smnrchrds

Indeed. But the size of endowment, much like market capitalization of a company or GDP of a country, is a very useful metric to judge fiscal capacity.

We have to ask ourselves: too expensive for what?

Berkeley has a 7 billion dollar endowment. I am sure they could have found the budget to make the videos compliant. They simply chose not too.

They are not planning to fire people for cause. Their own statement said anyone who doesn't want to move will get severance.

Thank you

As someone who is not familiar with finding medical literature, I would appreciate if you could link to those earlier claims by the author.

If the woman was uninsured, would she be able to purchase insurance outside of the annual open enrolment period or would she need to pay out of pocket until November?

> if you can't afford TB treatment, you're still covered.

Does this help in the hypothetical case OP is mentioning? Or does the government coverage kick in only after the person has been made to spend every last dollar that they have on the mandatory treatment and are now left penniless?

Reminds me of the British Post Office scandal:

> More than 700 branch managers were given criminal convictions when faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their sites.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56718036

Is there a way to opt out of them too?

Now you are mixing up Star Trek and Harry Potter.

> so a lot of the margin has been pushed there

It doesn't seem to be the case. I am just gonna look at Loblaw/Choice, but I imagine the other would not be too different. Loblaw had a revenue of 55.25B and a net income of 2.12B [1], bringing the profit margin to 3.84% over the previous 12 months. Choice's revenue was 1.34B [2] over the same period. Even if the entire revenue was pure profit for Loblaw, it would bring Loblaw's profit margin to (2.12 + 1.34) / 55.25 = 6.3%. This seems higher, but still not remotely high enough to explain the price increases.

But more importantly, Choice REIT's revenue has been fairly consistent over the past couple of years. There is no sudden increase in the past year or so to coincide with the price increases. So the extra price is NOT getting passed from Loblaw to Choice. Choice gets the same amount it was getting in 2019 more or less. Choice's total revenue has been 1.29B (2019), 1.27B (2020), 1.29B (2021), and 1.28B (past 12 months) [3].

Disclaimer: I am not well-versed in the field of finance, so I may have misunderstood the statistics. Please double-check them from the links below if you so prefer. I do not understand why the revenue in the statistics page is 1.34B, but total revenue in the financials page is 1.28B. But the difference is small enough not to change the conclusions either way.

[1] https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/L.TO/key-statistics?p=L.T...

[2] https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CHP-UN.TO/key-statistics?...

[3] https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CHP-UN.TO/financials?p=CH...

The two biggest grocery retailers in Canada have below 5% profit margins: Loblaw's profit margin is less than 4% [1] and Empire ~2.5% [2]. The other smaller ones are in the same ballpark. Put it another way, if grocery stores reduce all prices by 4%, they will be operating at a loss. Prices have jumped, but I am inclined to believe it is due to fundamental market forces (Ukraine war, avian flu, energy crisis, etc.) and not the retailer, who just happens to be the only part people can see and direct their anger at.

[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/L.TO/profit_margin

[2] https://ycharts.com/companies/EMP.A.TO/profit_margin

Another mind-boggling thing about brain is how little power it uses to do all the complex things it does.

"If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful." - Steve Jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

> Dominating the dating site market is a money printing machine

Not if you already have almost the whole market to yourself.

> Match Group ... owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, UPWARD, Ship, and OurTime, totalling over 45 global dating companies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group

If they are going to so flagrantly ignore the spirit of the law, why not go all the way in? Instead of 90k to 900k, they should just write minimum wage to 1 trillion dollars. It would be more honest to their intent that way.

I looked at the Google cache of the campaign page. Nothing seems to be out of ordinary or controversial. I am puzzled by the rationale here. Unless, it's because of the pricing. All the prices are like "$10 USD ̶$̶6̶6̶6̶ ̶U̶S̶D̶ (98% off)". Maybe unrealistic prices are against the terms and conditions?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GFLGLR...

No, it won't. Foreign entity cannot have interest in Canadian homes. Owning the company that owns the home is having interest, thus is covered by the ban. This is explained in the link.

Again, I don't agree with your cynicism. But even if you are cynical, consider this: if the government appears soft on real estate prices, they will lose the next election (which may be as early as this spring) to Pierre Poilievre.

> if the Minister and provincial superior court can be bothered.

I know that for immigration and citizenship cases, officers at the border are called minister's delegates in certain contexts: they do things that the law authorizes the minister of immigration to do.

