Yes, as far as indices go, GIN indices are very expensive especially on modification. They're worthwhile in cases where you want to do arbitrary querying on JSON data, but you definitely don't want to overuse them.
If you can get away with a regular index on either a generated column or an expression, then you absolutely should.
They say it works "by directly converting electrical energy into thrust through controlled electromagnetic impulses", so I assume it's reacting against the Earth's magnetic field using the Lorentz force?
Yes but they also don't seem to claim it does. The use cases they talk about are orbital station-keeping and de-orbiting of satellites. So that implies near-Earth use.
Their patents don't say anything about an external magnetic field, so at best they've accidentally rediscovered it through experimental error and don't know it yet.
I suspect that you’re right, but I believe that I heard something about a similar ‘drive’ being used on some sort of telescope satellite in the past (though I can’t remember the specifics).
This is generally true not just for Steam. By issuing a chargeback, you're burning that bridge and shouldn't be expect to do business with that vendor again.
That is not the case. A non-criminal chargeback maybe, but if you've had your card stolen and chargeback with a merchant for that, they don't hold that against you.
Though, it maybe be more annoying to get your purchase approved because the automated risk system will flag it.
We sell product to people with prior chargebacks with us every single day
As far as I can tell, you get restricted from buying new games/activating codes, but they don't take away your existing library (besides the one you chargeback'd).
You'll need to flatten the promise periodically if you use this approach, otherwise your performance will degrade a bit each time you enqueue something.
Alberta would need the consent of the councils for Treaty 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to take their land with them. The treaties are between various First Nations and the Crown of Canada and are not transferable to an independent Alberta without consent.
Some provinces have non-treaty land, acquired through land purchases or conquest. Quebec, for example, had the right to take roughly the southern third of its territory when it discussed separatism. But that's not the case with Alberta — it is entirely composed of treaty land.
This means that Canada cannot grant them independence, even if it were to accept the results of a referendum that meets Clarity Act requirements. That alone makes Alberta separatism a non-starter. There's no legal route for Alberta to separate from Canada without negotiating new treaties with the treaty councils in order to get their consent, and they've already signalled they are not willing to do so.
I genuinely wonder if and how that would hold though, you need the buck to stop somewhere, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada you may call it illegal as you want to they won't just say "this is treaty land" and cancel their own referendum.
Say they separate politically and renege on the treaty, the first nations will go to the ICC? Or ask Canada to invade its own province? What support if any would the later have with the Canadian elector, sending the army to fight against other Canadians?
It's very similar to the old constitutional argument that separatism needs a "clear majority" which sparked questions that following a "yes" in Quebec the supreme court would have to statute on whether 51% is a "clear majority". Would Quebec actually have just accepted a ruling against them from a institution that is not really theirs?
My point is that legally the First Nations have the right to not consent to the separation of provinces from the country. Of course, it's always possible for parties to act illegally...
If Alberta did unilaterally declare independence (which would be illegal according to Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998]), the First Nations have the right to call upon Canada to defend their treaty rights under the "peace and good order" terms of the treaties.
If Canada did grant Alberta independence without First Nations consent, or Canada refuses to defend their treaty rights, they would have a claim that Canada had violated their rights to self-determination under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which Canada ratified in 2021. But UNDRIP is a non-binding resolution, so I don't think they'd have a case with the ICC or ICJ (even assuming it had jurisdiction).
It's basically a code generator for adding standard Phlex components to your project, so once you've added a component to your application you can modify it any way you want.
> It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia.
The problem is, this kind of pivot would take a long time and be extremely difficult. Out there in the real world, real Canadians have a lot to lose.
The US strong-arming its allies in this way puts them in a massive bind near term. Canada could eventually adapt to a different world order with reduced reliance on the US, but it would suffer a recession (or worse) in the process.
They have no good options here, because how can you really deal with a madman? (In a game theoretical sense [0], if not also a literal one) - but I think the ideal strategy is to acquiesce to the US and pursue these efforts as quickly as they can to remove any reliance going forward.
This is made more difficult by the fact that there seems no obvious way to actually appease the US, whose current goals and objectives are completely opaque.
This is silly. US is Canada's biggest trading partner and one of the largest borders in the world. 80% of people live within 1 hour of the border. Free trade has allowed both economies to prosper. Canada has everything to gain with free trade. You are right on over reliance, but free trade benefits everyone.
It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
Depending how you count "borders" and "European countries" they share a border with 2 (France via St Pierre and Miquelon, Denmark via Greenland) and share a landlord with a third.
The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
Tit-for-tat inherently forgives the moment the other party stops defecting, in a game theoretic sense. It's "start friendly, every future move copies other party's previous move".
We had free trade. The US has, in a very short period of time, squandered what was a highly profitable and mutually beneficial trading relationship.
There was already a sentiment of distrust in Canada about being so dependent on American goodwill. You can see this in the debates from the 1998 federal election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY) on the establishment of CUSFTA, the precursor to NAFTA and later CUSMA. Brian Turner (red tie in that video) argued that free trade in Canada would lead inevitably 'reduce' Canada to becoming a 'colony' of the United States. He lost the election, and the agreement went through. Here we are almost three decades later and, as Canadians see it, those fears are at risk of coming true.
