Tag

legislation

Browsing

Is it ‘TIME’S UP’ for the 2017 feminist movement?

Women in the entertainment industry — including actresses America Ferrera and Eva Longoria; lawyer Nina L. Shaw; actress Reese Witherspoon; producer Shonda Rhimes; and lawyer Tina Tchen, to name a few — have come together to form an initiative that will fight systemic sexual harassment in Hollywood and in blue-collar workplaces.

You may be thinking: sure, a whole bunch of famous people have come together to do some fundraising, big deal?! This happens a few times a year. But, in reality, the initiative TIME’S UP is much more than a pet project spearhead by a select number of privileged people. Instead of focusing on the sensationalist media coverage of the #MeToo movement, the initiative provides real support for victims and calls for new legislation that will penalize companies that tolerate sexual harassment.

As the initiative’s website says, “TIME’S UP is a unified call for change from women in entertainment for women everywhere. From movie sets to farm fields to boardrooms alike, we envision nationwide leadership that reflects the world in which we live.”

After the social campaigns and the marches — this call for political and legal change is the next logical step. Ironically, it was a group of victims rather than those elected to lead our nations who stood up to call for this change.

TIME’S UP will provide a legal defence fund, based on $13 million in donations, to help less privileged men and women protect themselves from the fallout of reporting sexual misconduct. The fund will be administered by the National Women’s Law Centre, which has a network of lawyer and public relations professionals available to provide assistance.

The initiative is also calling for an increase of women (including members of the LGBTQ community and people of colour) in positions of power across all industries, as well as equal representation, benefits, and pay. Perhaps North America can follow Iceland, who made equal pay mandatory on Jan. 1. Every single company in Iceland now has to obtain a certification saying that men and women are being paid equally in similar positions.

Can you imagine every company in North America needing to obtain proof of pay equality? It’s the stuff of dreams.

TIME’S UP was formed after 700,000 female farmworkers sent messages and letters to celebrities throughout the entertainment industry following the allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and the #MeToo social media campaign. “Even though we work in very different environments, we share a common experience of being preyed upon by individuals who have the power to hire, fire, blacklist and otherwise threaten our economic, physical and emotional security,” they wrote. “In these moments of despair, and as you cope with scrutiny and criticism because you have bravely chosen to speak out against the harrowing acts that were committed against you, please know that you’re not alone. We believe and stand with you.”

The TIME’S UP website leads with a letter written to show support for those farmworkers, in which over 300 people within the entertainment industry acknowledge their suffering and stand with them to try and help change the system.

The initiative is volunteer-led and doesn’t have a leadership team. It is comprised instead of smaller working groups, each one tackling a certain area. For example, one group is creating a framework to end sexual harassment in show business while another is reviewing legislation that will tackle abuse within businesses, including the use of nondisclosure agreements to silence victims.

About half of men think women are well-represented in leadership, despite the numbers that show otherwise. When the #MeToo campaign started to trend, most men couldn’t fathom how many women had been sexually assaulted.

2017 may have been labelled as the year for feminism and women’s rights, but nothing actually changed. Perhaps more people are aware of the situation than before, but there was no legislation promised by politicians and no guarantees made by industry management.

There is still a lot that needs to change in order to ensure gender equality — and our time is not up!

 Featured Image by Vini.

Australian MP proposes to partner on House floor

Be prepared to tear up!

As Australia’s Parliament debated a bill that would legalize same sex marriage, conservative MP Tim Wilson proposed to his partner on the House floor.

“”In my first speech I defined our bond by the ring that sits on both of our left hands, and they are the answer to a question we cannot ask. There’s only one thing left to do: Ryan Patrick Bolger, will you marry me?”

His partner, a primary school teacher, sat in the public gallery and mouthed the word “yes” to the applause of other members of the House. He was grinning from ear to ear while Wilson, still trying to remain professional on the floor, tried to keep it together, albeit unsuccessfully. The proposal was recorded in the official parliamentary record.

“I should let Hansard note to record that that was a ‘yes’ — a resounding yes,” said the deputy speaker. “Congratulations.”

