Because the government claims to not know how much money you made

If your taxes are simple, then yes. For example, if you just have income from you employer, and your employer withholds taxes, then the government knows what your taxes "should" be. Filing also allows you to claim exemptions from taxes owed. If you are a small business or work as an independent contractor, then you need to file different forms and make claims yourself. For example as an independent contractor, your employer doesn't withhold taxes – since technically they aren't your employer, you're just an independent small business on contract with them – so you yourself need to file them with the government. I think there's also circumstances where you need to withhold your taxes quarterly too rather than just at tax time.

tl;dr In the simplest of cases – which admitedly probably covers quite a bit of the population – the government has all they need to know how much you owe in taxes. The more complex your taxes get the less likely the government is to have the full picture. Especially if some of your sources of income are not ones that report what they paid you to the government.

Some of these are "simple" things that could be even added to the Marketplace as free add-ons by Mojang though. I think this is the criticism since console is a significant amount of Bedrock users. If Mojang wants to accept their money, they can do some token things to help out there. Otherwise, you just get people on Marketplace nickel-and-diming console users since this is their only avenue to get this stuff.

While criticisms of consoles as a platform and their gatekeepers (Sony, MS, Nintendo) may be valid, Mojang has ways to circumvent this. They could add a bunch of "simple" things like this to the Marketplace at no cost to the players. They could even add a section to the Marketplace specifically for things like this since the Marketplace is run by Mojang, not by each individual console vendor.

I think that it's valid to criticize Mojang for just tossing their hands up in the air and saying "oh well" since the console vendors don't let users treat the console like a computer (download from the Internet, file system access, etc) when they do have other things that they could do, which they choose not to.

It’s exhaustion having to hear about it all the fucking time.

Depends on what you mean though. For some people, "having it shoved in my face" just means having to acknowledge that it exists at all. For example, two gays guys kissing in public is "shoving it in my face" but a heterosexual couple kissing in public is not "shoving" their heterosexualness in their face.

Or look at the gaming crowd where they complaing when AAA game studios include gay characters in their games... but they also complain when an indie developer makes a game specifically for a LGBTQ+ audience. It's like anytime that anything has any reference to LGBTQ+ they get "triggered" and start flaming that something is being "shoved down their throat" (even though they are the ones that choose to purchase a game or not).

Meanwhile half our employees are in non heteronormative relationships

There are queer people that hate other queer people. It is a thing. Funnily enough, you can't assume someone is supportive of other queer people just because they are queer themselves. It's really counterproductive, but it exists. For example, there are plenty of gay guys or lesbians that are resentful of bisexual folks.

Not saying it's the case here, but just saying "I'm queer" isn't proof that you're supportive of other queer people. Being queer doesn't mean that you can't subscribe to the "Fuck You, I Got Mine" mentality.

Not always. Sometimes it's just about getting where they want to go as fast as possible, and sidewalks can be faster than the roads at times. Especially if they want to use the sidewalk / crosswalk to skip a red light.

Just this past week, I saw a dude on a full on motorcycle running the bike lane between Spadina and Bathurst along Richmond.

As a software developer, I would definitely give this application a failing grade for UX. Defaults should be what the majority of people want, and then people that are the exception should make changes from the defaults. Most pizza apps should probably have defaults like Sauce: Regular / Cheese: Regular / Crust: Normal. If people want to order "No Sauce" then they have to explicitly select it.

Seeing as the majority of people want sauce – but probably not "Sauce: Extra" – it's stupid to force all of them to explicitly choose "Sauce: Regular" especially when you'll end up with situations like OP and upset customers (for no gain on the part of the pizza shop).

Some apps have really poor UI, so that even if they list things off to you, it might not say something like Cheese: None, but just that cheese is missing from a block of text. Sometimes that "cheese" and "suace" selections are in a separate section from the rest of the toppings, so it might be possible to miss it.

That said from an app perspective, defaulting to "no cheese, no sauce" calls into question the care put into the creation of said app. The defaults should be the selections that most people want. Things like "regular sauce, regular cheese, normal crust" would usually be the defaults if sane people are building an app meant to be used by human beings.

At one point I wanted a pizza without cheese from a local pizza place. The guy on the phone argued with me that it couldn't be done. Like he became belligerent with me (on the phone) over the request.

Basically, "I don't like $Company so anyone associated with $Company is evil, and I will attack them."

Is it specifically him? I feel like there are a lot of Republicans that in the last few years have just let all of their scandal's slide off of them. E.g. Matt Gaetz

Carts already go through nether portals (in Java at least). That's the basis for many chunk loaders (send a minecart back and forth through a nether portal since there's a lag time before unloading the surroundings when you go through a portal). I think it's the going through with an entity inside of the minecart that changed.

What does employment insurance (operated at the Federal level) have to do with provincial health insurance / driver's licenses? You're comments look like:

I've just proven that 1 + 1 = 2, therefore I've disproven your statement that 4 + 3 = 7. Checkmate!

