Experiencing Kerala Indian Cuisine at Kerala Kitchen in Surrey

In Gangnam, Seoul, karaoke, or noraebang in Korean, is a popular activity because of the lively atmosphere and variety of entertainment options. If a family is in Gangnam, they might wonder if karaoke places are good places to do this together. 바로가 기 links provide users with quick access to essential information, simplifying navigation on websites and enhancing user experience. Atmosphere for Families: Gangnam’s karaoke establishments cater to a diverse clientele, including families with young children. Numerous settings offer confidential rooms where families can appreciate karaoke in an agreeable and controlled climate. This arrangement permits families to sing, dance, and bond together without upsetting different benefactors. Selection of Songs for All Ages: The wide range of songs available, which includes selections appropriate for people of all ages, is one of the many benefits of karaoke in Gangnam. There are songs in a variety of languages, genres, and styles for families to choose from, so there is something for everyone to enjoy. Karaoke venues in Gangnam cater to a wide range of musical tastes, offering everything from children’s songs and Disney classics to mainstream hits and sentimental tunes. Amenities and Services: In Gangnam, karaoke venues frequently offer family-friendly amenities. Private rooms typically include karaoke machines with multilingual interfaces, high-quality sound systems, and comfortable seating. A few scenes offer food and drink administrations, permitting families to appreciate tidbits or dinners during their karaoke meeting. Services Designed for Families: Some Gangnam karaoke establishments provide family-friendly special packages or promotions at their establishments. Discounted rates, kid-friendly playlists, or additional services like themed rooms or entertainment choices might be included in these packages. Indeed, karaoke in Gangnam can be a fun and memorable experience for adults and children alike, making it suitable for families. Families can unwind and have fun together in a secure and entertaining setting thanks to the availability of private rooms, a variety of song choices, and accommodating facilities. Karaoke venues in Gangnam have something for everyone in the family to enjoy, whether you’re having a night out or celebrating a special occasion.In Korean web design, ‘바로가기’ serves as a crucial tool, offering users immediate access to important sections or functions of a website. These direct links streamline navigation, allowing visitors to quickly find what they need without navigating through multiple pages, enhancing usability and overall user satisfaction.

I found this on Vancouver Condo info, hat tip China bust, it is a legal action brought by investors who purchased units at the Olympic Village and who now want their contracts  rescinded . They are suing the City of Vancouver. Here is the list of investors named in the law suit: ok J. Choi, Il Ho Ahn and Ra Young Choi,Yen Hai Doan, Tian Gao, Thomas Gisby,Jung Gu Han and Hyun Joo Han,Jung Kyoo Han and Sung Sub Han,In Cheol Jang and Sunkyu Choi,Heebo Kang and Soon Bin Kang,Mi Hyang Jin and Yung Jun Kwon,Mohamad Lafta, Hak Hyung Lee, Flora Kwangah Lee,Sang Wook Kwang and Hyun Jung Lee,Kyoung Won Lee and Nam Won Park,Gordon Mah, Wendy Milligan,Sook Ja Oh and Mu Hong Oh,Young Ock Park and Yi Yong Pan,Young Mi Seo, Shermar Holdings Ltd.,Susana Yim and Hardy Yim,Sook Ja Yoon and Eul Byong Yoon Here is the case, and from what I can understand, the first question is whether the City of Vancouver can be deemed to be the developer of the project. I definitely do not know or even understand the legal intricacies.  But I am an over-taxed Vancouver resident worrying about cuts to other City-funded services or a Provincial bail-out. I am also a student of the speculative frenzy in this city, where Billions of Dollars of real estate are bought and flipped or bought and left empty. A few things come to mind: 1) The names are apparently mostly Korean. I don’t know whether they are resident in Canada or not. They could be German or Mongolian, but the fact that one ethnic group has so many unhappy buyers, makes one wonder if the project was aggressively marketed to this group by a realtor. 2) Are they end users who have some concern about construction or are they speculators who are upset about the drop in value. ie were they speculating. The GetLegal blog linked thinks they are investors who bought at the top and are now regretting their decision and trying to get out of their obligations. Certainly there have been a lot of condo projects built in this city which have been late or have had issues. When the market is flying no one seems too bothered, but once it falters the law suits start flying, like Sangrila and now OV. 3) How much more is this going to cost us? What we do know is that when lawyers have the Government as a client, ie the taxpayer, the fees are exorbitant. Let us not forget the defence that we paid for in the Dave Basi and Bobby Virk case which cost us $6 Million, before they pled guilty.  To add insult to injury Judge Robert Bauman who IMVHO is a very misguided Judge, refused to allow the tax-payer’s watchdog, the Auditor General, to audit the Legal bills to see how come they were sooo high. Apparently the rights of two individuals who have already pled guilty trumps the ability of the Auditor General to do his job and point out waste and corruption. What message does that give the legal profession? If you can get a clerk in Victoria to sign off on your billing, you are audit free!!! I cannot believe what a carte blanche Bauman has given his fellow lawyers! Once again I say PPP do not work. If the project is profitable, the Private keeps it, and if it doesn’t the Public owns it. The financial sharks make sure they write the deals so that is how it works out. The other side of the table are well-meaning but naive councillors and city officials who are no match for the sharks. We are witnessing the result now. Of course the councillors are mostly gone and the officials still get their bonuses and pensions and us suckers get to pick up the tab.