Wilson and Bolger have been partners for a long time, but did not want to get officially engaged until it was legal for them to get married. Wilson was one of the first lawmakers to support the bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill is expected to pass based on a non-binary referendum took place in which 61.6 per cent of respondents voted to approve the legislation by Christmas. However, the Senate is fighting to include amendments to the bill that would allow those affiliated with the church, including wedding celebrants, to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages.

Surprisingly, the Australian Prime Minister is supporting these amendments under the coin of religious freedom If the amendments aren’t approved, the bill could be delayed further.

Same-sex marriage was banned in Australia in 2004 when the Marriage Act was amended to define the union as being between a man and a woman. The government has received a lot of pressure to change the Act, especially after Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015.

While couples throughout Australia wait to find out of they can finally marry the people they love, lets take the time to congratulate Wilson and Bolger on their engagement! And for making history as the first person ever to propose on Australia’s Parliament floor!

Australia votes to legalize same-sex marriage

More than 12.5 million Australians took part in a non-binding postal vote to decide whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. The results were overwhelming, with 61.6 per cent of respondents voting in favour of legislation by Christmas.

The vote took a long eight weeks, with the results announced Wednesday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australians were asked the following question: “Should the marriage law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” Participation in this survey was voluntary, which is why the 79.5 per cent response rate was shocking.

The survey, which participants had to mail to their representatives, took place because there were twi previous failed attempts by the government to hold a national vote. The debate has been controversial, with many Coalition party members being whipped into voting against the legislation. Instead of holding a national vote, the government created a loophole and spent $122 million sending out voluntary surveys to all residents in order to gauge public opinion.

A bill was introduced to the Senate on Wednesday and will be up for discussion and amendments. Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has said that he will support the public’s preferences and hopes to get the bill passed before the New Year.

“[Australians had] spoken in the millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality,” Turnbull said at a press conference. “They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love. And now it is up to us here in the parliament of Australia to get on with it, to get on with the job the Australian people asked us to do and get this done.”

Those opposed to same-sex marriage may try to tack on an amendment that will enact “religious freedom protection” for commercial businesses who oppose same-sex marriage, but Turnbull said there is little change an amendment like that would pass.

As the results were announced, hundreds, if not thousands, of people flooded the streets, waving rainbow flags, singing, dancing, and hugging their partners. While the vote isn’t binding, it proves with incredible clarity that the Australian people want this change in legislation. If the government ignores this vote, there is bound to be backlash.

Same-sex marriage was banned in Australia in 2004 when the Marriage Act was amended to define the union as being between a man and a woman. The government has received a lot of pressure to change the Act, especially after Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015.

What do you think? Will the government pass the bill or will amendments cause delays?

Ontario proposes a bill to have safe access zones near abortion clinics

The government of Ontario is proposing legislation that would ensure all women can make their own decision safely and freely.

The Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017 was introduced on Oct.4 by Minister for the Status of Women, Indira Naidoo-Harris and the Attorney General, Yasir Naqri. If the bill is passed, women can access abortion services without fear of intimidation or harassment. ‘Safe Zones’ will be located around clinics and other abortion service centres. These zones will protect the privacy of women as well as the safety and security of proper health care services.

In safe zones, anti-abortion protests or intimidating individuals would be prohibited from lurking or giving out anti-abortion information. If the bills is passed it would also mean it would be illegal for clinic staff or other health professionals to harass women about their abortion choices.

“Our governments proposed safe access zones would protect a woman’s fundamental right to fair and equal access to safe abortion,” Harris said in a statement. “It an important step forward, and one that strengthens the rights of all women in Ontario. Women in our province should be able to access health care free form the threat or fear of violence or harassment.”

There are eight abortion clinics in Ontario and the safe access zones will extend from 50 to 150 meters around the clinic. Similar safe access zones have been functioning in other provinces such as British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson warmly welcomes this move as the city has had to deal with various protestors and anti-abortion activists who harass women as they leave the Morgentaler Clinic along Bank Street in downtown Ottawa. Watson is calling on the government to consider the legislation so police can now deal with the activists.


