The only example I can think of is Canada arresting Meng Wanzhou when the US asked, and not backing down in the face of significant Chinese threats, souring Chinese relationships significantly.
But that's an example of Canada being a good ally to the US.
Took Canada 4-years longer than the rest of the Five Eyes alliance to ban them, prompting the Biden administration to threaten to terminate the agreement.
Canada chooses not to participate in the defense of North America from potential threats, deferring the cost and military response entirely to the United States.
The roughly 100 organized crime groups operating in Canada (including three groups dedicated to supplying fentanyl) are partly drawn to loopholes and lax penalties that allow fentanyl-related money-laundering operations to flourish.
Canada remains the only G7 country on the 2025 USTR Watch List. The 2025 USTR Special 301 Report again expressed concerns with Canada's perceived lack of IP enforcement, particularly at the border and against online piracy.
I tried to avoid some of the more common ones, like NATO spending, trade dispute, etc. A lot of this stuff, like providing for the common defense, don't make it easy for cartels launder money, don't look the other way on counterfeit goods, aren't unreasonable demands.
1) The delay came at a tricky time. Canada had arrested Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the USA, and China disappeared two Canadian citizens in retaliation.
4 & 5) Canada has a gun problem, and the guns originate from the USA. Canada has a problem with sick Americans crossing the border and buying meds meant for Canadians. American cross-border concerns about Canada don't hold a candle to that.
6) This is a strange expectation. If it had merit, then the reverse would, too: America is guilty of undercutting Canada's efforts to maintain global free trade.
So that leaves NORAD and the Digital Services tax.
To my mind, it seems like Canada primarily is guilty of being a nation with a few priorities and interests of its own, rather than a state.
This is your evidence? This is meaningless. The problem is, you’re applying reasoning backwards. You’re starting with the assumption that Trump’s ramblings are justified, so you search for whatever you can find that supports his side, and thus conclude that this evidence is sufficient to justify his claims, because it’s all the evidence out there. Instead of actual reasoning, which would be to start with the question “are his claims justified?”, searching for evidence for and against, and realizing that these few articles in support are dwarfed by the hundreds of billion dollars in trade between the two countries.
Your argument stems from the idea that Canada is not its own country, and that Canadians cannot have their own interests or opinions on how things should be handled.
How dare they not follow the rules and behave like the other 50 states!
This is exactly what Trump's attitude is, and it's why Canadians are angry.
If we look at history, it's no surprise that the US's alliances are fleeing and temporary.
The US doesn't really have any real allies, as any ally could be betrayed for any reason at any time.
Just look at all the betrayals that Trump was personally responsible for, such as Afghanistan, NATO, Canada, Ukraine, the Kurds, and Syria. Poor Kurds have to watch as Trump shakes hands with the leader of Al-Qaeda, who is currently carrying out ethnic cleansing and massacring people.
Alliances should be mutual. What has the US done for Canada lately, especially considering the outrageous demands? Like what has the US done that benefitted Canada, but also cost the US at least in some way (so no BS about "US is growing and Canada is having some of the pie")? In what way has the US suffered and didn't grab as much as it was able to, just so Canada-the-ally would also be taken care of? When has the Trump's US acted like a real ally/friend instead of a volatile backstabbing bandit with the "winner takes it all and I don't care what happens after" attitude?
I claim that Canada has been much more of an ally to the US than vice versa.
What a load of BS, Canada is the best friend the US could ask for.
Remember in 2018 when Canada held Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou under a U.S. extradition request? It tanked Canada/China relations and had trade ramifications Canada is still feeling today.
It's quite odd, the past days there's been this messaging from different users about how old allies haven't been good allies. First I saw this point about Denmark, now Canada.
Hard to understand where this is coming from, it's really odd to see it popping up out of nowhere when barely a year ago this would never have been brought up about any of these countries... Where is the messaging coming from?
That’s fair enough. Part of it is the Trump effect. I tend to dive pretty deep into things when they catch my interest. A lot of time we write things off as crazy simply because we don’t understand the context behind the presumption of insanity. So I try to look under the surface so to speak. I want to know why someone feels the way they do, even if their thesis is a little confused. Almost like: “I see you are very passionate about this, let me figure out why.”
I try to make the world make sense. Communication is a skill and many otherwise smart people simply fail to invest in it. Curiousity I suppose.
There are two things Canada is guilty of.