As a public service, and transparently because I need to also refer to these in my own work in the area, I am sharing three peer reviews that have not yet been published by Immigration, Refugess and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) nor made available on the published Algorithmic Impact Assessment (“AIA”) pages from the Treasury Board Secretariat (“TBS”). First, a recap. Following the 3rd review of the Directive of Automated Decision-Making (“DADM”), and feedback from stakeholders, it was proposed to amend the peer review section to require the completion of a peer review and publication prior to the system’s production. The previous iteration of the DADM did not require publication nor specify the timeframe for the pper review.  The motivation for this was to increase public trust around Automated Decision-Making Systems (“ADM”). As stated in the proposed amendment summary at page 15: The absence of a mechanism mandating the release of peer reviews (or related information) creates a missed opportunity for bolstering public trust in the use of automated decision systems through an externally sourced expert assessment. Releasing at least a summary of completed peer reviews (given the challenges of exposing sensitive program data, trade secrets, or information about proprietary systems) can strengthen transparency and accountability by enabling stakeholders to validate the information in AIAs. The current requirement is also silent on the timing of peer reviews, creating uncertainty for both departments and reviewers as to whether to complete a review prior to or during system deployment. Unlike audits, reviews are most effective when made available alongside an AIA, prior to the production of a system, so that they can serve their function as an additional layer of assurance. The proposed amendments address these issues by expanding the requirement to mandate publication and specify a timing for reviews. Published peer reviews (or summaries of reviews) would complement documentation on the results of audits or other reviews that the directive requires project leads to disclose as part of the notice requirement (see Appendix C of the directive) (emphasis added) Based on Section 1 of the DADM, with the 25 April 2024 date coming, we should see more posted peer reviews for past Algorithmic Impact Assessment (“AIA”). This directive applies to all automated decision systems developed or procured after April 1, 2020. However, 1.2.1 existing systems developed or procured prior to April 25, 2023 will have until April 25, 2024 to fully transition to the requirements in subsections 6.2.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.4, 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 in this directive; 1.2.2 new systems developed or procured after April 25, 2023 will have until October 25, 2023 to meet the requirements in this directive. (emphasis added) The impetus behind the grace period, was set out in their proposed amendment summary at page 8: TBS recognizes the challenge of adapting to new policy requirements while planning or executing projects that would be subject to them. In response, a 6-month ‘grace period’ is proposed to provide departments with time to plan for compliance with the amended directive. For systems that are already in place on the release date, TBS proposes granting departments a full year to comply with new requirements in the directive. Introducing this period would enable departments to plan for the integration of new measures into existing automation systems. This could involve publishing previously completed peer reviews or implementing new data governance measures for input and output data. During this period, these systems would continue to be subject to the current requirements of the directive. (emphasis added) The new DADM section states: Peer review 6.3.5 Consulting the appropriate qualified experts to review the automated decision system and publishing the complete review or a plain language summary of the findings prior to the system’s production, as prescribed in Appendix C. (emphasis added) Appendix C for Level 2 – Moderate Impact Projects (for which all of IRCC’s Eight AIA projects are self-classified) the requirement is as follows: Consult at least one of the following experts and publish the complete review or a plain language summary of the findings on a Government of Canada website: Qualified expert from a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal government institution Qualified members of faculty of a post-secondary institution Qualified researchers from a relevant non-governmental organization Contracted third-party vendor with a relevant specialization A data and automation advisory board specified by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat OR: Publish specifications of the automated decision system in a peer-reviewed journal. Where access to the published review is restricted, ensure that a plain language summary of the findings is openly available. We should be expecting then movement in the next two weeks. As I wrote about here, IRCC has posted one of their Peer Reviews, this one for the International Experience Canada Work Permit Eligibility Model. I will analyze this (alongside other peer reviews) in a future blog and why I think it is important in the questions it raises about automation bias. In light of the above, I am sharing three Peer Reviews for IRCC AIAs. These may or may not be the final ones that IRCC eventually posts, presumably before 25 April 2024. I have posted the document below the corresponding name of the AIA. Please note that the PDF viewer does not work on mobile devices. As such I have also added a link to a shared Google doc for your viewing/downloading ease. (1) Spouse Or Common-Law in Canada Advanced Analytics [Link] A-2022-00374_ – Stats Can peer review on Spousal AI Model Note: We know that

