good advice that I followed this morning: the workout called for 5–8 reps and I stopped after 5 good ones.
Eleven miles later, I stopped my watch — satisfied, yet aware that my run was a castle constructed out of lies. I never intended to stop early, but I told myself that I would. I think I believed myself in the moment. As a moral philosopher, this gives me pause.
Careful what you wish for. Five minutes ago everyone was calling for a “Team Canada” approach to dealing with Donald Trump. Unfortunately our team would make the Bad News Bears look like Navy SEALs.
Good observations on Canada’s responses, so far, to Trump’s tariff threats
I think empowering LLMs to be “creative” with the goal of displacing artists is a mistake, and also a distraction – a glossy facade largely amounting to a party trick that gets boring fast and misses the bigger picture of how these AI tools may practically help us in the workplace, healthcare, biology, and other industries.
I could use the help with reducing busywork and letting me focus on the creative part. That’s what I’m looking forward to
I want to focus on rigid science fiction armors because they offer an interesting lens to consider their design: how to armor a human body in a rigid substance is an exceedingly solved problem: quite a few cultures have tackled this particular problem with a lot of energy and ingenuity, attempting to balance protection, mobility and weight. And the “problem with sci-fi body armor” begins with the fact that most of these futuristic ‘hardsuits’ utilize little of any of the design language of those efforts.
Every so often, I audit every information source I’m subscribed to. I ask three simple questions I picked up from the late Jim Rohn:
Who am I allowing to speak into my life?
What effect is that having on me?
Is that ok?
There are a lot of things I subscribed to a long time ago that I just never bothered to unsubscribe to. And every once in a while, I get annoyed and ask myself, “Why am I still consuming this?”
Good advice. Obvious? Perhaps, though we often need reminders to do what’s good for us.
We are being given a runaround. When a party wins an election, its victory excuses every mistake or excess for years before the election. We won, didn’t we? Any new criticism is interpreted as sour grapes or denial of the result: the purest illustration of one day dominating every other. Every idea that pops into a new PM’s head is beyond reproach, because he just won an election. Later, as the next election approaches, criticism becomes a luxury the party can’t afford, because the leader must be given latitude to win the next election. Rinse and repeat.
Walport couldn’t help noticing that Canada is a sucking black hole for information-sharing, although I bet he never imagined his own report would gather dust for half a year for no reason anyone has ever explained nor ever will.
So don’t go jumping onto the latest trend, especially not if it’s been around for less time than it takes for your eggs to go bad in the fridge. When any new method arrives, it is worth spending some time evaluating the underlying principles of the method. Particularly seeking where it is similar and where it differs from the established methods at the time to try and work out if there really is much difference (there’s often less difference than people would like to believe or argue there is on the internet).