1) it spent far too little on its military
2) it trusted the Americans far too much by tying its economy so deeply with the USA.
If you subtract the oil purchased by the USA, Canada has a trade surplus with the USA. A trade surplus that's mostly comprised of finished goods. Canada sells raw materials to the USA and buys finished goods from them.
The lack of public awareness is honestly the biggest issue. I’ve got nothing personally against Canada or the Canadian people. And I certainly don’t think Trump’s approach has benefitted the situation. But I also recognize that his grievance have a level of merit. I can critique a government without blaming a people, right? I disagree with how the Canadian government has been handling itself. I think there is a way to resolve these issues, but I think first Canada has to at least acknowledge they exist. Whenever there is discussion like this people love to flood in, eager to defend our neighbor to the north and stick it to Trump. These issues have persisted through many administrations. You ask why Congress doesn’t stop Trump from his actions? It’s because the political consensus in Washington is that they are needed. I have no doubt whoever comes next will blame Trump and declare a new era of friendship and peace. But these issues will be at the core of any new agreement between the countries. People disagree, countries argue. It’s temporary. America wants Canada to succeed and Canada benefits from America’s success. They are just renorming the relationship a bit, which team dynamics tells us takes us back to the storming phase. Give it time and we’ll be rolling along again.
> I think there is a way to resolve these issues, but I think first Canada has to at least acknowledge they exist.
One can't and shouldn't acknowledge the things that don't exist.
Like:
- Venezuela's drugs being a big problem in the USA
- Russia/China trying to take Greenland
- Norwegian government responsible for giving Peace Nobels
- Canada's efforts to poison USA with fentanyl
They are all fake news and anyone spewing that should ridiculed, not engaged and reasoned with to find the compromise. (Example: since we are talking here and I share my eternal wisdom with you, it is only fair that you should give me all of your weath. Oh, you don't think it is reasonable and don't want to give a random guy anything? Fine, it is a fair compromise then in which you give me half of everything. The Greatest Deal!)
Being a good ally isn't just doing entirely what the US says the should do. The US needs to coordinate responses to China and work with allies to come to a shared understanding. How the current administration operates is assuming these allied country are fiefdoms. The economic situation in Canada isn't great, and the US could make it stronger, but refuses to.
The same feedback is largely true for most US allies. If you want people to decouple from China, you need to offset and fix the underlying reason they are trading with them.
I have many complaints about Trump's handling of foreign policy. Don't mistake my tone for approval of his approach. He is needlessly aggressive and domineering. We have tried the carrot approach though. Coalition of the willing. By and large I would say our allies are spiritually willing but physically unable to. If we use Canada for example, I don't think they need to jump at every demand, but things like stopping counterfeit sales (Pacific Mall), taking meaningful steps to stop cartel money laundering (Vancouver), actually meeting military commitments (Ukraine promises). A lot of it doesn't get reported because people don't really want to hear it. Like I said, Trump is not right in his handling of these issues, but Canada allows them to fester because its in their interest.
China captured 2 Canadians as retaliation. Wanting to de-escalate and get them back seems pretty reasonable. Unless the US proposed a military operation to get them back?
They still did that. Even though being a pawn in another player's game (USA trying to kill its technological competitor) and paying for it in many different ways was definitely not in the Canada's interests.
You seem to have this strange position that "what's good for the US is also automatically good for Canada, or at least it doesn't matter what Canada things and what it's national interests might be; just shut up and do what we say (even if it's a command to jump from the building)".
You have a laundry list of complaints about Canada's action wrt the US. What would someone like you on Canada's side of the border offer in response, do you think?
All of these issues go back long before Trump, who has made things uniquely worse. But any two countries with as long (and tightly bound) a history as ours are going to have constant points of friction. Are you suggesting Canada is uniquely a "fake friend" in this equation?
I did this for a few years and would recommend 1 (smallish) suitcase + 1 backpack.
As mentioned in the article, it’s better (financially and socially) to stay in locations for a medium length of time. If you do this, then the overhead of a single suitcase is very minimal, and you get far more flexibility with clothing - particularly if you’re staying in colder areas. E.g. NYC in winter.
I usually prefer two carry-ons, a backpack and a laptop bag. I find it easier to minimize what I have under the seat in front of me and be able to carry a few extra things that wouldn't fit otherwise.