The safety zone will also automatically apply to the homes for abortion clinic staff, hospitals and pharmacies that offer abortion services. People who violate the zones can face a fine with a range of $5000-$10,000 and from six months to a year in jail. Anti-abortion groups such as the Campaign Life Coalition think the proposed legislation is drastic and far-reaching. Jim Hughes,the president of the organization, said this form of ‘bubble zone legislation’ is not about protecting women from violence that doesn’t exist, instead he said it a form of silencing pro-life campaigns.

The safe access safety zones will also be able to increase or decrease in size based on regulation, if this bill is passed. This proposition is completely different to a bill that has been recently passed by the United States House of Representatives, legislating that all abortions after 20 weeks will be criminalized and punishable by up to five years in prison. This bill is a direct hit to women’s rights. This move has been supported by the Trump administration and is gathering a lot of criticism in the U.S. Planned Parenthood Action Fund says this move is just a way to slowly end all abortions. They say that 99 per cent of abortions take place before 20 weeks.

What are your thoughts on this proposed legislation? Comment below!

Senate approves transgender rights bill with majority

Thursday afternoon, the Senate approved a piece of legislation that amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include transgender Canadians. This means that gender identity and gender expression is on “list of prohibited grounds of discrimination” and therefore protected against hate propaganda.

 

The bill also amends the sentencing principles section of the Criminal Code, making it possible for a person’s identity or expression to be considered an aggravated circumstance by a judge during sentences.

Most importantly, gender identity and gender expression are now identifiable groups under Canadian law! This is an incredible accomplishment and brings Canada one step closer towards becoming a truly equal, fair, tolerant, and inclusive society.

The only disappointment was that it took this long to get Bill C-16 to pass. This request to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code has been proposed and tabled numerous times over the last decade. Bill C-16 was presented to the House of Commons a little over a year ago and was delayed at the Senate due to debate surrounding free speech.

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, called the bill a celebration of inclusion and diversity, “bringing us one step closer to strengthening laws against discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime based on gender identity and gender expression.”

“Trans and gender diverse persons must be granted equal status in Canadian society, and this Bill makes that status explicit in Canadian law,” she said in a statement.

The bill passed by a vote of 67 to 11 and now needs Royal Assent before it is considered a law.

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the Liberal government plans on introducing legislation that would erase past convictions against Canadians charged with crimes related to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. He also said the government is planning on apologizing to the LGBT community by the end of this year for past discriminatory legislation and policies.

EDITORIAL: What’s the value of an employee?

What’s the value of an employee? Better yet, what’s the value of a human life?

A few weeks ago, the Ontario Liberal government announced a plan to increase the minimum wage to $15 in the next few years. After the press releases were handed out, two things happened — low-paying workers rejoiced and businesses started complaining.

Small businesses argued they wouldn’t be able to stay afloat if they had to dedicate more funds to their employees. Larger industries also criticized the government’s decision, saying they will be forced to cut down on labour and raise the prices of their services.

As someone who understands the perils of living on minimum wage, I don’t exactly sympathize. But, it’s one thing to make a business-case argument and another to dismiss the value of having a hardworking (and well-paid) employee at all.

In Tuesday’s morning paper, I saw an advertisement doing exactly that.

In the ad, a woman is standing at a counter preparing to take a customer’s card and complete a transaction. The text reads: “The Ontario government has announced a devastating 31.6 per cent increase in the general minimum wage. Quick Service Restaurant operators now have a choice….More than $15.00/hour or only $2.50/hour.” The advertisement is for a self-serving order kiosk, by RT7 Incorporated. Under the picture of the machine is a list of benefits such as “never comes late”, “no coffee breaks”, “no overtime”, and “doesn’t complain.”

This advertisement isn’t about technology or the future of restaurants — it’s about an employer who thinks his/her workers aren’t worth the sick days and overtime pay. It’s about labelling everything that employee does as something not deserving of being fairly compensated.

And that is absolutely unacceptable.

Advertisements like this one are incredibly dangerous. It makes the assumption that every day human actions like getting coffee or getting sick are somehow of detriment to a company. That human beings, especially those paid minimum wage, complain too much and use social media (a.k.a. are irresponsible).

