Carney has extremely strong support amongst the general public in Canada which hasn't been the case for the Canadian PM over the past 20+ years.
158 Canadian soldiers died defending the United States at the US's request after 9/11. Canadian fighter jets helped to patrol the skies in the US at the US's request after 9/11.
The insults coming from the US Secretary of Defence and President are not unnoticed. They are logged and remembered.
I mean in a way it's true. MAGA is a death cult and they want to hasten the apocalypse, which is why MAGA is such good bed fellows with US big tech as they too also want to hasten the apocalypse.
These people fervently believe that they will prosper once the earth is destroyed, so please trust that they will do everything in their lives to make it so.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Armed lifeboat is a serious climate change strategy. You and I might not like it. But we are heading down the path very seriously.
> 1) we are past the point of no return in climate change
Hmm...I wonder who did that?
Is paying taxpayer money to shut down already approved windfarms a good way to prepare for climate change? A few extra years to prepare that "armed lifeboat" are completely unnecessary?
The focus towards the north (Greenland/Canada) is one potential successful post-climate-change strategy.
Control over the opened trade routes and natural resources as the northern oceans thaw will be a highly contested global issue, the type of issue that can lead to war.
Of course, this is a more charitable interpretation of long term plans than might be warranted.
Read your original comment and disagreed, but you have changed my mind. Trump is tackling climate change response more than any other president, he's just doing it in the most psychotic way possible. Threatening sovereign nations, antagonizing Asia, etc.
I agree that Canada and the EU should've been more responsible for their own defense. Hope going forward they are and cut out the USA as much as possible.
If that is so onerous, multiple EU countries should get nuclear missiles and make an EU NATO. But you don't want that. You want the dollar propped up irrationally by your military promises and you want NATO and non-NATO proxies against Russia ans China.
The promises incidentally fail yet again in Iran, where the Saudis already make other treaties with Turkey and Pakistan.
> 158 Canadian soldiers died defending the United States at the US's request after 9/11. Canadian fighter jets helped to patrol the skies in the US at the US's request after 9/11.
Bad idea. Canada (as well as all other nations) should let the US fight and lose its wars by itself.
Agreed, and the possibility of visa free travel to the EU, plus the removal of live/work barriers is appealing. The USA really comes off as the spurned ex that calls you drunk in the middle of the night.
Research the "Monroe doctrine"... by which I mean, don't just look up a one paragraph summary, spend a bit of time with it. A few pages of text at least. Ideally in a modern formulation you should encounter the term "World Island" without having directly searched for it and how the modern iteration of the Monroe doctrine is a reaction to that in a way that the original didn't have to contend with.
I'm not doing advocacy here, I'm giving pointers on how to come to a deeper understanding of what is going on.
It is also important to understand that the EU is directly attacking this doctrine with this proposal. You are free to agree with the EU. Again, I'm just giving something to guide people to a deeper understanding of what is going on beyond the surface level playground politics of it all. There's more going on than that.
(Personally I would say I "disagree" with the Monroe doctrine but the sort of national/international structure I would actually want is not even remotely on the table, so... my opinion is thereby of even less import than a random other opinion drawn from "the masses" for choosing "E, none of the above" when that was not given as an option in the first place.)
Research the "Treaty of Tordesillas"... by which I mean, don't just look up a one paragraph summary, spend a bit of time with it. A few papal bulls at least. Ideally in a modern formulation you should encounter the term "Requerimiento" without having directly searched for it, and how the modern iteration of the line-of-demarcation doctrine is a reaction to that in a way the 1494 version didn't have to contend with.
I'm not doing advocacy here, I'm giving pointers on how to come to a deeper understanding of what is going on.
It is also important to understand that the United States is directly attacking this doctrine by just sitting there. You are free to agree with the United States. Again, I'm just giving something to guide people to a deeper understanding of what is going on beyond the surface level playground politics of it all. There's more going on than that.
If you're trying to sarcastically imply something, I'm not sure what it is. That is also a necessary key to understanding a certain era of history. Not the current one, though.
You elided if you want to understand what is going on more deeply, which is a rather important part.