If you want to be censorship resistant, stick to decentralized blockchains (ethereum + bitcoin). There's still value in Tempo vs traditional payment rails - (much) lower fees, faster + 24/7 transactions.
That doesnt help much. Since new regulations, it will be basically illegal for companies to touch your blockchain transactions without mapping out the source of funds.
>If you want to be censorship resistant, stick to decentralized blockchains (ethereum + bitcoin)
Both of these are the antithesis to censorship resistance because not only are all transactions publicly tracable but also non-fungible making censorship not only possible but viable on a large scale.
sure there is value but it's just a some db with multiple hosters probably? are we going to be able to do basic things what other blockchains offer? probably no.
The value will be in the utility of the stablecoins. These will be high trust, 1-1 backed, and fully audited. i.e. Much more than just a db with multiple hosts.
> I don't see anyone in the real world using blockchains at all.
Many companies are using stablecoins for cross border transactions, and for payouts in countries with volatile currencies. There's clear value for these use-cases.
This wasn't a result of regulator scrutiny. The issue was that MS (owner of Copilot) was demanding access to the IP (due to their existing agreement with OpenAI), and OpenAI was resisting. In addition, Claude blocked access to Windsurf, which also damaged them as an acquisition target.
I find this hard to believe considering all the recent acquihires that happened recently like Character AI, Inflection, Covariant AI, Scale AI, context AI and so on. Maybe you’re right about the specifics of this situation, but my prior for this being an acquihire is very high and I would need to see very compelling evidence that that is not the case.
That makes sense. If that is the case it creates yet another question for me. If someone sends for a driver to go shop and pick up the aforementioned items are they culpable?
> If someone sends for a driver to go shop and pick up the aforementioned items are they culpable?
That greatly depends on the jurisdiction. In general though the issue here is that you don't want to die by shooting yourself, but you want to die by taking a pill. And the issue really is that nobody is going to sell this stuff to you unless they know they cannot be charged for it.
Assisted suicide is legal in Austria for a few years and the main thing that it has changed is the availability of humane ways of dying.
Intel are catching up and will likely launch their 20A node before TSMC 2nm. Intel's 20A also includes gate all around and backside power delivery, so I don't think it's accurate to say Intel are 'stagnated' any more.
According to Intel's schedule, yes. Intel's schedule has 20A coming in Q3 2024.
However, according to Intel's schedule, they've been at Intel 3 since Q3 2023 (and Intel 4 since Q3 2022). The first Intel 4 processors actually launched in December 2024, 17 months after Intel 4 on their roadmap. We've yet to see any Intel 3 processors. I'm not accusing Intel of lying. Their roadmap can be when they've achieved a milestone rather than having it at the scale to start shipping chips. To be realistic about Intel's roadmap, 20A processors are probably coming in December 2025 at the earliest. That is earlier than TSMC's 2nm with gate all around and backside power delivery, but then there's also the question of whether Intel will actually pull it off.
I do like that Intel is recommitted to its fab, but I'd also say that it's too soon for me to believe that Intel will overtake TSMC. Why? Intel 4 is behind TSMC's N5 process in transistor density and Intel has only shipped a single line of processors with it - and they've had to use TSMC's N5 and N6 for the graphics and IO tiles. Basically, Intel has started shipping Intel 4, but not for most of their processors - none of their desktop or datacenter processors are using it.
There is a possibility that Intel will pull it off and I agree that Intel isn't stagnating anymore, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it's "likely" that Intel will overtake TSMC. Yes, TSMC is still struggling to get 3nm beyond Apple. Qualcomm's upcoming 2024 flagship chips are using TSMC N4P. But while Intel has been making progress way faster than it had for a decade, their progress hasn't been as stellar as their marketing of it. Intel 4 doesn't match 5nm transistor density, Intel 3 still seems to be a mystery, and Intel is shipping few Intel 4 processors. Does Intel 20A end up falling between TSMC's N4 and N3P? Does Intel ship one processor at very low volume with 20A in December 2025 and it's late 2026 or even 2027 before they've got all their processors there?
It just the kind of situation where there's a lot of nuance because it doesn't matter what a company has "achieved". It matters what parts you can buy and at what price. I can get Apple products with 3nm, but it looks like Android devices won't be getting 3nm until 2025. That's available, but not to most people. Even if Intel "achieves" 20A: at what volume, at what transistor density?