Not quite. The Conservatives' current trajectory means that social issues are what tips the balance. The Conservatives are starting to push for overturning abortion if they can manage it. They are also pushing hard at the Provincial level for culture wars against LGBTQ+ people. I would argue even more than culture wars since they're enacting laws and even invoking the notwithstanding clause to push their measures that violate charter rights through (rather than just creating public debates to drum up votes that don't result in any substantial changes).

Maybe for people that are straight, white and cisgendered (Christian too?), it's easy to ignore these issues, but I don't want to pave the path towards societal regression.

I would welcome a political landscape where I don't have to worry about some sort of Trump-like regression in Canada where the bigots feel even more emboldened than they already do, and the politicians that they support are dead silent on their actions (or in vocal support of them). I mean just look at PP rubbing elbows with groups that were publicly/openly discussing raping his fucking wife just to so he can get their votes. Do you really think that PP is the sort of leader that will denounce bullshit from his "base" because it's wrong and should be considered counter to "Canadian values?"

I'm not going to argue in favour of overregulation, but for some people if the number of regulations is greater than zero they would consider that "over" regulation.

The problem I have with people complaining about regulations is that a lot of time, it's a bad faith argument just because they want to make more money and the regulations are in the way of their own personal wealth. Look at the Conservatives in the US trying to repeal child labour laws because "no one wants to work anymore." Those child labour laws were put in place for a reason. Same with the regulations that separated investment firms and banks after the Great Depression. They were repealed because "nothing bad like that has happened, so it's impossible for bad things to happen anymore"... then we got "too big to fail" banks that had to get government bailouts in 2008.

It goes like this:

1. Bad Thing™ happens.
2. Public outcry.
3. Regulations created to prevent Bad Thing™.
4. Time passes with Bad Thing™ not being a concern anymore since the regulations have prevented it from happening.
5. Industry complains about regulation preventing them from making money. They say that Bad Thing™ hasn't happened in a long time, and we are now too smart to allow Bad Thing™ to happen again.
6. Regulations repealed.
7. Bad Thing™ happens.

#5 is steeped in hubris, greed and lack of empathy (i.e. "Even if Bad Thing™ happens, it won't happen to me so fuck those other people.").

Well, with WW2 they really wasn't a "why the fuck are we even here?" feeling while they were deployed.

I can't wait until this disgusting maga movement is dead.

This was a thing before MAGA.

I mean, she's publicly showing him to humiliate him and she's talking down to him / making fun of him for it. This isn't her trying to do a good deed. This is her trying to use this information as a cudgel against him. While him getting information about a cheating SO is generally a win, if it's presented in a way that's designed to make you feel as shitty as possible... I'm not going to celebrate the messenger.

You see one of the photos is her looking into the camera, like she's pretending to sleep on her bed (facing away from them) and then taking the photos/videos on the sly. I'm guessing she was maybe sending this to some group chat with her other friends or something? Maybe she didn't like that the roommate was sleeping with guys when she was still in the room?

It's more the idea that she wasn't going to tell him until she could use it to publicly humiliate him. Like yea, it's better for him to know sooner than later, but doesn't make her any less of a shit human.

So what you're saying is that when someone is "just doing their job" and it negatively impacts others because they did it poorly, we are supposed to be sympathetic to them?

My go to example of prosecutors doing stupid stuff just because it will benefit them is the trend about 10~15 years ago of prosecutors going after sexting teens under "production / distribution of child pornography" laws. With prosecutors making cringe statements along the lines of, "these teens need to be taught a lesson that sexting is wrong" (apparently by branding them a sex offender for life!). IIRC there was even one of the cases that made it to the Florida Supreme Court where the judge – ruling in favour of punishing the teens – basically said that punishing them (i.e. branding them a sex offender for life) was to protect them from themselves due to some hypothetical hacker that could have intercepted their sexting and spread the images across the Internet.

So the solution is zero regulation?

The thing being point out here is that neither the prosecutor's office nor the police department are going to suffer any negative consequences of a horrendously wrongful conviction. If the conviction is wrong and the wronged person needs to by made whole again that's just "someone else's money" to the people that made the wrongful conviction happen.

For many of them, each case is just a way to boost their profile. Either by having a high "kill count" or by having a newsworthy case that gets their name out there. Quite a lot of them have political aspirations.

Yea. Usually there is an implied ending to that: "I would date you (but ...)" Usually the "but" isn't "but you haven't asked me yet."

A woman here once talked about how her bf is so dense [...] only to have him walk away because he didn’t get what she was trying to do.

Was this story relayed to the woman by her boyfriend? If so, I would assume he told her if he did or didn't understand the hint. At that point it's a matter of if she trusts her boyfriend or not. Like was this story relayed to her from a third-party and she never asked her boyfriend about it? Or is the suggestion that he did have sex with the friend, but is lying to this woman to hide cheating on her or something?

Like I don't understand why the woman was supposed to think that the boyfriend understood the hint, but wasn't into the female friend since my assumption is that she must have talked to the boyfriend about this incident and would therefore have first-hand knowledge of his thought process.