This is not a stereotype that should be allowed to spread.

As Ontario pushes forward this new legislation, it’s important to remember that employees are, more often than not, hard workers. Many have large student loans or families to support. They may have a second job or may be in school. All they want to do is be able to afford a place to live and food to eat. It’s not that much of an ask, right?

If a business can’t afford their employees, they shouldn’t be allowed to remain open. It’s as simple as that. And anyone who thinks a kiosk can replace a human being, obviously hasn’t had to call the cable company.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!

Ontario Municipal Board may be shutting its doors

The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) may be shutting its doors to make way for the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which would replace one of the oldest tribunals in the country.

On Tuesday, Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Mauro announced legislation that would replace the OMB with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The OMB has been under fire for years as its practices are lengthy and costly. One of the main criticisms of the tribunal are the ‘de novo’ hearings, appeals that are considered ‘new’ issues and that are treated as though no previous decision had been made, despite a possible rejection by the municipality. This is incredibly frustrating to urban planners who are trying to implement intensification targets and specific planning in certain neighbourhoods, only to be thwarted by developers who appeal to the OMB.

The OMP is an independent adjudicative tribunal that conducts hearings and makes planning decisions on zoning bylaws, development proposals, subdivision plans, and ward boundaries. It has been around since 1906, and was originally known as the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board. In 2015 to 2016, 1460 matters were brought before the OMB across the province. The OMB process also makes it difficult for residents and resident groups to represent themselves against wealthy developers with large legal teams.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal would instead give greater weight to local communities to be in charge of their planning and development plans. The Tribunal would only decide whether or not the municipalities are following their official land use plans and would return the concern to the municipality if developers failed to follow the land use plan. If the municipality failed twice to adequately follow their land use plan, then the Tribunal would hold a hearing and make the final decision instead. This process would place far less power in the hands of a powerful housing board such as the OMB. The province would also create a public interest centre that would help residents and resident groups for free to give them a better chance at success against developers.

There are concerns that removing the OMB has a third party officiate between developers and the municipality will give unprecedented power to political players in local communities. Without a separate tribunal to make planning decisions, the urban landscape will be in the hands of city officials and this will create an entirely new set of issues. On the other hand, the OMB is allowing developers to obtain approval through an appeal and build up in areas that are bereft of adequate resources, such as transit and grocery stores to support quick growth in popular areas such as Yonge and Eglinton.

It is a bold move for the province to replace one of the oldest institutions in Ontario with a newer and more updated Local Planning Appeal system. The OMB has been criticized for several years and bringing new legislation to the table to be discussed is a progressive move for development and urban planning in local communities. If the new Tribunal passes, it will be interesting to see if the new system is more efficient and responds to public interests in a new and fresh way, or if it simply a newer and shinier version of the OMB.

The Canadian Liberals are piping up about pot….finally

As it turns out, marijuana legalization in Canada is not up in smoke.

The Liberal government announced last week they will introduce legislation on April 20 to approve the legalization of marijuana — legislation they hope will be active for Canada Day 2018. This declaration follows a 106-page report released by theTask Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation, which was assembled in June 2016. The task force was created to weed out any issues pertaining to legalization and has set guidelines on how to proceed to approving the product.

The report has an extensive set of recommendations for the Liberal government, including who will be able to sell it, buy it, and how much it will cost. The recommended age limit is 18, but can be set higher if the province chooses. The Canadian Medical Association had a problem with the age restriction and suggested it be raised because the teenage brain is still developing at 18, but ultimately the task force believed this would fail to adequately solve the issue of young adults smoking unregulated pot.

If this legislation is approved, the government would control and license producers, though people would be able to grow up to four plants in their own home. As described in the report, the plants would have a maximum mandatory height limit of 100 cm and would need ‘reasonable security measures to prevent theft and youth access, with oversight and approval by “local authorities”.

