Weight is gained or lost in the kitchen.

Exercise has everything to do with health, and very little to do with weight.

They need cooking classes, and education around how to properly estimate calories.

I hate this line. “Processed foods are cheap and easy.”

Theyre easy, but they’re not cheap.

You can eat much more cheaply if you spend a little bit of time cooking. There’s no fast food meal that beats the price of a simple pasta with some chicken, or rice and beans with bacon, or a beef stew. You can get per serving portions of those for less than $2 USD and all of them use meat. You can get vegetarian dishes down to less than a dollar per portion.

None of those require anything more than a single pot and pan, and a half hour of actual cooking.

Besides, the vast majority of obese people are drinking 1000+ calories a day. Thats not about cheap or easy, water is the cheapest and easiest drink available. They just choose not to.

I say this as someone who drinks coke every single day, and has a BMI under 20. Weight is about portion control. Health is about nutritional balance and exercise.

Now, the lack of education around cooking and nutrition, that’s a problem.

I use Photopea, it’s a website so no download and does 99% of what Photoshop and GIMP can do.

Made by a single Ukrainian developer, and free (with some ads on the side while you’re using it)

and yet it’s the most profitable plant to grow on that land, or the farmers would be growing something else.

Kinda makes you think there aren’t any other better options…

Fun fact, costed is a word but has a slightly different meaning than the way you have used it.

Costed means to get the details on the cost of something complex. Like “I costed the three projects and the last one is cheapest”

You tried to use it as the past tense of cost, but the past tense of cost is also just cost.

You’re using the “no true scotsman” defence right now. There is no other country comparable to the size of Canada in the world other than Russia, so does that mean we can only look at them for policy?

“I don’t know about this place so I’m not going to be able to even consider it’s policies” - That’s an ignorance argument.

Where’s your proof that any of the policies you’re suggesting will work? Do you have a single example of them working elsewhere?

“Nothing fancy at all” What’s the legal definition between fancy or not?

It costs more money to hire people to cook an entirely different meal. It costs more money to buy small quantities of different foods. It costs more money to import fresh products into forest fire zones. Some vegans won’t even eat from plates/cups/cutlery/pans/chopping boards that have had animal products touch them. That would add even more cost.

Should there be a dollar limit on what is considered fancy?

In Canada, even for protected classes, you’re only entitled to reasonable accommodations by employers. For example if you’re blind (a medical condition is a protected class) a taxi company doesn’t have to hire and accommodate you. If you’re deaf, a call center doesn’t have to provide you with a sign language translator who listens to your customers.

I hate the “gallons of water are used” statistics because water is a completely renewable resource if managed properly, and mostly it’s managed properly these days since we realized it was a problem if we didn’t.

What exactly do you plan to use the extra water for if we stop using it for beef? Most if it is used to water the feed crops that cows eat, so what do you plan to use those farms for instead?

Is there a plant that grows in those same areas that’s currently too expensive because of a lack of land? Most of the expensive fruits/vegetables these days are expensive because of the labour involved in harvesting/processing them not due to a lack of cheaper land.

Support, sure, but if you choose to take a job that requires employer supplied food you really shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t serve your custom menu. The employer probably provides two or three different options each meal to satisfy basic allergy/food preferences and that’s a reasonable accommodation.

What if I started a diet that only allowed me to eat wagyu beef garnished with saffron twice a week? Would they have to pay $400 a day to feed me as long as I could prove I eat that for “creed” reasons?

This is just objectively false.

Japan didn’t have single family zoning, anyone could build dense housing anywhere residential in any of the major cities and they absolutely did, and yet it was never affordable. They have massively walkable cities, with great public transportation, and yet… not affordable unless you want to live in a 100 square foot closet that most north Americans couldn’t even fit through the door on.

A bunch of US cities have no zoning and are still not affordable.

Zoning is a slight bottleneck, but it’s not even close to the core problem.

I’m not saying don’t change the zoning, go ahead, but expecting things to become affordable in a few years is an absolute pipe dream.

BC just did it, and developers are just shit talking the policy saying it doesn’t change anything.

Their population hasn’t increased at all in the last 6 years, so how does a lack of land explain the cost increases of housing they’re seeing over that period?

I think most of these demonstrations by anti-oil groups have been avoiding actually damaging anything.

Throwing it on the glass that’s covering a painting is the common one, using easily cleanable substances for outside demonstrations, etc.

There have been a few protests with actual damage though, a bunch of gas pumps were vandalized, actual spray paint at a few places, etc.

Nothing really significant has been damaged in any of them as far as I know.

You don’t improve walkability by spreading things out, you actually want the exact opposite.

Speculation is harder if there’s more of something available.

Social housing… I fail to see any connection to the amount of land in a country.

Again, what does having abundance of land have to do with policies like Walkability, Speculation, or Social housing?

Your comparison has no relevance. What does total available landmass have to do with anything related to the policies in question?

Most of them moved there during the British occupation, so I’m not really sure what you’re arguing here. The Muslim population of the region doubled between the start and end of the 25 years of British Occupation, and that wasn’t from just births.

Same with the Jewish population, which tripled over that period.

The “ancestral ties” of both groups are tenuous at best. Yes they were both there before, but most of the people living there have a grandparent or three who were born outside the region.

Because 99% of the Canada landmass is rural, and a city is a city.

Also, last time I checked, Montreal (the first city mentioned in the article) is an island.

surprising literally no one.

I’m championing land value taxes, but they won’t pass until ownership rates drop another 20-30 percent over the next 20-30 years.

Honestly, the best option for my children (who are still quite young) right now is for me to try to make it worse faster so that we can make such a radical change sooner.

Singapore.