I say that precisely because I know that in reality most people aren't that interested. Which feel like I'm insulting people or something, but it's just the reality, we don't all have time to dig into absolutely everything all the time, and if you're not interested that's fine. But if you are, this is the best pathway to understanding this at a deeper level than the playground level.
TLDR; The dollar is the global currency of record, the US became the richest country in the world, and Stalin didn't get Europe and Japan. The massive export market and global security was the payoff.
The trade deficit and debt is in USD it's a line in the ledger that is somewhat fine and sustainable as long as the world stays on the USD as the currency of record. Countries for now are happy to keep storing their reserves in US bonds - Canada holds 600-700 billion in US debt. Japan over a trillion.
This is a direct stab at the US imperialist faction — not MAGA, who want the US to break up with the EU.
I genuinely don’t understand this move through the lens of realpolitik: they’re mad at Trump, so they’re going to offend CFR et al who are aligned on Fortress America and neo-empire by threatening to take a critical vassal for the EU?
Okay — but you just turned being mad at MAGA into the MIC deep state viewing you as an enemy and therefore further military alliance with any EU member unviable. All because the EU couldn’t stomach four years of crass taunts from a TV conman.
A whole lot of Trump's psychology has always been "it's your fault I hurt you" for the longest time — it's a very clear undercurrent in how he treated his first wife.
As I said it in another post, what does Trump expect? His negotiations are all stick and no carrot.
Canada is bound to look for new trade opportunities in the face of that.
You make a deal with Trump, it's always worse than what you had previously.
Then, no mater what you do, he breaks the deal 3 months later with some kind of implied military threat if you complain.
All the comparisons with personal relationships here are silly. This isn't a marital split. This someone who thinks they're the only customer saying they don't want to buy something and the vendor saying fair enough, I'll sell it to someone else.
USA has always been very aggressive about territory and hostile to Europe in the Americas. The Canada vs UK vs EU relationship seems more interesting to me.
Fortunately the US already fails in its first special military operation in Iran, so it cannot launch a second one in Canada to protect the English speaking population in Canada.
I say this as a Canadian who wishes nothing but failure for the US's military misadventures: Iran is a totally different situation. The inability for the US navy to effectively project power thousands of miles from the US says nothing about its ability to wage a land war close to home.
This comment[0] on HN from a while back marks the parallels between the two situations very clearly.
It's very frustrating talking about this subject with Americans online[1]. In general they seem to have blinders on regarding the magnitude of the consequences of their democratic choice in leadership.
I get a sense that a feeling of learned helplessness has beset the American people and that they're not able to imagine a world of agency and action against authoritarianism.
I don't know what can shake them out of their torpor, but I do know that the longer they take to wake up the higher the price of action will be.
> It's very frustrating talking about this subject with Americans online[1]. In general they seem to have blinders on regarding the magnitude of the consequences of their democratic choice in leadership.
If polls are to be believed, the majority of Americans do not, in fact, fit that description.
Trump has already been threatening Canada and EU at various times already. Why should they assume a) this will be any different b) he'll stop if they do what he wants?
> So if Canada tries to make friends with anyone other than the US, it's a hostile act?
I don't think anyone really says it's an hostile act but both countries, Canada and the US will have to decide what it means for their ongoing relationship.
Canada is free to get closer to Europe and the US is free to be displeased about it.
Maybe it works out well for Canada or maybe it doesn't.
> Makes it all the more obvious that USA is Canada's abusive partner
Why anthropomorphize geopolitics?
This is just just a big fish throwing its weight around like all big fishes do. Russia does it with its neighbors, China does it as well and India and Europe are not shy about it either.
It's just the name of the game and its been happening since the dawn of time.
Some states use force, others bribe or cajole but in the end they all try to influence their neighbors in a way that suits their interests especially if these neighbors are smaller in terms of population/economy/military etc...
The fact that so many people are shocked by such news these days is because everyone drank the cool aid of the End of History and forgot that spheres of influence still exists and that the rule of law was nothing more than gentleman's agreement that could be thrown out of the window at a moment's notice without second thoughts.
> I don't think anyone really says it's an hostile act
Trump does. His inner circle does. His supporters do.
