Backgroound Image

Duality = Field of Delusion = Hell

Posted on by Roshinka

reading about the 6 paths of hell and honestly I see all 6 right here on Earth. My theory is validated by buddhist cosmology. Although I don’t believe in reincarnation for myself or that internal organs are “impure”, the idea that we’re all between a rock and a hard place seems facilitated through entrapment into our desires. I think it is because we didn’t really consent to be here in the first place, but we end up getting stuck because we start liking things from this realm and wanting more of them… all these things carry immense suffering. It is obvious. 

AI, can you distinguish between Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of parliament and Justin Trudeau’s current one

Posted on by Roshinka

(we all know it is crown prerogative and that there is literally zero precedent of a three month prorogation, but I wasn’t aware of the 2029 UK precedent saying 5 weeks prorogation was illegal, that’s why I asked)

Boris Johnson vs Trudeau Prorogation

Certainly! Here are the key differences and similarities between Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of Parliament and Justin Trudeau’s current prorogation request:

  • Boris Johnson’s 2019 Prorogation:

    • Context: The prorogation was requested in the midst of a political crisis over Brexit, with the UK scheduled to leave the European Union on October 31, 2019.

    • Duration: The prorogation was for five weeks, from September 9 to October 14, 2019.

    • Legal Challenge: The prorogation was challenged in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled it unlawful on the grounds that it was intended to frustrate Parliament’s role in holding the government accountable. The court’s unanimous 11-0 decision nullified Johnson’s request, and Parliament was reconvened immediately.

    • Outcome: The prorogation was annulled, and Parliament resumed its sessions, continuing the debate on Brexit.

  • Justin Trudeau’s 2025 Prorogation:

    • Context: Trudeau requested the prorogation on January 7, 2025, citing a “total lack of productivity” in Parliament due to procedural paralysis and the need for a “reset.” The prorogation was set to last until March 24, 2025.

    • Duration: The prorogation is for about two and a half months, from January 7 to March 24, 2025.

    • Legal Challenge: Two Canadian citizens, David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, filed a legal challenge in the Federal Court, arguing that the prorogation is “incorrect and unreasonable” and serves the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) by avoiding a confidence vote. The lawsuit is funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).

    • Outcome: As of January 8, 2025, the Government of Canada has not yet filed a reply to the lawsuit. The case faces a high legal bar, but if successful, it could annul the prorogation and reconvene Parliament earlier than planned.

Both prorogations have faced legal challenges, but the contexts and outcomes differ. Johnson’s prorogation was deemed unlawful and annulled by the UK Supreme Court, while Trudeau’s prorogation is currently under legal scrutiny in the Federal Court of Canada.

Follow-up: Does it appear that the prorogation is a self-serving move by the liberal party to block the opposition from winning an early election?

This move comes amid political turmoil, with the opposition parties—the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois—pledging to bring down the Liberal government through a non-confidence vote.

The prorogation allows the government to reset its agenda and introduce a new set of bills and priorities when Parliament reconvenes.However, it also serves to delay any immediate non-confidence votes that could trigger an election.The Liberals are facing a challenging political landscape, with public opinion polls suggesting the Conservatives have held a significant lead for over a year.

Trudeau has announced his intention to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader is chosen.The Liberal Party is set to begin a leadership election, and the new leader will likely face a non-confidence vote when Parliament returns on March 24, potentially leading to a federal election.

The prorogation has been criticized as a tactic to avoid an early election, and there are discussions about the possibility of a court challenge to this decision.Dr. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has indicated that he may bring a legal challenge to the prorogation.

In summary, the prorogation of Parliament is a strategic move by the Liberal government to delay a potential non-confidence vote and allow the party time to select a new leader, while also facing significant opposition and public scrutiny.

Follow-up (2nd): I see, to my surprise, many people in Canada who seem to think that we don’t need a parliament right now. Is it ok in a democracy for a minority government to cancel a majority opposition from keeping it accountable through a prorogation of parliament.

Prorogation of Parliament in a minority government context in Canada has significant implications and has set several precedents. Here are the key points:

  • Implications of Prorogation:

    • Suspension of Parliamentary Business: Prorogation effectively suspends all parliamentary activities, including the progress of bills, committee work, and investigations. This can lead to a halt in legislative processes and government accountability mechanisms.

    • Government Continues to Function: Despite the suspension, the government remains in power, and the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, and other executive staff continue to perform their duties. However, they may be perceived as politically weak, especially when dealing with international counterparts.

