Cost, and having something dedicated to the space. Maybe also that it controls your smart home stuff so you want it to stay in place and not be taken out of the home. I can see something comparable to an Apple TV with a built in display/speakers/camera. Don’t need much power, but something that can run your streaming services, YouTube for cooking videos, and a FaceTime camera for calls would be neat.

Yep, lots of things like cars, home appliances, home theatre components, etc. get regular, if not yearly, updates even when some of those things have a 10+ year lifecycle for the average consumer. It’s not like Apple stops supporting devices after a couple years. With things like the Apple TV that aren’t updated as often I end up putting off buying something that I want because, like you said, it might already be 2+ years old and I wouldn’t want to feel behind when the new one comes out less than a year later. I’d rather see smaller updates more often so there’s always something recent when I’m looking to buy.

I might argue that moving to just USB-C for the 2016 era MacBook pros was a little premature. In 2018 I opted for a refurbished 2015 largely because I wanted the variety of ports, and it seems they’ve stepped back a bit on the latest releases. Now though, if they didn’t move to USB-C I’d say they’re waiting too long. The issue with adopting new ports is most customers already have a plethora of devices with the existing standard, so many tend to carry on with that momentum rather than adopt the new thing and it’s growing pains. At some point though we need to rip off the bandaid and standardize on the best option. EU regulations are a big step to making this happen, and Apple is the kind of company that’s able to push the market based on what they support in their devices.

Remember the benefits of USB-C are that you can have one(or a few cables) that scale between 5 W and 240 W charging, USB 2 to Thunderbolt 4 data rates(plus things like audio/video, etc.), and even if you’re limited by the cable or the device at each end, there’s still some backwards compatibility that provides some base functionality rather than being completely worthless because the ports don’t match. You’re better off being able to connect a USB-C product at USB-2 speeds than have a micro-USB Super Speed cable/product that doesn’t connect at all.

Either way, people are going to complain. Some that there’s little innovation and things are too much the same as they were years ago. Others that the new innovation breaks compatibility and they need to replace cables/accessories to stay up to date.

Maybe, though it’s shitty that we got two years, then four more. I held out since the iPhone 7 for the 12 mini, but I feel like 4 years is a good run and I’d like to upgrade this year. I also feel like if they keep the S.E. line going then every other year is better. 4 years feels rough for people looking to purchase in the second half of that cycle.

I think there’s a middle ground there, though it depends on the kind of game. Something like a first person shooter is a non-starter on iPhone to me due to the smaller display and touchscreen controls. Something like a turn based strategy I like better on mobile because being able to tap through commands and menus is nicer than a controller to me. Maybe also a stronger push for some of the games to have cross platform saves, like being able to play on my Apple TV at home, but also do some grinding a few minutes at a time while I’m out.

Really, I think Apple TV is where the real gaming potential is. It might not match consoles in power, but it’s also in a lot of households that might not have bought a console but will buy a couple good games on Apple TV.

My wife wanted to upgrade so we both got new Series 9 this year. Her Series 3 went to her mom as an upgrade to a Fitbit, and I figure I’ll keep wearing mine at work until it gets smashed or otherwise dies. All of our Macs are well past macOS support, but no real plans to upgrade until an old one actually dies, or some killer feature prompts an upgrade.

What are the gas and electricity rates in your area? In Sask, we’re paying about $0.16/kWh for electricity and about $6.40/GJ. There’s about 278 kWh in a GJ, so the electricity cost works out to about $44/GJ, or about 7 times the cost of gas. A good coefficient of performance for a heat pump seems to be about 3, and modern gas furnaces are easily above 90% efficiency so the actual cost difference for gas to electric heat is about 1:3.

Now, newer houses are better insulated, so your heating load on a 2012 build is going to be a lot lower than a 1977 build. You also didn’t mention your heat source. Ground source pumps are pretty good efficiency year round, but cost a lot for the initial install, while air-source pumps have a large seasonal variation in their efficiency, which is particularly troublesome in central/northern Canadian climates.

Yep, in Sask right now natural gas is about 1/7 the cost of electricity, which means at best a heat pump only costs about 2x as much to run as a modern gas furnace. Maybe as our grid transitions to renewables and carbon prices rise those costs will become even or shift towards benefiting heat pumps, but I suspect at this point you’re not going to hit break even over the typical life of a heat pump. Much more affordable to stick with gas for now, and maybe start moving to heat pumps 10 years from now. Same argument for water heaters, gas is going to be cheaper than a heat pump for most cases. Maybe new builds lean towards a heat pump because it doesn’t need venting which minimizes HVAC needs, and/or if a person has a solar system that minimizes their electricity costs.

There’s also methods to potentially shelter some of that too. If a person has RRSP room and doesn’t actually need the whole amount available you can use that to delay paying the tax and hopefully reduce the rate paid. You can also make some investments within a TFSA, which means no taxes owed on the growth. Both of those options have caps on contributions so they’re a great for low-moderate income earners to minimize their taxes, while higher income earners can only shelter a portion of their income.

