I hate ads

 I hate ads

I hate ads.

There. I said it.

Today I was trying to paint and listen to music on YouTube.

Instead, I spent part of my evening turning off ads.

Political ads. Government ads. Consumer ads. Ads apparently targeted at British Columbians, taxpayers and seniors.

I didn't ask for them.

I don't want them.

I don't want somebody deciding that because I'm watching a video, they are entitled to interrupt my life and sell me something.

And this isn't just about money.

It's about time.

How many hours of our lives are being stolen by advertising?

How many times do we have to stop what we're doing, find the skip button, wait for the countdown, close something, restart something, or switch to another video?

Then another ad appears.

And another.

And another.

We have become so accustomed to it that we've almost stopped noticing how ridiculous it is.

But I notice.

I DON'T WANT ADS.

If I want to buy something, I'll go looking for it.

If I want political information, I'll go looking for it.

If I want to know what the government is doing, I'll go looking for it.

Don't interrupt my music and shove it into my face.

And here's the part that really bothers me:

My attention belongs to me.

My time belongs to me.

My evening belongs to me.

I want to paint.

I want to listen to music.

I want to think.

I want to live.

I don't want to spend my life watching commercials.

There should be a serious public conversation about advertising overload and the right to an ad-free digital experience without being constantly manipulated, tracked or interrupted.

Because this isn't just about annoying commercials anymore.

It's about what happens when corporations decide that every quiet moment of human life is an opportunity to sell something.

Enough.

Give us back our time.

Hard reflective questions

If YouTube earns money from the time we spend watching advertisements, should viewers receive compensation for that time?

If an average person loses 10 minutes a day to unwanted ads, how many hours of their life disappear every year?

If we put a dollar value on our time, how much would YouTube owe us after a year of advertising?

Who decided that our attention is a resource companies can take without paying us?

Is an advertisement really “free” when we pay for it with our time?

If YouTube can calculate exactly how much our attention is worth to advertisers, why shouldn't we be able to calculate the value of our attention too?

Should platforms be required to disclose exactly how many minutes of advertising an average user watches each year?

What would happen if every hour of forced advertising were treated as unpaid labour?

At what point does advertising stop being information and become an invasion of our time?

If our lives are finite, who gave corporations permission to take pieces of them?

10 keywords

YouTube advertising, advertising overload, attention economy, wasted time, digital advertising, targeted advertising, consumer rights, privacy, corporate power, human attention

10 hashtags

#IHateAds #YouTube #AdvertisingOverload #AttentionEconomy #OurTime #ConsumerRights #DigitalRights #TargetedAdvertising #StopTheAds #GiveUsBackOurTime

When technology fails: what two survivors can teach us

 When technology fails: what two survivors can teach us

Two men.

Two very different places.

One in the mountains near Squamish.

One hundreds of kilometres out in the Pacific off the coast of Oaxaca.

Both disappeared.

Both faced days of uncertainty.

And both survived.

Their stories couldn't be more different.

Stanislav Volo spent six days lost and injured in the Squamish wilderness.

Héctor Márquez Martínez, a fisherman from Puerto Ángel, survived eight days adrift in the Pacific.

Stanislav had a mountain.

Héctor had an ocean.

Stanislav found shelter in a cave.

Héctor stayed with his little fishing boat.

Stanislav rationed two bags of gummy bears and ate fireweed.

Héctor survived at sea with the knowledge and equipment he already had with him.

And both stories have made me think about something we don't talk about enough:

What happens when the technology we depend on can't save us?

We live surrounded by technology.

Our phones tell us where we are.

GPS tells us where to go.

Weather apps tell us what is coming.

Maps show us the terrain.

Satellites can locate people.

Emergency services can sometimes find us with remarkable precision.

These things are incredible.

But technology is a tool.

It isn't knowledge.

A phone can tell you where you are.

It doesn't necessarily tell you how to survive there.

A GPS can show you a route.

It doesn't give you the judgment to know whether that route is safe when you're injured, exhausted or caught in changing weather.

And a device with a dead battery is just a piece of equipment.