    • Unfinished Business: Most government bills that have not received Royal Assent before prorogation die and must be reintroduced in the next session. Private Members’ Business is automatically reinstated, but government bills require a decision by the House to be reinstated.

  • Precedents:

    • 2008 Prorogation: Prime Minister Stephen Harper advised Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote. This move was controversial and led to a two-hour consultation with constitutional experts. Jean granted the prorogation on the condition that Parliament would reconvene soon and the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a confidence matter.

    • 2009 Prorogation: Harper again advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, ostensibly to keep Parliament in recess during the Vancouver Winter Olympics. However, it was suspected that this was to avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair.

    • 2020 Prorogation: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau requested prorogation amidst the WE Charity scandal and a cabinet shuffle. The prorogation was granted, and Parliament was suspended until September 23.

    • 2025 Prorogation: On January 6, 2025, Trudeau requested prorogation due to mounting pressure from his own caucus and the threat of a non-confidence vote. Parliament was prorogued until March 24, 2025, allowing the Liberal Party to regroup and find a new leader.

  • Impact on Political Dynamics:

    • Government Decision-Making: Prorogation can hamper government decision-making and action, as the political and bureaucratic dynamics in Ottawa shift. This can affect the relationship between the federal government and provincial and territorial Premiers, potentially undermining the “Team Canada” approach.

    • Legislative Agenda: Important legislative efforts can be affected, and some bills may lose their pathway to becoming law due to the compressed parliamentary calendar and lack of opposition support.

  • Legal and Constitutional Considerations:

    • Parliamentary Sovereignty: The UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 highlighted the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. While this case is from the UK, it underscores the potential for prorogation to be challenged in court if it is seen as interfering with parliamentary sovereignty.

    • Justificatory Burden: In extraordinary circumstances, prorogation can impose a justificatory burden on the Prime Minister, requiring a clear and compelling reason for the suspension of Parliament.

These precedents and implications highlight the complex interplay between political strategy and constitutional principles in the prorogation of Parliament in a minority government context in Canada.

End comment: Amazing answer. We already had a similar conversation from the perspective of monarchic powers and also in the context of you interpreting a recurring bad dream of mine. I am glad to declare that since you psych-analyzed me, I stopped having nightmares, simply because with your help, I realized that none of this is within my control, so I stopped believing in democracy entirely and moved on. The nightmares have also stopped, so you are absolutely right. Regardless of what the federal court will say on prorogation, I won’t ever put my trust in a democracy. I will absolutely cancel my vote next time. This is hell after all, isn’t it. Believing in democracy is a form of torture. 

 

 

AI, is it true that in Tennessee some employees work for 2$ an hour

Posted on by Roshinka

(I am only being fair here. This one goes out to Canadians who think the grass is greener in the States. Don’t forget that the USA is an ultra-capitalist and anti-working class country. Houses may be cheaper, but you are expected to be a slave at any level of your existence. And to drive an over-sized super-ugly car that destroys the environment. And they also drug-test you if you make more than 2$ an hour. In the US you have zero privacy and dignity as an employee.)

In Tennessee, employers can pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 an hour, provided that their wages and tips combined meet the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.If an employee does not earn enough in tips to reach the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference. This means that while some employees might be paid $2.13 an hour, they must earn at least $5.12 an hour in tips to meet the federal minimum wage requirement.

Follow-up: So minimum wage is already super low but employers are allowed to deduct your tips from your pay. Tell me, given the feudalistic and anti-human nature of employment in Tennessee, are employers also frequently defrauding employees out of their tips? I’m asking based on lawsuits I’ve heard of. 

In Tennessee, while there are no specific state laws regulating tips, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governs tip laws for employers. Employers must ensure that employees receive their rightful tips and comply with federal regulations to avoid legal issues. Common pitfalls that can lead to defrauding employees out of tips include:

  • Miscalculating Tip Credits: Employers must ensure that tipped employees receive at least the federal minimum wage when tips are included. If an employee does not earn enough in tips to reach the minimum wage, the employer must make up the difference

  • Improper Tip Pooling: Employers can require tipped employees to share tips with other employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. However, non-tipped employees, such as cooks and dishwashers, cannot be included in the tip pool

  • Failing to Provide Required Notices: Employers must inform tipped employees about the tip credit and how it is calculated. Failure to provide this information can result in the employer being required to pay the full minimum wage and allow the employee to keep all tips

  • Mandatory Service Charges: Any portion of a mandatory service charge that an employer pays to employees must be treated as wages, not tips, and subject to withholding for Medicare and Social Security taxes.