> Canada and the US will have to decide what it means for their ongoing relationship.
Sounds like an abusive husband's version of "think of what this will do to the children."
> Why anthropomorphize geopolitics?
Because some people need to have complex issues explained to them in ways that are simple to understand. Particularly when it comes to issues involving Trump politics, the people who desperately need to understand these issues are those who also seem to need the issues explained to them like they are a fourth-grader.
That doesn't really matter. What matters is that he commands the most powerful (probably?) offensive force on the planet and has already shown that he is more than willing to use it to achieve his nonsense objectives.
Personally, I take everything he says and does seriously. I advise non-citizens visiting to turn their social media to private and bring a burner phone to immigration checkpoints. For citizens, turning off your phone should be enough.
I think a lot of us outside the US will go further and simply never visit the US ever again. That certainly applies to me despite having spent quite a lot of time in the US and having ex-colleagues who I regard as friends there.
> His charistma is a large part of why he was elected.
He has the charisma of a mouldy grapefruit. It certainly wasn't his charisma.
He was elected because he was able to convince many, many people that there are simple solutions to complex problems and that he was the only person in the world "brave" enough to implement them.
My guess: to weaken Canada's economy, limit Canada's international standing, bankrupt the sovereign state, cause rise of populism and voters thereof, have its people overthrow the government, then absorb the former country as a state to extract its natural resources, to fulfill manifest destiny.
Other than the current tariff narrative, it's fairly standard CIA play when we look at what they did to Latin America already.
I am addressing directly why the Republicans want this, not why the current president wants this. Even if the current president changes, the Republicans will still pursue the annexation of Canada with financial interest.
Donald wants to bully anyone he can into submission; the requirements are designed to be obscene so that agreeing to them is akin to kissing the ring.
That and trying to get more willing sycophants installed in power whenever possible (a little gem hidden in the latest batch of requirements: Canada should stop protecting the French language status. If you know anything about Canada, you know that agreeing to this would be a political suicide for the party in power).
This is a thought terminating cliche. This is just the latest move in a long term strategic effort to undermine Canada's sovereignty. Zoom out, and that in it of itself is part of an even broader strategic effort to reorganize alliances which built the world order.
Everywhere there are criticisms of Trump, his administration, and their goals, there is always this commentary which not only fails to serve as an accurate representation of present situations, but more importantly, it serves to distract from the chronology of events which led us here, blinding the broader conversation from creating inferences of what will happen next which stifles the conversation from its most natural next reply: What are they actually doing, and what do we do if it does not benefit us?
Which straw broke the camel's back. Was it insulting the prime minister as a governor, threatening to annex the territory, threatening to "redraw borders", or calling Canadians "nasty people"?
I think if we could point to a specific pivotal moment, it was when tariffs were first announced and Trudeau came on TV and discussed the difficult times ahead, the relationship as we knew it being over, and the announcement of counter tariffs and other plans. Then the Premiers announced things like removing American alcohol from shelves (Jack Daniel’s said this week that Canadian sales fell 62%), and shutting down various historical courtesies. For me at least that’s the moment it went from confusion, anger, and frustration to coordinated effort to take a defensive stance against the new aggressor nation.
The petty child-like name calling from the American president was mostly just an evocation of “I’m embarrassed for you.”
Actually, it will be great. If I am disabled from the waist up, and I want to continue coding, I would love to be able to ask AI to do a lot of things that I think are too hard.
Modern vehicles are still made with steel, if I am not mistaken (since I own two). I also think the designers did a fine job over at Tesla. It's more baffling that the automaker decided to forego a layer of clear coat---just like with all other cars---because they think they can defy the elements, or up-sell you on that $5000 wrap that they are offering.
That depends. Many auto bodies are made from aluminum and plastic these days, while the ones that continue to use steel for some body panels coat them not just with clear coat, but also paint. Chassis/frames are steel, but not exposed directly to sunlight, and typically have a coating as well.
Bare, exposed steel is pretty dumb in all things except perhaps looks (until it rusts).
Thank you. This seems to just further emphasize the absurdity of selling bare stainless vehicles to consumers that drive on public roads, in all kinds of conditions including salted winter roads.
