qball

>For a nation with basically zero chance of invasion of its home soil and an extremely low risk of internal conflict

Clearly the Canadian government doesn't feel the same way. If they tried to conscript they'd quickly find themselves in a civil war (for the same reasons the US would), and one the Canadian capital clearly doesn't believe it'd win given how well it fared defending itself in 2022.

Of course, bureaucrats aren't exactly known for their fighting prowess either. This is mostly a statement that "Toronto/Ottawa doesn't need the rest of the country, it can see to its own defense", and to try and retain/engage the Elbows Up crowd (which, being the only reason the sitting government is in power, is completely understandable).

The same is true of Canada, but to a far greater extent since Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal have a permanent veto on whatever the rest of the country wants. The US political system, for all its other faults, has successfully avoided this problem.

It is not a surprise that region can't find anyone else (in the rest of the economic zone over which it claims dominion) willing to die for its interests, especially when their interests have been revealed to be nothing but "loot the rest of the nation".

Plenty of US citizens openly celebrated the murder of an American for what was protected by the 1A in the US.

So no, I don't think that the people who celebrated that would care, and said people would actively support an administration that actively encouraged the UK in this manner for the same reason.

US doesn't care about mens rea for certain crimes involving speech anyway.

Anti-blasphemy laws, which is what these laws are, don't care about that either.

Google "Operation Chokepoint".

Why would it?

Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home.

After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?

Extraordinary rendition is still a thing, though; the US has done this several times.

Now, granted, the US is a freer country than the UK is so that doesn't usually matter all that much, but all the US would need to do to nullify its 1A would be to simply permit the UK to enforce its claims of extraterritoriality in US-friendly airspace.

What speech they might be permitted to prosecute would naturally change based on administration.

If a country wants its preferred speech control, it can build its own Internet.

>If the goal is energy independence, renewables will provide that more cheaply

The only cheap renewable infrastructure comes from an enemy country and PV solar panels start degrading the moment you install them.

If you think "energy independence" means "be completely and utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing" then sure, solar and wind offer a quick path to that.

But that's not what the term means, it means "don't need to depend on any other country to keep the lights on". And for Western countries nuclear is really the only option there, whether you like it or not.

If you think nuclear is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for the the continual refusal to develop indigenous electric capability the minute things start going sideways.

Garbage software in automotive is guaranteed because it's a cost center. Why bother hiring the best when good enough will do? It's not like the customer has any choice, right?

The only company that doesn't treat it like this is Tesla (and to a point Rivian), but they're software companies that just happen to produce cars rather than the other way around.

All screens (that aren't OLED ones, which aren't generally suitable for cars due to their shorter lifespan) still glow when displaying black.

So it's still a glowing thing in your field of vision. Of course, you're already going to be flash-blinded by retards leaving their LED high-beams on as they pass you, so maybe none of this matters.

Boxing out the next generation with environmentalism as the excuse.

This is also a massive problem in BC; the ALR exists to do exactly this. There's lots of land available, it's just illegal to build anything other than a farm on it, and the real estate market is as a consequence as usurious as you'd expect it to be.

Of course, none of this is new. Enclosure predates the Romans.

They're all in France, whose construction began under a military dictatorship to ensure energy security whenever the US starts a war in a place supplying it with energy.

This strategy was proven decisively correct in 2022, and also applies to solar and wind when the US (and by proxy, the whole West) inevitably gets into it with China and suddenly your degrading solar panels and growing need for energy become major problems (and thus forces you to build out nuclear anyway).

Cost isn't the only factor here, and it would be short-sighted to take the cheaper short-term option by buying Chinese rather than paying our own people to regain and retain that engineering and construction experience we foolishly squandered 30 years ago.

Humans haven't had agriculture for twenty thousand years yet.

Also, this line of inquiry is still just tilting at windmills; "somehow, future Fred Flintstone manages to get a hold of equipment capable of digging out a mile of concrete and yet somehow not know what radiation is" is not a productive line of thinking at best and a bad-faith argument at worst.

Humanity's mechanical capacity to dig that deep actually post-dates its discovery of radioactivity, too. If they have the technology for it for them digging it up to become an issue, they'll be able to identify, trivially, that it is an issue.

Not in this case. There are many different kinds of safeties, and they aren't magic off switches.

Consider a computer program (with a UI mated to underlying mechanics) that talks to a database.

In this case, just because the frontend (the trigger) has a "safety" on it such that it guards against initiating a chain of events that results in something being written to the database, the backend generally remains capable of it anyway.

So, if you have some other logic or condition that can start that API call (let's assume the program fires off a bunch of random inputs to various APIs if you physically drop the computer it's running on, and then you drop it), the DB write may still happen even though it was never triggered from the frontend.