Stanislav had to go back to something older.

He found shelter.

He conserved energy.

He rationed what food he had.

He recognized fireweed.

He paid attention to what was around him.

And he described something like an “animal instinct” emerging.

Maybe that instinct was always there.

Maybe modern life simply doesn't give us many opportunities to use it.

Héctor had something different.

He had the ocean.

He had his boat.

And he had the knowledge of a fisherman.

That knowledge wasn't something he downloaded before going to sea.

He already knew how to work with his boat and his environment.

And when a huge cargo ship found him and offered assistance, he remained with his own little vessel.

We don't know everything that was going through his mind.

Perhaps he didn't want to abandon his livelihood.

Perhaps he trusted his own boat.

Perhaps he hoped his community would find him.

We shouldn't invent the answer.

But we can appreciate the significance of the choice.

His boat was not just transportation.

It was his livelihood.

His independence.

His fishing equipment.

His way of life.

And perhaps, as with so many tools and possessions passed through families and generations, it was something he trusted because he knew it intimately.

And then there is the community.

This is something both stories remind us about.

Survival isn't always one person against nature.

There are people on the other end of the story.

People who notice you're missing.

People who organize searches.

People who get into boats and go looking.

People who refuse to give up.

In Squamish, search and rescue teams worked to find Stanislav.

In Oaxaca, fishermen, family and authorities searched for Héctor.

The person who survives may be the one we read about.

But behind that person can be an entire community that refused to stop looking.

What can we learn?

I'm not suggesting we throw away our phones and head into the wilderness with a machete and a bag of gummy bears. 😂

Technology can save lives.

Use it.

Carry it.

Charge it.

Know how to call for help.

But don't let technology become a substitute for learning how to observe the world around you.

Learn the landscape where you live.

Learn how to find shelter.

Learn how to conserve energy.

Learn the tools you actually use.

Learn the plants that grow around you.

Learn the water.

Learn the weather.

Learn what your body is telling you.

And most importantly:

Learn before you need to know.

The fishermen of Oaxaca don't necessarily think of themselves as wilderness survival experts.

They are fishermen.

The skills that might save their lives are simply part of their everyday lives.

And perhaps that's the real lesson from these two men.

Survival knowledge doesn't have to look like a survival course.

It can be something your father taught you.

Something your grandfather taught him.

Something you learned by spending years on the water.

Something you learned by walking through the forest.

Something you discovered because you paid attention.

It can be instinct.

It can be experience.

It can be community.

It can be knowing the difference between a safe shelter and a dangerous one.

It can be knowing when to stay put and when to move.

It can be knowing the tools in your hands so well that you don't have to think about using them.

Technology is wonderful.

But knowledge lives in people.

And when everything else fails, that's where survival begins.

Two men.

A mountain.

An ocean.

Six days.

Eight days.

Different cultures.

Different environments.

Different circumstances.

But the same extraordinary human ability:

to keep going.

🙏🌲🏔️🌊🛶❤️

10 Reflective Questions

1. How much do we rely on technology without realizing it?

2. What happens when the battery dies, the signal disappears, or the device fails?

3. Could you survive for days without your phone?

4. What practical skills do you carry with you that technology cannot replace?

5. How important is knowing how to read the land, water, weather, and surroundings?

6. What can instinct tell us when there is no clear plan?

7. Are we becoming too dependent on GPS and digital information?

8. What traditional or hands-on knowledge have we lost by relying on technology?

9. How important is community when someone is in trouble?

10. If technology disappeared tomorrow, what knowledge would you wish you had?

#SurvivalStories #HumanInstinct #DontRelyOnTech #SurvivalSkills #SelfReliance #TraditionalKnowledge #Resilience #WildernessSurvival #OceanSurvival #HumanIngenuity

Vancouver’s Highest-Paid Public Officials: What the 2024 Numbers Show

 Vancouver’s Highest-Paid Public Officials: What the 2024 Numbers Show (2*)

(With corrections*)

Public-sector compensation in Metro Vancouver has been getting attention, particularly when some senior officials receive compensation packages approaching or exceeding half a million dollars a year.