The restrictions of marijuana would be similar to the Tobacco Act in that it wouldn’t allow advertising or endorsements. The packaging would contain company name, strain name, price, amount of THC in the product and any warnings. There would also be a seed-to-sale tracking system implemented to avoid corruption of the market. The price of weed would have to be competitive with street prices and would be lower to invigorate people to buy legally-regulated marijuana.  The report also discussed the criminal penalties after legalization. Criminal punishment will remain for illicit production, trafficking or possession, and trafficking to youth. There is also an imposed limit of 30 grams on a person at any given time, and vape houses will require a permit.

People have been buzzing since the announcement and it has been met with varied opinions. The Liberals have been in hot water as of late with their millennial supporters who are feeling snubbed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to not carry through with his promise of electoral reform, and many sense this is the government’s way of winning back support. It will be interesting to see whether legalization of marijuana sways the vote in the favour of the Liberals with the election looming in the following year.

Being able to grow plants at home deserves attention as well. Several people would adhere to the rules of only having four plants, but it would be hard to monitor people who would potentially take advantage of growing at home, and may use it as an opportunity to sell recreationally. The information provided on licensing and which producers would receive approval is also vague. It is concerning to think of massive producers getting contracts and making pot that is full of additives and chemicals similar to tobacco. The task force did emphasize licensing smaller producers as well, but more transparent information should be provided to the public ahead of that decision.

The legalization of marijuana is a progressive and smart decision. It is positive to see the Liberals keep their promises and commit to following through with a controversial and important initiative. Taking weed off the streets will help people get high safely and will help normalize a fairly typical drug of choice. Canada is finally becoming a ‘chill’ nation, and July 1, 2018, will certainly be a very relaxed day for most Canadians celebrating the new legislation.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!

Forcing women to wear heels at work is abusive

Requiring a woman to wear high heels at work isn’t just sexist — but abusive.

Heeled shoes are painful. Despite how awesome they look and how powerful or pretty they make you feel, there is no scenario in which women will say, in relation to their heels, “these shoes make me feel like I’m walking on a cloud.”

Some women just don’t have the feet for high heels. They may have no arches, wide soles, or legitimate medical problems relating to feet or ankles, all contributing factors in not being able to squish into a narrow and pointy piece of plastic supported only by a skinny rod on one end. The result is blisters, sore callouses, and the potential of a sprained ankle.

Like I said. Forcing women into heels can be harmful. Personally, I only wear high heels to fancy events, job interviews, and sometimes on a night out — but only if those events, job interviews, and evenings out don’t involve a lot of walking. Honestly, I don’t even know why I bother half the time. I can’t imagine wearing heels eight hours a day, every day. Nor would I want to.

British Columbia parliamentarians have taken notice of this fact and are pushing forward legislation that will ban requirements for footwear dress codes based on gender, or more simply put, it would make it illegal for employers to force their female employees to wear high heels in the workplace.

Who wants to move to British Columbia? I can tell you my hand went up.

I am constantly disgusted by the mandatory dress codes in certain industries. When servers or restaurant hostesses are forced into skimpy dresses and clunky high-heel shoes, I always wonder about the safety factor — is it safe for these women to be balancing five drinks, a plate full of steak and potatoes, and a side order of fries, all the while wearing shoes that could be used as a lethal weapon if taken off the foot and thrown at a person’s head?

Or how about when a receptionist for a large law firm is sent home for not wearing the correct foot attire, as happened in the UK. Apparently, this offended the many people who actually stare at a person’s toes while they speak with them.

This is all getting a bit ridiculous, don’t you think? Especially in 2017, as more women become decision-makers and obtain positions of power.

I agree that sometimes a dress code is necessary. But, can we also agree there is no job that can be performed better in 5-inch stilettos? What’s wrong with a simple black flat or a working shoe with a very small and thick platform? For goodness sake, what’s wrong with being comfortable AND professional in the workplace?

All of the other provinces in Canada should follow British Columbia and create legislation of their own. There is no need for ridiculous and sexist dress codes in the workplace. If legislation banning them is what’s needed for companies to change their policies, then so be it.

Although, it’s worth being said, that if we need legislation to mandate companies not to force their female employees to dress a certain way, Canada probably isn’t as feminist as it claims to be.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below and sign up for our weekly e-newsletter:

Self-automated vehicles: progressive or downright creepy?

