It means that using the correct term matters, because the crimes he should be convicted of are different based on the age involved.
Even Epstein’s island has age of consent laws and degrees of charge that vary by age.
Stupidly enough, at least in the US virgin islands (where that is) your spouse can consent even outside these allowed age ranges most of the time.
IMO, Sex with someone 15 or under, as an adult should not be allowed.
What she’s arguing, and she’s correct about, is that there are separate words for people are attracted to prepubescent, early pubescent, and late pubescent children.
For some reason, the one for the youngest group (Pedophiles) is being applied to all of them in general conversations.
The laws are even frequently different for these different groups, so it makes no sense to use one blanket term:
The current Code of Alabama codifies Rape in the First Degree as:[9]
"(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:
(1) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex by forcible compulsion; or (2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated; or (3) He or she, being 16 years or older, engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is less than 12 years old. (b) Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony."
The current Code of Alabama codifies Rape in the Second Degree as:[10]
"(a) A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if:
(1) Being 16 years or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old, provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex. (2) He or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective. (b) Rape in the second degree is a Class B felony."
So there’s an answer, and then there’s a problem.
The easy answer is that Home Assistant has Voice Assistants now, and you can use Ollama, Whisper, and Piper to do that all locally.
The problem is that it really only talks to Home Assistant, there’s no ability to have it search the web, or make a phone call, or really anything else outside of Home Assistant without significant addon stuffs.
It also requires a reasonably significant amount of RAM on your computer to run the VM for Home Assistant while supporting Whisper and Piper and Ollama.
Agent voice response
It’s even mostly open source.
One of the reasons why I often feel like letting the issues accelerate into a wall right now, rather than baby step fixes to put the crash off, is the best long term plan because change will come sooner and we’ll all be better for it.
There wasn’t, and everyone knew it. That’s why the NDP got fucked, people strategic voted to keep the Cons out.
Voting for the Conservatives was going to be an even bigger mistake.
No idea why you think the Liberals were the worst of the two options available.
It would have been trivially easy to kill diploma mills off without affecting public universities and colleges. There’s only around 200 of those across the whole country and they’re heavily regulated/monitored/audited, and they could have just given them an exception on the quotas to keep them fully functional.
Exporting education IS taxing the rich. The rich just happen to be from a different country. The majority of those students are paying vast sums of money to these schools to get their education, then going back home after. That money was subsidizing education for Canadian citizens.
The one I have as a client has only built a new trades building and a new nursing building in the last 10 years, both for super in-demand programs. As far as I can tell they’re not overly top heavy in any way.
Maybe certain institutions were being stupid, but it’s definitely not all of them.
Yea, this is stupid. One of my clients is a public college, and they’re already hurting. They already cut a bunch of programs to save the rest. A new round of international student cuts is going to gut so many more that they just worked so hard to save.
You have fun with your little groupies. Calgary is going to keep getting more expensive, and you too will feel the pain that BC currently has. Just give it about 10 years.
We’re all just following in the footsteps of Japan, which peaked it’s real estate problems in the 90s, and is now solving it by collapsing its population because most people couldn’t afford to have kids.
Same train, just different amounts of the way towards the cliff.
If you have a problem that affects 10 million people, and you build 100,000 units. Have you alleviated anything?
The simple answer is no.
You’re right that solving the housing crisis is going to take time and a whole lot of changes. The problem is that none of the changes we’re making right now will do a damn thing but prolong the suffering. The whole lot of changes that will actually fix it will happen once the ownership rate has dropped so much that enough people are willing to actually harm (economically hopefully) the remaining landlords. That process is going to take decades.
The simple way to understand this is by doing some math. There are already more bedrooms in this country than there are citizens, by a reasonable margin. (You can confirm this with numbers from statscan if you want). Given that lots of people share bedrooms (couples, children, etc.) that means we don’t actually have a supply issue with housing. We have a demand and distribution issue.
California probably, if things keep going down the stupid path.
Florida if the pendulum swings back to sanity.
I’d bet it’s slow.
I will bet on that happening in my lifetime too.
Do you not understand percentages? Do you think there are only 1400 total two bedroom apartments in Calgary? The percentage change in available listings for sale does not in any way show you how many new units were created. Those are just how many people are currently trying to sell and don’t reflect net construction at all.
Calgary grew it’s population by 100,179 people in 2024 but it’s total housing completions were only 21,084 total units. Given that the average housing unit doesn’t even come close to having 5 people in it (the average is usually somewhere in the high 2s) that means the total supply per capita went down.
Those stats are from the city itself: https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/cfod/finance/documents/corporate-economics/housing-review/Housing-Review-Q4-2024.pdf
I really don’t know how you’ve managed to get so far in life given how bad you are at understanding math. I suspect you’re just lying to be honest.
So how exactly can they solve the housing crisis?
We need Universal Basic Incomes, for everyone.
I don’t see how you think the current system is better. Plenty of people already have “nowhere legal” to go.
When someone who can’t afford a mortgage or rental right now, they really only have two options. Homeless shelters, if there is space that will take them, and then specific public parks at night (as allowed by the Supreme court of Canada when enough shelter space is not available). They can and are regularly locked up temporarily for trespassing on private property.
You act like the government would just start instantly kicking out everyone if they owned the land. Why would they do that? What’s the motive? How do the politicians benefit from such an action? I know and can explain exactly how capitalists benefit from owning the land.
The worst situation you’re going to see is specific people being displaced more easily for development, but that’s literally the point of this. Oh no, grandma and grandpa can’t keep living in a half acre lot 3 minutes from the downtown core anymore, they have to move into a condo or move further out to have a giant house. That’s not a problem, that’s a solution.
You bring up a boogeyman like ICE in the US, but how would that even apply to government ownership of land in Canada? We don’t have a large illegal immigrant population, and even the racial tensions we do have are mild as toast compared to what has existed in the US for a long time. Even if we took the current far-right conservatives, I don’t see any indication that this policy would be used to do… anything.
Explain to me against who, and how, a nazi government would use the government ownership of land in Canada against Canadians, that they couldn’t already do today if they were voted in.
If you go read the US laws, those are not uncommon at all. Some states you’d think would be strict are even less restrictive than Alabama.