It's not like the minister has to get personally involved. It just means the ministry is in charge of referring cases to the court, so they will create an office and hire a bunch of bureaucrats to do this.

> Sure, there's some language later on which allows a province's superior court to order that the house be sold. Be sold. What a punishment! And unless it's some massive televised case, the superior courts don't have time for that.

1. I sincerely doubt that the courts will let the law remain unenforced. Let's agree to disagree on that.

2. The reddit post goes into details (which I agree with) about how this law changes the incentives, so real estate agents, sellers, lawyers, etc. are unlikely to want to aid foreign nationals in circumventing it.

3. Selling is a punishment. Everyone gets fined, the house is sold, and the seller cannot get any of the upside from the sale. At best, they break even (minus the fine).

> Marginal note:Paragraph (1)(c)

> (2) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(c) must provide that no non-Canadian receive from the proceeds that results from a sale of a residential property ordered under section 7 more than the purchase price they paid for the residential property.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-25.2/page-1.html

> Or there is some specifics that specifics between treatment of permanent residents in USA vs Canada?

This is not a topic I am super familiar with, but I believe the answer is yes. For example, in Canada, permanent residents have the right to enter the country, similar to Canadian citizens. In other words, they enter the country by right, not at the discretion of CBSA officers. This is not necessarily the case in the US. Trump's travel ban initially prevented green card holders who happened to be outside of the US when it came into force from re-entering. This was loosened later on after protests [1].

Another example is that new immigrants to the US (those who have gotten their green card within the last 5 years) are not eligible to buy Medicare [2] or if low-income, to get Medicaid [3]. Permanent residents of Canada have the same rights and access to public healthcare as Canadian citizens.

In the US, American citizens do not have to carry or present any form of ID, but according to a law that is thankfully rarely enforced, not having your green card on your person at all times is a criminal offence. ("Failing to have your green card with you is a criminal misdemeanor. If you are found guilty you can be fined up to $100 and put in jail for up to 30 days. (I.N.A. Section 264(e), 8 U.S.C. Section 1304.) " [4]). Canada does not have discriminatory laws like this applying only to permanent residents.

So the difference is both in specific laws, and the general attitude in lawmaking. Existing Canadian laws and new legislation tend to give the same rights to permanent residents as Canadian citizens (with some exceptions), but in the US, the legal framework creates a bigger gap between the rights of those two groups.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-idUSL1...

[2] https://www.insubuy.com/medicare-for-new-immigrants-green-ca...

[3] https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immig...

[4] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-car...

If you think this law will be easy to sidestep, please read this post first:

https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/zz92li/prohi...

It appears that the law is well-designed to avoid such abuses and loopholes.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/

It is important to note that according to Canadian law, permanent residents (equivalent to green card holders in the US) are not considered foreign nationals. They enjoy roughly the same rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, with very limited exceptions such as voting, running for office, serving as a jury, and some high-level government positions.

> Foreign national: A person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...

No. Out of all the provinces, territories, and federal immigration schemes, only Quebec still has an immigration by investment program, and they have changed it to make it super difficult. It's no longer enough to just have or invest large amounts of money. One has to score enough points from a selection grid, which for example requires B2-ish level in French. The language component alone disqualifies most of the people who benefited from the original program and the current prospective applicants.

https://www.quebec.ca/en/immigration/immigrate-business/inve...

I believe the analysis. Here in Canada, the government passed a law not that long ago (during the pandemic) to enshrine rights of passengers for delayed and cancelled flights, which included right to specific amounts of monetary compensation in those scenarios. The law, however, had an exception, where no compensation is due if the flight is delayed or cancelled due to a safety issue. Lo and behold, the airlines have started classifying almost every delay and cancellation as a safety issue [1] and denying compensation claims left and right.

[1] Here is an example of how ridiculously far the airlines have gone in claiming everything is a safety issue, even when it is things completely within their power to control: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/air-canada-denies-compensatio...

> Indeed, in some Canadian provinces nearly 5 percent of deaths are MAiD deaths. In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7 percent of deaths in the province were due to MAiD; in British Columbia, the number was 4.8 percent.

That's about in line with the Netherlands, to put things in perspective.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Weren't all veteran cases due to one employee who was not a medical professional and was suspended when reported? Maybe there is a systematic issue, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

I thought it would be the Home Office. This makes more sense.

Looks like someone sent "fundamentals_of_math-e4-v2-final-finalv3-final.docx" to the printer instead of "fundamentals_of_math-e4-v2-final-finalv3-final-final.docx"