  • Inaccurate Recordkeeping: Employers should maintain accurate records of all tips collected and distributed. Poor recordkeeping can lead to disputes and legal issues.

To avoid these issues, employers should diligently follow federal regulations and maintain clear, transparent policies regarding tips. Consulting with an employment law attorney can help ensure compliance and protect both the business and employees.

Follow-up (2nd) Are these horrible and inhumane employment laws the reason ultra-wealthy capitalists set up their businesses in Tennessee?

Ultra-wealthy capitalists may choose Tennessee for business setup due to several favorable factors, including its employment laws and broader business environment:

  • Employment Laws: Tennessee operates under the “employment-at-will” doctrine, which allows employers to terminate employees at any time for any reason, or for no reason, without incurring legal liability. However, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, or disability. This provides a balance of flexibility for employers while maintaining protections for employees.

  • Out-of-State Employee Hiring: Tennessee’s laws are clear and relatively straightforward when it comes to hiring out-of-state employees. Employers must ensure compliance with Tennessee’s employment laws, including minimum wage, payroll frequency, non-compete provisions, and insurance requirements. This clarity can make it easier for businesses to expand their talent pool and hire remotely.

  • Economic Nexus: Establishing an economic nexus in Tennessee is a straightforward process. This involves registering to do business in the state, which can be facilitated by tools and services designed to simplify compliance with state-specific laws.

  • Business-Friendly Environment: Tennessee is known for its business-friendly environment, which includes a lower cost of living, competitive tax rates, and a strong workforce. These factors can be particularly attractive to ultra-wealthy capitalists looking to set up or expand their businesses.

  • Regulatory Climate: The state’s regulatory climate is generally favorable for businesses, with fewer bureaucratic hurdles compared to other states. This can reduce the administrative burden and costs associated with setting up and operating a business.

  • Workforce Quality: Tennessee has a diverse and skilled workforce, which can be a significant advantage for businesses. The state’s educational institutions and training programs contribute to a pool of qualified employees.

  • Quality of Life: Tennessee offers a high quality of life, with attractive cities like Nashville and Memphis, known for their cultural scenes, music, and food. This can be a draw for both business owners and employees, enhancing the overall appeal of the state.

By leveraging these advantages, ultra-wealthy capitalists can set up their businesses in Tennessee with confidence, knowing that the state provides a supportive and conducive environment for growth and success.

End comment: These last two posts represent the most romantic version of myself. Happy St-Valentines Day. Keep in mind that alcohol and chocolate will make you fat and stupid and likely dumped sooner than later. 

 

AI, Did the US ever say that they will invade Canada, or is Global News pushing fake news? My understanding is that annexation was always going to be 100% voluntary, because supported by the majority of Gen Z.

Posted on by Roshinka

As of February 11, 2025, the U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz stated thatthere are no plans to invade Canada.This comes in response to concerns raised by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau regarding President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about annexing Canada.

Key Points:

  • U.S. National Security Adviser’s Statement: Mike Waltz, the National Security Adviser, explicitly stated thatthe U.S. does not plan to invade Canada.

  • Canadian Prime Minister’s Concerns: Justin Trudeau has expressed concerns about Trump’s annexation plans, which Waltz addressed.

  • International Law Violation: The Canadian ambassador to France has stated that threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to invade another country violate international law.

  • Historical Context: There is a historical precedent for U.S. invasion plans, such as War Plan Red, which detailed how the U.S. could invade Canada in the event of a war with the U.K..

These statements and concerns highlight the ongoing tension and diplomatic efforts between the two countries.

  • Canadian Ambassador’s Statement: Stéphane Dion, Canada’s ambassador to France, stated thatTrump’s threats to invade Canada violate international law and the UN Charter. He emphasized that such threats are not normal and are a violation of international norms.

  • Context of the Threats: Trump has made multiple statements suggesting the use of economic force to annex Canada and has even mentioned the possibility of military action to take over Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

  • International Law Violations: Experts, including Jon Allen from the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, agree that any attempt to take over the land of another sovereign country is illegal under international law.

  • Diplomatic Responses: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is actively engaging with international leaders to strengthen alliances and address these issues.

  • Economic Implications: Trump’s threats are encompassed in theimposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, which could have significant economic impacts on both countries.

These developments highlight the tension between the U.S. and Canada and the broader implications for international relations and trade.