I'm not sure that Americans really understand that this has permanently damaged the relationship between our countries. It's going to be a generation before there will be the political will in Canada to consider going back to something similar to NAFTA/CUSMA again. Even assuming the United States returns to open trade policies again, the question forever on everyone's mind will be "what if another Trump gets elected?".
it is 2025, nothing takes a generation any longer unless you are implying donny and his apostoles will rule america for a generation. otherwise new administration will repair this fairly quickly
A new administration can not promise that somebody like Donald Trump will never be elected again. That's what it would take to repair this relationship.
But at this point, Trump has been re-elected with a greater margin so in terms of national interests one needs to assume the worst case (i.e. these tariffs/behaviour aren't going away).
Would it be better if they did? I think so, but as a European (but very very exposed to the US) I don't think that's an economically rational way to plan.
I wouldn't color relying on a historical ally that either produces, or is the transit corridor for, most of your food with "everything to lose".
The current trade spat is an issue, and Canada should react accordingly, but the reality is that, even with tariffs, the US still represents a very profitable trade partner, especially when they can levy tariffs of their own.
The issue is not limited to tariffs. There is consistent hostile rhetoric against Canada by multiple members of administration. And by hostile I mean threats of annexation, demands that Canada gives USA parts of its land and false accusations.
Tariffs are only part of the issue. They seem the be the first USA step meant to weaken Canada economically before USA proceeds to steal from from it.
Exactly this. It's interesting watching how Americans are talking about this issue vs Canadians. Even my liberal friends in the US think it's more "Silly" and "Troll" behaviour on Trump's part -- "you're not taking that seriously, are you?"
Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet. He's the official head of state and silence from the rest of the GOP and the US political class generally isn't exactly doing anything to calm tensions.
We faced heavy tariff threats under 1.0 and it wasn't anything like this. The reaction here isn't really about trade at all. It's about sovereignty.
The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
I have been visiting Canada for decades—quite a bit of my family lives there. I was just there in 2022 for a wedding reception. It’s a nice place that seems like it won’t be a nice place in 50 years. Cops watched me like a hawk—I assume they have good reasons. Punjabi Uber driver told me he doesn’t even have to speak English because everyone at the bank, store, etc., speaks Punjabi. For some reason his elderly, past working age parents were immigrating to join him. Had to defend my being married to an American to some family friend at the wedding—there’s so many Bangladeshis there it’s possible to maintain endogenous marriage. Tried to charge my rented Tesla in a part of town that was all Indians. I let one Indian lady cut in front of me, which pissed off the Indian lady behind me, who started yelling at me “why are you letting her do that?” Not Canadian nice, certainly.
In the 1990s, Canada was a phenomenally well run and efficient country. More federalized than the U.S. (with 80% of spending run through the provinces). Canada had universal healthcare while having non-military per-capita government spending lower than the U.S. Now you’re running a sociologist experiment about what really causes prosperity and orderliness in western countries.
> The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
Who is “us”? Surely we need to acknowledge that Europeans invaded Canada in the first place? The “us” that can make claims about having been invaded likely is just the indigenous people of that land. Of course, this applies to America as well. I do wonder what causes all of us to view a certain set of borders as the “correct” one. I also do the same thing.
> Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet.
As for whether Trump’s language about 51st state or whatever is a troll: I think it’s partially that. It’s really more about calling attention to the future of Canada and whether it makes more sense for it to be a part of the US than linger on its own. I don’t think it literally means annexing it through force but more like asking whether it’s mutually good for Canada to also be among the “United States” - just as you could ask that question of whether it should be in the EU.
Trump’s aggressive way of stating this has succeeded in one sense, which is drawing attention to the idea. It has backfired in another sense, which is that it is highly disrespectful and maybe has turned Canadians off that possibility entirely. Or worse, it may permanently push Canada into the arms of China or the EU. So I do agree that it is partially a troll but still destructive.
> Surely we need to acknowledge that Europeans invaded Canada in the first place?
No. Europeans (and others) "invaded" North America. The sovereign country called "Canada" didn't exist until the mid-1800s. Even the name didn't appear on maps until the mid-1500s and the indigenous peoples who lived in North America at the time certainly didn't consider themselves a part of a unified nation by that name.
> I do wonder what causes all of us to view a certain set of borders as the “correct” one.
Yeah. It's all such a mess, and if anything the European colonists (French and British) in what became Canada -- while murderous and genocidal to the first nations -- were strategically "softer" on them than their American counterparts who were openly officially genocidal.
e.g. When the treaty of Ghent was signed ending the War of 1812, the chief (and really only) "victory" for the Americans was the fact that the British gave up defending/supporting the indigenous people in the midwest who had (under Tecumseh and with the support of the British to some degree) fought off American settlers. And so the Americans were free to go in and massacre and wipe out the remaining pockets of indigenous resistance in the Americas.
& Iroquois/Mohawk under Brant fled north to Canada, where the British granted them land along the Grand River valley here in Ontario.
