The author offers strong arguements for the value of twitter, does a survey of inadequate competition, and leaves off with vauge specs of a better platform. Not discussed are ways twitter might recapture the minority who no longer use it.
I'm starting to think Elon is actually going to increase Twitter's value. It sure seems sticky. Even this minority of highly political people who hate Elon enough to quit twitter don't seem happy with the other offerings. Perhaps a rebranding and distancing himself from the platform will regain this lost market share. I never really cared about twitter before this whole saga started! Now it's really interesting.
The law accounts for roommates by defining the nature of the relationship. Cohabitation for a certain period isn't the full definition. The definition does not allow for more than 2 people in the relationship.
Actually I think the laws in BC are becoming more progressive with nonmonogamous arrangements. I think there was a case recently where a judge split custody of a child between three people who were romantically involved, cohabitating, and raising the child.
But generally you would only be considered common law in BC if you're in a conjugal relationship.
In practice, if that becomes a point of contention (and I don't think this has been a frequent occurrence), it comes down to how you are publicly perceived. If one person denies the relationship being more than a platonic roommate arrangement, but all acquaintances interviewed claim they were under the impression you were romantically or intimately involved, the court would find that to be a conjugal arrangement.
The law does define conjugal arrangement, and sex is sufficient for it to be considered conjugal, but not required.
Yea, I've always found even the more progressive legal systems to be such that they're often, reasonably, less loose than most progressive cultures. I was discussing this with folks recently about Canada's proposed asylum class for trans/nonbinary folks.
There's obviously folks who neatly fall into either category, just like how three people who live together and have a communal sexual relationship could be neatly considered to be "married" to each other in a legal sense. It all gets more complicated on the edges though. How not-commited to your assigned-at-birth gender do you have to be to count as nonbinary in a legal sense? If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me? It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner".
It's much easier to just "do the reasonable thing" when it's your friends and there's only a few and much harder when it's the government having to intermediate a divorce, or child custody, or the option to have your partner immigrate.
> If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me?
I believe BC law is pretty clear that people need to live together in order to be considered common law. I know marriage doesn't have the same requirement, but there is no legal marriage to multiple people at this moment.
I don't think that could practically work with multiple people, if one of those people isn't living with the others and/or sharing finances. But to be fair, I haven't given it much thought yet. If a person has multiple partners who are equally significant, they should ideally be legally entitled to equal benefits, but of course this opens up more nuance.
> It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner"
Perhaps you misunderstand what asexual means. Asexual people might have romantic relationships. They might be married. They might even have sex! It's a spectrum, but has very little to do with who you might date, and more to do with what kinds of activities you might want to do with a partner.
Aromantic people are less likely to have romantic partners, and therefore, I imagine, much less likely to be married.
As an asexual person myself, who is not aromantic, I'm well aware what asexual means. Obviously sometimes they're cleanly married or in a committed emotional relationship with one person. In general though, most people consider sexual and emotional intimacy to be tightly linked, and I've certainly had multiple times where I was in a long-term emotional relationship with multiple people I was not sexually involved with. Having to determine which of them, or none of them would have counted as my partner would have been hard to determine.
Defining at what point a non-sexual relationship with someone I live with crosses over into something closer to a common law marriage would be rather more difficult.
> Defining at what point a non-sexual relationship with someone I live with crosses over into something closer to a common law marriage would be rather more difficult.
If it were me, I imagine I'd be looking for things like the following to determine if the relationship is more like a standard roommate situation or a romantic relationship?
- "do we have long-term shared financial obligations/commitments like having bought a house, or maybe even an expensive car, together?"
- "do we share finances to the extent that more than half of one of our incomes is shared with the other?"
- "have we gone through a legal marriage ceremony"
- "do we have children who we collaboratively parent?"
I think "the spirit of" how legal benefits for marriage are structured are based on the (dated) assumption that married people are doing one or most of the above together.
On the other hand, friends who live together but who are not romantically involved and never were, are very unlikely to do any of the above (outside of legal shenanigans like getting someone immigration status)
I think the integration was initially scrapped due to problems with licensing (streams <30s don't result in a payout, and after that 100% payout; so it's either unfair or expensive under the current model). Good question about why they're leaving the space to their competitors.
Podcasts are a great way to make boring exercises interesting. Walking or biking instead of driving is an easy way to get some exercise in. Bouldering is really fun & social.
In British Columbia the term is protected by the association of professional engineers. I'm not an 'engineer' but I have seen enough terrible code to think that this is both a step too far and too short. Protecting the the title doesn't matter as much as protecting the work. A certification should be required to work on software related to finance, health or safety.
Scan the sky for size 10 sneakers. Pull back the drawstring and BAM! Now you have shoes and a story to tell.