That’s the argument, but it doesn’t really hold water to me. That would lead to an environment where those with little capital get taxed on their entire income, making it hard to save more capital. Those that already have lots of capital could then leverage that capital to generate a tax-free(or limited tax) income, which seems like exactly what we’re trying to avoid. We do have TFSAs which do allow us to grow our assets tax free, and they’re limited to prevent those with excessive capital from dodging their entire tax burden.

To some extent, you might want it the other way around, those providing labour and covering basic living expenses should pay limited taxes(which is kind of how things work now when you consider the basic exemptions, GST rebates, child tax benefits, etc.) while those who have essentially a passive income should pay a higher rate. The argument for the current capital gains taxation is that you want to encourage people to invest in things like a business that grows the economy, rather than purely financial vehicles like bonds and loans that mostly just concentrate wealth without contributing to a healthy economy.

I like the cut of your jib. Some of the most vocal complaints are things like someone holding a cabin or other piece of land for an extended time, and then having to claim the gains in a single year. Especially in cases like an inherited cabin that’s held for 30 years then passed to next of kin so a particular owner never actually paid or was paid for the property, but probably did spend as much on maintenance over that time as their assessed gains. Spreading those gains across multiple tax years that have already been assessed would seem fair(letting them claim the gains at a lower marginal rate by spreading it over multiple years) though administratively difficult. I would also like the idea of putting in a lifetime exemption around the $250 k range which would make a big difference for those who might only ever pay capital gains due to that one property, but not really affect those who make most of their income as capital gains.

Am I reading this right in that it’s a percentage of homes (dwellings) occupied by the owner compared to the percentage of people that own their home? Like if you have a family of 4 in a house and they rent out a (legal) basement suite to two individual renters, is that counted as one owner-occupied dwelling out of two dwellings on the property; (50% homeowner occupied or 100% homeowner occupied. Compared again to say having 6 people, of which one or two(is that family of 4 a couple or single parent) are homeowners.

This is what I was going to say. It’s good to know if a message chain is going over Apples E2E encryption or regular SMS that’s completely transparent to the carrier. There’s also a fundamental technological difference that allows group messages over iMessage, but not over SMS. iOS 18 supporting RCS helps a lot, but I still think it’s a good idea to have an easy way to differentiate iMessages vs RCS vs SMS due to security and functional differences.

On the other hand, providing capital increases the value of the labour applied. Giving a tradesperson and additional capital might mean they can afford better tools that allow them to work more quickly, accomplish more per hour of labour and therefore be able to charge more for that hour while the customer simultaneously pays less for the task being done. The tradesperson is then able to pay back that capital plus some gains for the person providing the capital. Everybody wins, the investor gets more money than they started with, the tradesperson earns more after paying back the investment than if they hadn’t taken it in the first place, and the customer gets a lower rate for the tasks that need to be performed.

The problem is when we let that scale up to the point of there being people with essentially endless funds to spend on things like mega-yachts and ridiculous mansions, while others aren’t even getting their basic needs met. The answer to me isn’t removing the benefits of capital income at all, but adding some progressive taxation to keep the net income more modest, and maybe some stronger/target employment regulation so the capital holders aren’t getting rich off labour that’s supported by government social programs.

This is my answer to pretty much everything. Create a consistent baseline both in terms of consumer services/pricing and for employee work environment/compensation. Then let private industry compete with that crown corp. perfect example, the state of telecommunication services in Sask. Sasktel offers cell, internet and cable TV services while private companies compete along side them. The private companies have to actually be competitive(or at least convince customers that they are) with Sasktel if they want to capture any significant market share. They’re also competing with Sasktel to hire employees into similar roles, so they have to provide competitive wages and work environments. Prices in Sask tend to be lower than elsewhere due to Sasktel’s presence.

I don’t see what we wouldn’t have similar results in other industries, as long as the government actually allows it to happen and doesn’t just sell off the crowns to create a short term budget surplus or reward their buddies in competing private industries.

Could also be skewed the other way if it’s only about wage and not total compensation. Higher paid positions tend to also have good benefits like healthcare, vacation time, pensions, etc. that are on top of the stated wage. Lower wage positions often don’t have those same benefits.

Most are in my experience. Permanent position really just means there’s no pre-arranged end date for the position as opposed to say covering a maternity leave where you’ve been specifically given that position for just until the permanent employee comes back. Unless otherwise negotiated any permanent employee can be let go with 2 weeks(depending on provincial regulations) notice.

Maybe $300/month, or $3600/year for groceries. Maybe another $200/year each for prescriptions, alcohol, and general housewares to cover the non-grocery items. $150 profit on $4200 of revenue would be about 4% margin. Doesn’t seem that high to me but I also don’t really know how that compares to other businesses in the same market.

I think the biggest one is some departments already have a GPS tracker type thing that’s launchable from a squad car. Then it’s just a matter of deciding if the risk of engaging in the chase is higher or lower than the risk of the suspect escaping. It’s also worth considering that never engaging in a chase makes it simple for people to avoid arrest simply by driving away, so there has to be some expectation in a suspects mind that it might not be worth running.

Hmm, hard to quantify since I’m not sure how much of the population does a significant portion of grocery and other shopping at Loblaws, but in that context it doesn’t seem so bad. If we taxed those profits completely that only puts an extra $50 in everybody’s pocket each year, which doesn’t seem like it’d really have a large financial impact on many households.