firewallfail

I'm in the opposite camp, I only have premium because I wanted music and the price was pretty much the same.

I'm not entirely sure how you read that as if I was saying it was a good move. Maybe I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say privatization in the first place is why it's in such a terrible spot by adding details people seem to be surprised by when I mention it. The entire existence of service Ontario was a shady government deal to make it look like they were adding public service while actually privatizing the majority of it.

Edit: I think it was my first sentence that was phrased poorly, I didn't mean service Ontario already being private was the reason for the staples deal.

Service Ontario was already largely privatized, that's the entire reason it started. The already private drivers license offices were pulled into it and paid a commission too low to even cover their near minimum wage pay. Not disagreeing that it's a bad move, just adding in because most people don't realize most service Ontario workers are paid absolute garbage and treated like it by their employer.

I've been finding his content hasn't been as good for the last couple years, maybe just from the random rants he tosses in for no reason. Then he went on a little rant recently about how he isn't making as much money from YouTube anymore and I unsubscribed.

Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you've said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.

I think they just gave very valid reasons to include sms in signal, adoption. It took me years to get my contacts on signal and I was finally at the point that >80% of my messages were encrypted, that dropped to <10% the day sms was dropped. If I refused to use sms I would effectively be cutting contact with my family.

It's not a matter of believing you or not. You were asked a simple question and you repeatedly didn't answer it while ending every comment with an insult as if the person you were responding to was an idiot.

I don't even disagree with you entirely, I don't think it's as big of a problem as you made it out to be but I don't think you're incorrect. You can make those points without being condescending though because the way you're replying will just make people dig their heels in.

No it doesn't. They asked for proof of a place that it has happened, you've provided proof of places where it could happen. That still doesn't change that it's incredibly unlikely for an entire neighbourhood to replace all their vehicles in a short period of time and even more unlikely that they would all be EVs.