At least Canada has some precedent of courts ruling against this sort of thing. Most of the precedent I’ve found related to the Quebec Labour Code, so it might not be the same with Nova Scotia, but the jist of how the Supreme Court has ruled is: Employers have a right to cease operations, but if that happens in the “prohibited period” when union negotiations are ongoing, that violates the right of association, and the employees can be entitled to damages.

I don’t know how the facts of this case will line up with NS law, but I would think that given that there’s a Charter right underpinning these ideas that they probably have some kind of case here. The burden of proof will possibly be on Ubisoft to show that it was a “normal” decision, based on my quick reading of some of the precedent.

Agree, and to add: That the Finch West LRT doesn’t have signal priority is criminal. I live in K-W, and the iON is good because it has signal priority, and it still gets stopped by traffic signals relatively frequently.

Alas that I have but one upvote to give.

I work primarily in “classical” AI and have been working with it on-and-off for just under 30 years now. Programmed my first GAs and ANNs in the 90s. I survived Prolog. I’ve had prolonged battles getting entire corporate departments to use the terms “Machine Learning” and “Artificial Intelligence” correctly, understand what they mean, and how to start thinking about them to incorporate them correctly into their work.

Thus why I chose the word “LLM” in my response, not “AI”.

I will admit that I assumed that by “AI” Jimmy Carr was referring to LLMs, as that’s what most people mean these days. I read the TL;DW by @masterspace@lemmy.ca but didn’t watch the original content. If I’m wrong in that assumption and he’s referring to classical AI, not LLMs, I’ll edit my original post.

Ugh, I’m tired of point 2. Yes, LLMs have found a few patterns in large-scale study analyses that humans hadn’t, but they weren’t deep insights and there had been buried hypotheses around them from existing authors, IIRC (too lazy to source).

I don’t think they generally think that deeply. I think they really do want less illegal immigration (and less legal immigration, and the expulsion of all non-white, non-fundamentalist-Christian people) because that will create the “unified, blessed” nation they believe that they need to have.

That said, they aren’t concerned about dealing with either of those issues rationally or efficiently. It’s moral, not policy. “Impure” people who enter our “pure” nation are evil and must be thown out so we continue to have the favour of our deity (I refuse to write capital-g god here out of respsect for actual, loving Christian doctrine, as rare as it is). You deal with moral violations with exile and shame, not with compassion, wisdom, and welcoming.

Trump doesn’t even get that deep. “How does this play in the ratings? (and secondarily, how do I look?)” That’s it. It’s why he likes Mamdani in person—he gets ratings.

No, they don’t want any immigration, except from white South Africa apparently.

If China is okay with the sale that means it’s not good for the US. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

Oh, I hope she doesn’t run for President yet. It would be a waste of her talent. Not that I think she’d do a bad job (considering the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) but I don’t think the electorate in the US is ready for her yet, and I think she has a lot she can contribute legislatively. I hope she unseats Schumer though. That’s not only within reach but very doable.