The lesser of the two evils in the race, so that’s…good?

I wonder if she might recognize some scents from her holodeck…adventures with Shaxs.

I reject the framing of DEI as a “right buzzword.” Don’t let them co-opt it.

Unless the story is completely fabricated, I don’t see an angle here. If anything, the slant of the article is pro-DEI, which is…not what I would expect from American propaganda in 2025.

I would imagine the devil’s in the details.

Who’s assessing the artifacts to make that determination?

Relevance to this story? What’s the grand conspiracy in this case?

It’s really not that complicated. If a typical organization is presented with two equally-qualified candidates, one of whom is a minority (of any kind, not just a racial minority), the organization will hire the non-minority candidate nearly every time. DEI policies exist to combat that sort of institutional bigotry.

This one’s a little strange - I assume the province must have some information that they’re not sharing, because it seems like there was at least one layer of separation between the government and the Boom Done Next (ugh) contract, and the company’s co-owner says that Marni Larkin recused herself from the process.

This bit was interesting, though:

John Q’s website says its profits are split between its shareholder municipalities. CBC News reached out to the 12 shareholders and only heard back from two.

The RM of Rosser said no money has been received so far by the municipality from John Q.

The RM of St Andrews says it also has not received any funds from John Q.

I don’t know how much profit they’re planning to make from day care centres…

For me, it’s hard to top the Paramount+ ad from a few years ago that gave us this:

It was great. I had a ball doing that. And I mean, again, during the “Star Trek” world, it’s lovely people, and it was nothing but pleasure, and it was a dream wish fulfillment for me to be able to be in “Star Trek.” I play a very interesting, complicated guy, bad guy, I suppose. I’m a bad guy. Yeah, I guess I’m a bad guy. But yeah, so I dunno what more I can say about that without giving too much away.

I’m in more than one episode. I have a little arc through this season. I reappear and become more problematic as the show goes on.

I think the only path forward is for journalists to get serious about defining and protecting their job. No government is going to step in to do it because of the optics, but many sectors have colleges that define and enforce standards of behaviour.

It’s time for journalists to step up and do the same.

I don’t doubt that this is true on balance

I know the questions keep coming up (and it’s totally fair play), but…I don’t have the impression that it’s had any sort of impact on the electorate. Maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t doubt that this is true on balance, but the Danielle Smith jokes practically write themselves…

I guess it’s possible that it was a Liberal plant, but it has big “man vandalizes own house” energy.

They had no time at all - filming was already complete.

They were given a short amount of time (3 days IIRC) to film the epilogue, and by then most of the sets had been dismantled.

I think the word “movie” is a little misleading, but it makes sense that they would have wanted to do a full 2-hour “event” episode.

SirPatStew has shared the anecdote, but it’s reportedly something that Roddenberry said.

Just the flexibility to get it done on your own terms, really.

I’m by no means defending this move (it’s dumb and bad, just like…everything else the US government does these days), but they seem to be delegating the inspections to individual states.

I assume at least some states will maintain good standards, and Canada will have to pay close attention to which states those are.