I actually share general skepticism about the US-Canada border and the structure of the Canadian state generally. But I also have deep skepticism of the US project generally.
I think northeastern US states have more in common with us than their own southern states. I think the Canadian political class -- both conservative and liberal -- are really parasitical awful people overall, and our own business community are oligopoly-trending douches with a penchant for using regulatory capture to screw their own citizens. I think Quebec could as easily be its own nation, in a north american federation and that the structure of much of the Canadian state is arbitrary.
But I think you've touched on something, which is that Trump has poisoned all discourse. I like many others have turned rabidly nationalist in the last few months.
In any case there's a reason why Canada exists. It's not some accident of history or just some retrograde unenlightened loyalists who liked the monarchy. Many of our ancestors saw aspects of dysfunction and injustice in the way the US was taking shape, and chose Canada as an (imperfect) alternative. And that there is an "alternate path" for governance in North America is in fact I think the precise thing that actually enrages people like Trump.
As for the "who is us?" and the invasion comment, my point is only that there is actually a long-running "meme" inside American politics since the very foundation of the US that objects to the existence of Canada at all, and included the assimilation of Canada in a large Manifest Destiny project. It's usually been a fringe position, but it has at times become amplified. E.g. under McKinley there was similar talk as what Trump is mouthing now, and of course during 1812, etc. It's "out there", but it's consistently present.
And that's the reason Canadians take this annexation talk seriously.
I see it as something similar to some of the motives driving Putin with Ukraine. All the rhetoric about "NATO at our doorstep" is just a smokescreen for what the real fear is -- he cannot countenance an alternative Russian/Ukrainian speaking polity, culturally-partially-contiguous with Russia to exist on his doorstep if it is a liberal democracy, outside of his sphere of (corrupt) control, and not subject to his kleptocracy. Because it would be an internal threat. The cost of grinding Ukraine into the ground is worth it to him if it means maintaining strict control at home.
What Trump is doing is like a kid's colouring book version of the same thing. It's crude jingoism to shore up his own base with bullshit about Canada and whatever, to build legitimacy based on jingoistic nationalism, and to try to undermine and destroy a liberal / centrist gov't on his doorstep. And, consistent with his "drill baby drill" mantra, it's also an attempt to stop climate change initiatives, to free US capital in Alberta from Canadian regulation, and to maintain/extend American control over our resource sector.
If it was just the trade spat, you might be right.
But there's also Trump repeatedly talking about annexing Canada. That goes well beyond a trade spat, and I would absolutely expect Canada to do more in response because that is in the mix. Including actively working to reduce their dependency on US-sourced or US-transiting products.
Absolutely. Canada is almost certainly going to cancel or severely limit a pending F35 order, and is actively sourcing aircraft and negotiating mutual arms deals with European partners.
Of course, NATO was founded on the assumption that the US is a reliable trading and security partner, and the defense supply chains reflect that assumption. It will take time to untangle those chains, but you're watching all of NATO speed-running that process right now.
I'm sure Rolls Royce expects their order book to grow over the next few decades. Likely some engineers have been tasked with researching the viability of creating drop-in replacement models for American engines.
> It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with.
Yes, but any of those deals will pale in comparison to the opporunities Canada has with the wealthiest next door neighbor in the world. The oceans aren't nothing, the culture differences aren't nothing (no matter how small you try to make them with other Commonwealth countries).
Losing the US as a friend is a massive loss, and nothing will match it.
Honestly as someone who has been building Rails applications for over 15 years now, I find far too many people think they are special and need to stray from the defaults.
You could dismiss almost any company as "if all you're doing is building an X app...". It's a no-true-Scotsman argument.
Even setting that aside, not everything is or should be a land grab. It's notable that all the examples you provided — Amazon (at least, its initial online store product), Uber, Facebook — are all B2C plays and I don't think that's a coincidence.
I tried to ask examples of this yesterday[1], but afaik the patterns seems to be think throwing money at the problems works in undifferentiated, maybe transactional categories like food delivery, ride share, e-commerce etc where the software is not the product, it's just the payment method or the market place. The market places are also localized so you have these countless local turf wars, until you regain some kind of dominance or balance. Then deep tech, hardware etc is harder where you need large initial investment. Social networks because they need the critical mass, and usually there isn't a direct business model available.
I'd argue most b2b/enterprise software is a new version of something that already exists or addressing a need that already has a market. Business model is also very clear, there is very little network effects usually other than reputation and customer proof. Yet most the startups not even close being profitable.
In my mind most software products are differentiated so in the end the main success comes from getting the differentiation right for the market, not outspending the competition.
When trees die, they’re consumed by fungi, and the carbon is sequestered in humus (soil). That’s totally fine, and in fact is an important reason to ensure that planted forests have a fungal culture so this decomposition process occurs properly.
You’re right about fire releasing carbon. But even after devastating fires, forests don’t burn completely and plenty of plant matter remains. Even ash and soot is still sequestered carbon, not to mention charred wood even if the tree doesn’t survive.
If you can get away with a regular index on either a generated column or an expression, then you absolutely should.