Here is a look at the 2024 remuneration figures for some of the highest-paid officials with the City of Vancouver, Vancouver Police Department and Metro Vancouver.

Important: These figures are remuneration, not simply base salaries. The City of Vancouver explains that its annual Statement of Financial Information reports employee remuneration and expenses, and that the published Statement of Financial Information is the authoritative source.

Vancouver Police Department — 2024

• Chief of Police Adam Palmer: $487,224
• Deputy Chief Fiona Wilson: $370,329
• Deputy Chief Steve Rai: $363,799
• Deputy Chief Howard Chow: $363,239

These are extraordinarily large compensation figures compared with the earnings of most Vancouver residents.

City of Vancouver — 2024

Among senior City officials:

• City Manager Paul Mochrie: $387,110
• Deputy City Manager Karen Levitt: $337,689
• Deputy City Manager Sandra Singh: $336,599
• Director of Legal Services Francie Connell: $337,329
• General Manager of Engineering Lon LaClaire: $336,067
• Chief Financial Officer Patrice Impey: $321,676
• Fire Chief Karen Fry: $309,955
• Chief Librarian Christina de Castell: $307,731
• Park Board General Manager Steve Jackson: $298,368
• Chief Human Resources Officer Andrew Naklicki: $289,633
• Auditor General Mike Macdonell: $287,038

The City published its 2024 Statement of Financial Information in April 2025, including remuneration for employees earning more than $75,000.

Metro Vancouver — 2024

Metro Vancouver is a separate regional government organization, so its officials should not technically be lumped together with City of Vancouver employees.

Jerry Dobrovolny, Metro Vancouver Commissioner and Chief Administrative Officer:

• Base salary: $540,007
• Performance/bonus pay: $27,133
• Benefits: approximately $25,276
• Total remuneration: approximately $592,416

This makes Dobrovolny's 2024 compensation substantially higher than the City Manager or Vancouver Police Chief.

There is also an important comparison with the previous year.

Jerry Dobrovolny — 2023

His reported 2023 total remuneration was approximately $711,668.

That makes the 2023 figure substantially higher than his 2024 remuneration, although the composition of the compensation changed between the two years.

*A few corrections to the original list

There were several things worth correcting before sharing these numbers publicly:

1. These are not all “salaries.”
The official terminology is remuneration. It can include salary and other forms of compensation. Calling every number a salary can make the information misleading.

2. Lon LaClaire's number was wrong in the original list.
It was listed as $333,067. The 2024 figure is $336,067.

3. City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver are different governments.
Metro Vancouver's CAO should be presented separately rather than as a City of Vancouver employee.

4. The $711,668 figure for Jerry Dobrovolny is from 2023, not 2024.
His 2024 remuneration was approximately $592,416.

5. There is now newer City data.
The City released its 2025 Statement of Financial Information in April 2026, so the 2024 figures are no longer the newest available City figures.

Why these numbers deserve public attention

This isn't about saying that every person in a senior public position is undeserving of a good salary. These are demanding jobs with significant responsibilities.

But when public officials are receiving $300,000, $400,000 or nearly $600,000 in annual remuneration, it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask questions:

• How are these compensation levels determined?
• How do they compare with equivalent positions in other Canadian cities?
• What performance measures are attached to senior executive compensation?
• How much of the total is base salary versus bonuses, benefits or other remuneration?
• Are these compensation levels producing measurable improvements in public services?

Those are legitimate questions about public accountability and value for taxpayers' money.

The City itself publishes this information because public access to financial information is an important part of government transparency.

Sources: City of Vancouver 2024 Statement of Financial Information and Open Data remuneration records; Metro Vancouver financial information. The City's Open Data portal specifically states that the published Statement of Financial Information remains the authoritative source.

Cost to live

 

Let’s break this down into two tiers: survival mode (bare-bones essentials) and just above survival (a bit of breathing room). We'll lean on recent data from Metro Vancouver for accuracy.