Self-automated cars are one of the most exciting developments in the automotive industry, perhaps since the invention of the car itself. Imagine a vehicle that drives itself, and the once autonomous driver becomes simply the passenger?

The positive and negative aspects of self-driving cars are being hotly debated, but car manufacturers are plowing ahead fearlessly despite any criticism. The idea of a car driving itself is just too tempting for inventive and forward thinking companies such as Tesla, a company that has arguably made some of the best electric cars on the market. All of the vehicles sold from Tesla since October 2016 are already equipped with self-automation, though it is running in shadow mode until further notice.

The self-driving cars from Google are a huge competitor for Tesla. They have been testing their vehicles for over a year now and is hoping to release the vehicle in 2018. The best part? The Google Car looks like an adorable marshmallow bot (see image above). It has a maximum speed of 50 km per hour and is made for moderate distant driving rather than large roadways. This vehicle has been a favourite in the auto-world so far and is set to become the most popular self-automated driving option once it hits market.

Self-automated cars will become widespread in the next few years, but is the world necessarily ready for such a change? Most countries haven’t even started the process of changing legislation to include self-automated cars. On the other hand, the government of the United States has a different agenda. The U.S. Federal Department of Transportation has embraced the future of self-automated cars and has started taking steps to create a series of regulations surrounding the new technology. They recently released the “The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy”, which listed rules such as securing the vehicles from cyber-attacks and that the cars must adapt to local laws.

The Ontario government recently approved the testing of three self-automated vehicles in November 2016, which is exciting. The University of Waterloo is testing on the aptly named ‘the Autonomoose’; the Erwin Hymer Group, an international automaker, is testing a Mercedez-Benz Sprinter Van; and, Blackberry will test a 2017 Lincoln. It’s great to see the Ontario government taking such a keen interest in self-automated cars.

One of the more high-tech and outlandish versions of the self-driving car is the Volkswagen Bus, proving that these cars can be made for multiple demographics. Volkswagen is coming out with a self-automated hippie van, which is due to be released in 2025. The vehicle will include a self-automation option and includes swivel front seats that allow the driver and passenger seat to turn around while driving so that they can hang out with their friends. The VW Bus also includes a touchscreen instead of a steering wheel and will control a number of functions, including ambient lighting and sound for ultimate enjoyment. Is this a good idea or a creepy futuristic play on the classic hippie van of the 1960’s?

The self-automated element of the car evolution goes even further with the Honda NeuV, a self-driving car that will use an AI system called Yui to control the vehicle and feel the driver’s mood and preferences. It includes mood lighting, massage beads in the seats and with eye-tracking sensors, would be able to adjust music depending on the person’s perceived mood. It appears the future of the robot takeover is imminent ladies and gentlemen.

On one hand, self-automated cars would lower the rate of accidents caused by human error. They would also allow for greater efficiency of travel of roads. Alternatively, there are many kinks in this type of technology, including the threat of cyber-hacking, the risk of technological malfunctions, and the question of ethics. It is has been suggested that self-automated cars wouldn’t react in an ethical manner if a child were crossing the road for example, and without being able to swerve may hit the small human. The vehicle may be able to stop more quickly if it is programmed for the child, but it is probable that the vehicle wouldn’t swerve out of the way to avoid the accident. Tesla also reported a fatality that occurred in early 2016 when a self-automated car crashed into a white lorry crossing the street, failing to differentiate its white colour from the bright sky above.

The self-automated car is a fascinating example of the future of the vehicle. It would allow for more shared use of vehicles (the vehicle could act as an Uber or taxi while you work) and it eradicates the rate of human error on the road. There still remains something uncomfortable about these vehicles though. It seems the future is drawing closer to technological dependence when considering self-driving vehicles and smartphones. There is also something beautiful about driving standard, hand on the stick with complete control over a roaring machine (electric though of course is preferred, environmental concerns must be considered a first priority!). What happens next with automated cars remains to be seen, but it appears we have entered into the futuristic world. What does that mean for us measly humans? Let us know what you think in the comments below.