I’m willing to bet half those BC stats are actually Albertans driving into the mountains. Significantly more westbound than eastbound fatalities in the Rockies. If you fall asleep at the wheel in Alberta you wake up in the middle of a corn field. If you fall asleep at the wheel in BC you don’t wake up.

From the article you linked:

“This has traditionally been considered incorrect on the basis that it is equivalent to referring to a judge as being an honourable or an adult man as a mister, both of which are also grammatically improper.[8][9] It is likewise incorrect to form the plural reverends. Some dictionaries,[10] however, do place the noun rather than the adjective as the word’s principal form, owing to an increasing use of the word as a noun among people with no religious background or knowledge of traditional styles of ecclesiastical address.”

I wouldn’t correct someone who dropped this in casual conversation, but I do expect more from a news source that should be employing people with a better grasp on the English language.

This article is a mess.

Firstly, “Reverend” is an adjective, not a title. Sounds like it was a priest, minister, or pastor depending on denomination. It would be like referring to a judge as “an honourable” for an entire article.

Secondly, even if this minister pushed through the paperwork, there is no way it’s valid. Both parties have to sign the completed document at the time of the wedding itself, and it typically has to be also signed by witnesses. “Pre-signing” it would indicate it. It’s not a legally valid document.

Ironically, marriage documentation is pretty tight about the consent of both parties and witnesses to prevent women from being married off against their will.

Checkmate in TWO moves? How? The quickest I know is four.

“tenets” … I thought you were giving me housing advice.

Isn’t that like an ancestrally appropriate thing for Mongolian rulers? Where did he go? Bagdad? Would have thought they’d be proud of him.

I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdism in humour. There are people who laugh when they see something disastrous happen, like a man reflexively trying to stop a cement truck from tipping and getting squashed dead. Or a recent news story of the only fatality in a school bus crash: it was an observer who got hit by a vehicle as he ran across the highway to see if the kids were ok. A lot of the time this laughing response to a disaster is interpreted as schadenfreude, but a good portion of the time I believe it’s absurdism.

We try so hard to have agency, to do something, but the World doesn’t give a fuck. You have two choices when shit goes so wrong: you can wail about the unfairness of it all, or you can laugh at the absurdity of our efforts in the face of the colossal chaos of it all. The laughter is stronger.

It’s interesting to me that some cultures seem to have absurd humour baked in. The Aussies and Kiwis seem to have it. They just make jokes about and laugh at the most horrific situations.