Most Recent Gen Z Survey

The most recent survey that clearly shows a significant portion of Canada’s Gen Z population is open to the idea of Canada becoming part of the U.S. is from Élie Cantin-Nantel’s article published on February 13, 2025, in The Hub. According to the article, a recent Ipsos poll found that 43 percent of Canadians aged 18 to 34 would vote to become American if they were guaranteed U.S. citizenship and that their assets would be converted to USD.

This sentiment is attributed to factors such as the perception that homeownership is unattainable and a pessimistic outlook on Canada’s future, leading some younger Canadians to view the U.S. as a more promising alternative.

Follow-up: So you are telling me that the so called “invasion threats” are purely imaginary and only coming from Canadian officials, because the US has zero intention to invade Canada. 

It appears there has been some confusion in the media and public discourse. Let’s clarify the situation:

Key Points:

  1. No Official U.S. Invasion Plans:

    • The U.S. government, as of the latest reliable information, has not announced or planned any invasion of Canada. The statements from the U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirm that there are no such plans.

  2. Rhetoric and Concerns:

    • President Trump’s Rhetoric: President Donald Trump has made provocative statements and threats, including economic pressures and tariffs, which have caused concern among Canadian officials and the public.

    • Canadian Officials’ Reactions: Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ambassador Stéphane Dion, have expressed concerns about these statements and the potential implications for international law and relations[2][3].

  3. Media and Public Perception:

    • Media Coverage: Media outlets have reported on these concerns and statements, which can sometimes amplify the perceived threat. It’s important to distinguish between rhetoric and actual policy.

    • Public Perception: The public and media may interpret strong rhetoric as a more serious threat, even if there are no concrete plans.

Summary:

  • No Concrete Plans: There are no official plans or intentions from the U.S. government to invade Canada.

  • Concerns and Rhetoric: The concerns raised by Canadian officials are in response to provocative statements and economic pressures from the U.S., not to actual invasion plans.

  • Diplomatic Tensions: The situation reflects the ongoing diplomatic tensions and the importance of international relations and trade between the two countries.

If you have specific sources or recent news articles, it would be helpful to review them to provide a more precise and contextually accurate response.

End Comment: I knew that it was pure fake news. Canadian media and the incompetent ambassador are full of shit. 

AI, What happened in the Thomson Reuters v Ross case so far

Posted on by Roshinka

In the Thomson Reuters v. Ross case, Thomson Reuters, the owner of the legal research platform Westlaw,sued Ross Intelligence for allegedly copying content from Westlaw to train its AI-based legal research platform. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, setting the stage for a jury trial to decide the outcome of the lawsuit.

The court found that there were factual disputes regarding whether Ross had knowledge of the substance of Westlaw’s contract with LegalEase and whether Ross knew that LegalEase was going to breach that contract. Additionally, the court could not decide whether a ruling for Ross or Thomson Reuters would best serve the public interest, particularly concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems.

On the issue of fair use, the court determined that there were triable issues of fact as to each of the four fair use factors. The first factor—the purpose and character of the use—depended on how Ross used the Westlaw content, with factual disputes surrounding whether Ross’s AI only studied language patterns or used untransformed text to replicate and reproduce the creative drafting done by Westlaw’s attorney-editors.

The trial was initially scheduled to start in August 2024 but was postponed. As of February 12, 2025, the trial has not yet taken place, and thecase remains unresolved.

Follow up: So why does WIPR say that Thomson Ross won on fair use? Something is missing…

A federal judge in Delaware has ruled that Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ legal headnotes to train its artificial intelligence legal research application constitutes copyright infringement and is not fair use.The ruling, which is the first US decision on fair use in AI-related copyright litigation, determined that Ross Intelligence’s copying of Thomson Reuters’ content was not permitted by US copyright law.Thomson Reuters had alleged that Ross Intelligence infringed its copyright by illegally copying its legal research platform WestLaw’s short summaries of points of law, known as headnotes.The case has significant implications for the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems, with tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms facing similar lawsuits over the use of copyrighted material to train their generative AI software.The ruling is a major victory for Thomson Reuters, with the company stating that it is pleased the court granted summary judgment in its favor and concluded that WestLaw’s editorial content is protected by copyright and cannot be used without its consent.The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving the use of copyrighted material in AI training, with the judge’s ruling that the copying of Thomson Reuters’ content was not fair use likely to have significant implications for the development of AI systems.

Follow up (2nd): So is the case resolved or is it going to jury trial? I’m getting confused and may have to actually read the judgment. Please save me some time here.