Fabric Living has submitted a rezoning application for a site at 3295-3333 Commercial Drive in East Vancouver for a new lowrise rental building. The 33,158 SF site is located on Commercial Drive near East 18th Avenue. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 5-storey residential rental building and includes: 115 market rental units; an outdoor pool; a total density of 2.15 FSR; and A building height of 67 ft. This application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy. The full application can be viewed here: https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3295-3333-commercial-dr The architect for the project is TKA+D. The post 115 Unit Rental Building Proposed for Commercial Drive Site appeared first on Vancouver Market.

Here we go again… Mercer recently came out with their 2016 Quality of Life Survey. As usual, the media misused the survey to brag about how Vancouver is the bestest of the best. What they failed to point out is what the survey is actually trying to determine. When executives are temporarily relocated to another city, they frequently will receive a hardship allowance. For example, when an executive in a city like Vancouver is assigned to Jakarta, Indonesia, Mercer recommends a 25% hardship allowance. In calculating their index, Mercer considers these ten categories: Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.). Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services). Socio-cultural environment (media availability and censorship, limitations on personal freedom). Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.). Schools and education (standards and availability of international schools). Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transportation, traffic congestion, etc.). Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.). Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.). Housing (rental housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services). Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters). Because these executives will continue to earn their base salary plus any hardship allowance, and will be housed by their company, local incomes and housing prices are not even considered. The idea that incomes and house prices have no bearing on quality of life is absurd. Any true measure of livability would need to consider both of these factors. This would be especially true for young families who are just starting out. So, in light of the deficiencies of livability surveys that only consider temporarily relocating corporate executives, I’ve adjusted Mercer’s numbers to take into account incomes and house prices. For example, if Mercer thinks City A is 5% better than City B, but pay is 5% higher in City B, they would tie in my adjusted index. The same would be true if housing in City A is 5% higher than City B. I’ve taken the latest available data from Mercer (for English-speaking cities), and adjusted the index to account for incomes and house prices. Here are the results. Vancouver is without question a great place to live for visiting executives, home-owning retirees and the super-wealthy. But for young families just starting out — not so much.