---

1. Current Cost of Survival in Vancouver

Hourly Wage Needed

• The 2024 living wage in Metro Vancouver is $27.05/hour, calculated for a family of four—enough to meet essential needs like housing, food, and transportation .
• For a single working-aged adult, preliminary estimates suggest slightly higher—about $27.35/hour—due to less government support .

---

Rent—The Biggest Hit

• As of early 2025, average one-bedroom rents in Vancouver have dropped roughly 5.2% year-over-year to about $2,896/month .
• That’s a still steep cost—around $690/week, accounting for over 60% of the survival income.

---

2. Monthly Budget: Survival Mode vs. Slightly Above

Budget Type	Monthly Income (Gross @ ~$27)	Net Approx.	Rent	Essentials (food, transit, utilities, phone)	Leftover
Survival Mode	~$4,700	~$3,700	~$2,900	~$800–1,000	Very slim
Above Survival	Same gross/net	Same net	Slightly lower (e.g., roommate/shared)	Same essentials + minimal extras	Small buffer for emergencies

• On $27/hour, working full-time (~35 h/week), gross monthly income is ~$4,100–4,800; net after taxes lands around $3,700–$3,800 .
• Rent alone eats up the lion’s share, leaving almost nothing for savings, healthcare top-ups, or unexpected costs.

---

Feeling the Strain? You're Not Alone

On Reddit, the lived experience underscores the data:

“$75 k not gonna do it in Vancouver lol… Baristas make $75 k and have to share a 3 bdrm apt with 5 ppl…”

This reflects how even "middle-class" incomes can fall short of actual survival.

---

Summary

• Minimum to survive (no extras): $27/hour ($3,700–$3,800 net/month)
• Room for a bit more: Could only materialize if you significantly lower rent (e.g., shared housing) or reduce food/utility costs.
• Real Vancouver reality: Rent currently remains the most critical squeeze on your budget despite recent small declines.

---

Salaries Research

 

Here’s a breakdown of the top-paid public employees in Vancouver, focusing on massive salaries you might want to “slash and burn.” These figures include salary, benefits, vacation payouts, and other compensation, based on the most recent reports:

---

Vancouver Police Department (2024)

• Chief of Police, Adam Palmer: $487,224 total compensation — the top-paid public servant in the city.
• Deputy Chiefs:
  • Fiona Wilson: $370,329
  • Steve Rai: $363,799
  • Howard Chow: $363,239
    

---

City of Vancouver Senior Leadership (2024)

• City Manager, Paul Mochrie: $387,110
• Deputy City Managers:
  • Karen Levitt: $337,689
  • Sandra Singh: $336,599
  • Armin Amrolia: $307,144
• Other High Earners:
  • General Manager, Engineering (Lon LaClaire): $333,067
  • Director of Legal Services (Francie Connell): $337,329
  • Chief Librarian (Christina de Castell): $307,731
  • Fire Chief (Karen Fry): $309,955
  • CFO (Patrice Impey): $321,676
  • CHRO (Andrew Naklicki): $289,633
  • Park Board GM (Steve Jackson): $298,368
  • Auditor General (Mike Macdonell): $287,038
    

---

Metro Vancouver (Regional District) – CAO (2024)

• Jerry Dobrovolny:
  • Base salary: $540,007
  • Bonuses: $27,133
  • Total compensation: around $592,416 (2024)
• In 2023, his total remuneration (salary + benefits + expenses) surged to $711,668

---

Summary Table

Role/Authority	Total Compensation (Approx.)
Metro Vancouver CAO	$592K (2024); $712K (2023)
VPD Chief of Police	$487K (2024)
Vancouver City Manager	$387K (2024)
Deputy City Managers & Others	$300K–$340K

---

Community Reactions

Reddit users weren’t shy with their opinions—when Metro Vancouver’s CAO earnings made headlines, one user quipped:

“Documents … showed Chief Administrative Officer… annual remuneration and benefits totalled $700,000 in 2023.”
“I’m sure Jerry did enough to earn that….”

Another user criticized public-sector benefits:

“If this was included as compensation… every public employee would be even more scorned.”