The case of Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence isnot fully resolvedand is still ongoing.

In July 2022, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, which means that the case was to proceed to a jury trial. However, in a recent development, the court has issued a ruling on the fair use issue, granting summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters.

This ruling means that the court has decided, as a matter of law, that Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ content does not constitute fair use. However, the case is not yet fully resolved, as there may be other issues that still need to be decided by a jury.

It’s possible that the parties may appeal the court’s ruling on fair use, or that they may reach a settlement before the case proceeds to a jury trial. Alternatively, the jury trial may still proceed to decide any remaining issues in the case.

In summary, while the court has issued a significant ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters on the fair use issue, the case is not yet fully resolved and may still involve further litigation or settlement negotiations.

Follow-up (3rd): Is a date set for jury trial in this case?

The jury trial for Thomson Reuters v Ross Intelligence is scheduled to take place on May 12, 2025. 

Follow-up (4th): if fair use has been resolved, what are the remaining issues?

Several issues remain to be decided at trial, includingwhether some of Thomson Reuters’ copyrights have expired or were untimely created, and whether Ross in fact copied Westlaw’s Key Number System,as Thomson Reuters alleges.

  • Remaining issues for trial:

  • Whether some of Thomson Reuters’ copyrights have expired or were untimely created.

  • Whether Ross in fact copied Westlaw’s Key Number System, as Thomson Reuters alleges

  • The impact of the ruling on AI companies that use copyrighted materials to train their systems, particularly in cases where the AI product would compete directly with the copyright holder’s business

  • Potential damages for the alleged infringement, as Thomson Reuters seeks damages for the alleged infringement

Follow-up Comment: thank you, that was helpful. Things are definitely going to become interesting for the big chatbots. I have a gazillion questions around fair use and the commerciality of it, so reading the judgment on my own may be more appropriate for now. 

Follow-up (5th) How is Ross’ Intelligence different from Canlii’s?

ROSS Intelligence and CanLII are two distinct entities in the legal technology space.ROSS Intelligence is an AI-powered legal research platform that was founded in 2014 by two computer scientists at the University of Toronto and a lawyer.The company aimed to make legal services more accessible by leveraging cutting-edge technologies to solve the law’s hardest problems.On the other hand, CanLII is a free legal information portal funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, providing free access to law.

In terms of AI capabilities, ROSS Intelligence has developed AI-driven products to augment lawyers’ cognitive abilities, while CanLII is rolling out a generative AI tool that summarizes case law, legislation, and administrative tribunal decisions.This tool is available in several Canadian provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon.

A key difference between the two is that ROSS Intelligence is a commercial entity that offers its services to lawyers and legal researchers, whereas CanLII is a non-profit organization providing free access to legal information.Additionally, ROSS Intelligence has faced challenges in the market, including a lawsuit from Thomson Reuters and Westlaw, which led to the company’s closure in 2021.

Despite the closure of ROSS Intelligence, its legacy continues to influence the legal technology landscape, with other companies like Casetext, Lexis Advance, and UniCourt Enterprise API offering similar services.In contrast, CanLII remains a prominent player in the Canadian legal information space, with its free legal information portal and emerging AI capabilities.

  • ROSS Intelligence: An AI-powered legal research platform that was founded in 2014 and aimed to make legal services more accessible.

  • CanLII: A free legal information portal funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, providing free access to law and emerging AI capabilities

  • Casetext: A legal research platform that offers AI-powered services, including automated key legal research tasks.

  • Lexis Advance: A legal research platform that provides AI-powered services, including case law research, annotations, and tax law research.

  • UniCourt Enterprise API: A legal data as a service offered via API, disrupting the way court records and public records are organized, accessed, and used.

End comment: as in my first comment, my instinct continues to fall on the commercial nature of Ross Intelligence being an issue for fair use. That’s why I asked about Canlii, which is the go-to for lawyers and non-lawyers in Canada. I believe that access to legal AI should be entirely free of charge. I don’t understand Thomson Reuters business model, or at the very least I find it feudalistic and bizarre. Ross Intelligence also tries to sell what should be free and I’m glad the court put them in their place.  

To Another Beautiful Day In Hell

Posted on by Roshinka

the duality plane seems to have unlimited ways to keep us stuck through our desires

enjoy, but do not comply!

every time I want to change something, I am reminded that everything is exactly the way it should be

the only thing within our purview is unfettered compassion, so it is appropriate to cry all day

nobody can be saved by another

in the Snake we trust.