It's a choice. All engineering choices have consequences, and no material is perfect. It doesn't seem much more absurd than other parts of the vehicle, to me. Bare stainless has been used on other vehicles before. It provides a certain aesthetic.
It is a choice. The choice is also motivated by a Big Idea: ELiminate every part you don't need. This sounds like a good idea to the point some people will adopt it uncritically, but when you start eliminating parts, like paint, or an anti-pinch sensor, or LIDAR, that you might actually need, you just create technical debt and future recall liability. Bad dogma.
Engineers deal with more than just functional design requirements. There were also undoubtably other requirements pertaining to manufacturing, cost, and cosmetics which were a factor here. If cost and manufacturing weren't a factor, they could have just CNC'd the panels out of very fancy stainless grades that are a pain to stamp and cost a lot.
I think the issue is they decided what it should look like before they designed the rest of the vehicle. They wanted something that looked unusual... and now they have unusual problems to deal with.
There's no practical reason to make the vehicle have bare stainless panels, or "unbreakable" breakable windows, etc. It's marketing gimmicks that now seem to be developing into a PR issue. Time will tell..
The very fact that they try to upsell a wrap is absurd enough and obviously indicates Tesla was worried this might become an issue. The wrap should have been included... or some form of coating.
Other manufacturers also make new engineering choices in the name of styling that create unusual problems. Because selling the car is part of the design requirements.
As one of many examples, Mazda's Soul Red Crystal paint has some special formulations and application steps that were a departure from other types of automotive paint. It has no purpose other than cosmetics, and it had some issues when it was introduced. It was also more challenging and expensive to repair.
Styling may be a 'marketing gimmick', but it is an inherent requirement to selling cars in volume.
> The very fact that they try to upsell a wrap is absurd enough and obviously indicates Tesla was worried this might become an issue.
Some other manufacturers do this for painted cars too, because clear-coat is brittle and chipping is a known cosmetic issue that can occur.
At the end of the day, I don't think it's any more unacceptable that cybertruck owners need to hit their truck with some scotchbrite to remove tiny rust specs than it is unacceptable that toyota owners need to hit their hood with some touch up paint to remove tiny paint chips. It's all just minor cosmetic wear and tear.
> At the end of the day, I don't think it's any more unacceptable that cybertruck owners need to hit their truck with some scotchbrite to remove tiny rust specs than it is unacceptable that toyota owners need to hit their hood with some touch up paint to remove tiny paint chips.
I'd argue both are unacceptable, and sure enough you'll find plenty of complaints from owners with chipped paint.
The difference is, the rust issue was predictable.
> Because selling the car is part of the design requirements.
> it is an inherent requirement to selling cars in volume
Let's not kid ourselves here - it's a Tesla truck and it would have sold in similar numbers even if it didn't look like something out of a video game. It may have actually sold better if it's design wasn't so divisive...
The reality is a bunch of people are buying/have bought this particular vehicle expecting luxury/premium and instead are being surprised by rust. Hence... the negative PR.
Modern vehicles use plastic or aluminum on the most common rust points. Rockers, wheel wells, bumpers.
Go look under the car, that’s where all of the steel is. Unless your car is new or has literally never seen water/salt, that’s where the rust is going to be.
I'm curious to see how the material looks after a few years in the wild. If it were clear coated, we wouldn't get a proper stress test. Solving this problem is basically the only reason for the Cybertruck to exist.
It'll be a great *eats popcorn* scenario for those who didn't buy one.
I wish OsmAnd all the best, but ever since the app was created, its map rendering performance has been stuck in the 2010s, no matter how much faster our devices have gotten since then.
If you have an older device, there is a is night and day difference between OsmAnd~ (the F-Droid rebuild) and Organic Maps (the latest maps.me fork). OsmAnd visibly stutters to load in new tiles whereas Organic Maps is perfectly smooth even when zooming quickly.
OsmAnd is still much more feature-rich, though, so it's worth using if you have a more powerful device. Although i do worry about the battery impact.
So if Canada tries to make friends with anyone other than the US, it's a hostile act?
Makes it all the more obvious that USA is Canada's abusive partner, that they should have broken up with a long time ago.
reply