---

Vancouver, We’re Struggling — And No One Seems to Notice

Vancouver, We’re Struggling — And No One Seems to Notice

Lately, life in Vancouver feels impossible. Grocery prices are outrageous, shelves are often empty, and even customer service feels gone. $100 used to fill a cart — now $50 barely gets a few items. On my way home, I saw tents in False Creek, more people just trying to survive in a city that seems to have forgotten them.

It’s not about blaming anyone who comes here or works in these stores — they’re dealing with the same pressures we are. The problem is the system itself. Policies that allow new families to arrive without ensuring there’s housing, jobs, or community support for people already here are leaving both locals and newcomers struggling. Social assistance, affordable housing, and decent-paying jobs are scarce. The cost of living has skyrocketed, but the support system hasn’t kept up.

Why are some families able to bring relatives while our own families can’t get help? It’s not a question of fairness — it’s a question of priorities. Governments have chosen growth, immigration, and economic numbers over the people already living here. And in the meantime, everyday life has become a fight for survival.

It’s heartbreaking, frustrating, and exhausting. But maybe the first step is asking the hard questions:

• How did we get here?
• Who benefits from the system as it is?
• And most importantly — what can we do to make life better for everyone living in this city?

We can’t just blame people — we have to face the system that’s creating these struggles and start demanding real change.

---

The Irony of Compensation vs. Compassion

 The Irony of Compensation vs. Compassion: CEOs vs. Unhoused People in Vancouver

What CEOs of Non-Profits and Social Service Agencies Receive:

• CEO salaries in large BC non-profits often range between $150,000 to over $300,000/year.
• Some executives in major housing or homelessness organizations have reported salaries exceeding $200,000 annually.
• These leaders are paid handsomely to “manage” and “solve” homelessness and poverty — overseeing millions in budgets, grants, and public funds.
• They enjoy stable, well-resourced offices, benefits, pensions, and prestige.

---

What People Experiencing Homelessness or Housing Insecurity Get:

• On Income Assistance, individuals receive approximately $1,060/month (basic needs + shelter allowance).
• Rent for a room in an SRO or cheap shared housing can be $500–$700/month or more, often exceeding assistance limits.
• Many must live in unsafe, unsanitary, overcrowded conditions, or outdoors in tents or shelters.
• They face social stigma, discrimination, and criminalization for “choosing” homelessness, despite systemic barriers.
• Public perception often dehumanizes or blames them, implying they don’t “deserve” more support.

---

The Stark Contrast:

Aspect	CEOs of Social Service Agencies	Homeless/Unhoused Individuals
Annual Income	$150,000 – $300,000+	~$12,000 per year (social assistance)
Housing Situation	Comfortable, stable, often owned or leased	SROs, shelters, tents, or street homelessness
Access to Healthcare	Full benefits and employer-provided plans	Limited access; often rely on emergency care
Public Perception	Respected leaders, “experts”	Marginalized, blamed for their situation
Ability to Save/Plan	Yes, with disposable income	Almost impossible with current assistance levels

---

Why Is This a Problem?

• It reflects systemic discrimination and misplaced priorities: society rewards those who manage poverty with wealth, while punishing those who experience it with neglect.
• It fuels social inequality by allowing wealth accumulation at the top while basic survival remains out of reach for many.
• It perpetuates stereotypes that homeless people are “lazy” or “undeserving,” ignoring the structural causes like lack of affordable housing and inadequate assistance.
• It undermines trust in the social support system, since those in power appear disconnected from lived realities.

---

What People Say:

“CEOs are making more than twice what a doctor makes, yet people who are literally living in tents can’t get rent assistance to cover a room. How is that justice?” — Advocacy group spokesperson
“If social services really cared, the money would go to people, not to executive paychecks.” — Former unhoused resident

---

Conclusion:

There’s a deep irony and injustice in a system that compensates executives so highly for addressing homelessness while the unhoused struggle daily with inadequate resources, discrimination, and invisibility. Real change demands both reinvesting funds to support those in need and rethinking how leadership is compensated in the social services sector to align with community values and equity.

---