Now, you can do various things to guard against that known behavior- from ensuring the activity chain started on the frontend to physically disconnecting the computer from the database until you're ready to write- but at the end of the day the machine has to be capable of performing the write immediately when commanded, and the sacrifices you're going to make to enable that will be controlled by your engineering and testing.

In this case, the trigger (and other associated safeties) are the "frontend", the mechanical workings are the "backend", and "the gun fires" is "a DB operation".

>Do we have a right to object to speech that promotes and normalizes violence against us?

If men don't, then neither should women, who are murdered at 1/10th the rate men are.

Why not? Payment processors have done it to guns just as much as they've done it to porn, both under the Obama administration.

>the CFO whispering in the board's ear about chargebacks.

Lies: these transactions don't get charged back at a higher rate.

>and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner

Yes, this is what the solar/wind people keep claiming about energy storage.

>the West is unable to build them fast enough

No, the West is unwilling to build them fast enough. Then it chickens out, and the institutional knowledge to build the next plants are lost (so you lose the volume discount).

Regaining and retaining the institutional knowledge to build things may be more expensive in the short term, but it should be done- the fact that a country is capable of building power infrastructure on a whim is vital for its national defense.

This is the hidden cost of buying Chinese solar panels (because once you can't buy from China, or once China is unwilling to sell to you, you'll be paying for your own nuclear infrastructure regardless). And no, other countries' solar panels are not cheaper than nuclear; 'not knowing how to do it ourselves' cuts both ways.

>by the time when Y has been added to the Latin alphabet

Note also that the letter 'Y' is explicitly named 'Greek I' [literal translation] in Latin-descended languages; and then other languages borrowed that name (from the French).

It's not called that in English, of course, but English isn't a Latin-descended language.

Interestingly, the same is not true for 'Z', which is a more direct 'zed' (or 'zet', not like 'd' and 't' are that different) in most (all?) European languages, including the Germanic ones.

Yes, but it turns out that when you stop building stuff (and intentionally hamstring other kinds of building for other reasons) you have to spend a bunch more treasure to figure out how to do it again.

We could have always just not stopped building them- done a reactor every 5 years just to keep that institutional knowledge alive- but that's too long-term for any modern democracy.

>We can build GW scale solar for a third of that amount already.

No. China can (by dodging all the regulatory hurdles we've so wisely imposed, of course), but we can't.

So we have 2 options- we can either pay 0.5x the money to China, gain zero institutional know-how, and in 20 years when the prices have quintupled need to re-learn how to build reactors anyway... or we can spend 1x now to do it up front, then never need to worry about that ever again, and as a bonus don't need to hedge our bets on future technology for storage.

Going with solar is irresponsible, and its TCO higher, when you're thinking beyond the short-term.

>Canadian troops marching

Of the few Canadian troops that exist, most of them are sourced from the West (just like the US, for that matter). It's difficult to prosecute a war without any soldiers.

No; it's actually made the division worse.

Look at the election map: the elected party has near-zero representation west of Ontario (even in the cities where you'd expect it to be, with the exception of Vancouver which is its own thing).

Westerners are unhappy with paying top tax dollar for policies that are intended to destroy Western economic productivity and culture (whether one likes what that is or not is ultimately irrelevant).

Thus- from their perspective- if Easterners cannot be reasoned with, then there's no reason that they should accept Eastern rule as legitimate. Thus the recent moves to, if not outright reject it entirely, renegotiate the amount of political power that their outsized economic productivity (especially per capita) is currently buying them... because for the last 6 years (with every indication that it'll actually be 10+ due to de facto Toronto/Quebec coalition government), it's zero.

The Conservative Party makes more sense as a nascent Bloc Ouest than anything else. And if Eastern voters continue to reject all their reforms, well, there's nothing illegitimate about ending an abusive marriage.

Because we need baseload, reliable power that isn't dependent on foreign goodwill for cost-effective maintenance (which is the problem with solar- Chinese dumping makes the uneducated believe it's cost-effective, but not in a geopolitical context that could conceivably involve our largest trading partner going to war with them).

If you want clean, reliable, infinitely-sustainable energy that isn't dependent on foreign countries, and you're running out of viable places to put multi-gigawatt hydroelectric dams, this is the solution, and this is how much it costs.

If you don't like that, feel free to continue investing in natural gas.

Because it's the one green solution that actually works as base load (other than hydroelectricity, but that's terrain-dependent), works 24/7 without any other affordances, and doesn't open you up to dependence on other nations to anywhere near the same degree.

Solar and wind are only cheap because a foreign nation makes the parts (if they were made domestically they wouldn't be cost-competitive, obviously). So in 20 years, when your PV panels are degrading and your turbines are wearing out, that foreign country's going to be able to charge you a lot more to replace it.

And if you want to see the results of cheap industrial inputs becoming expensive one only need look at the post-Nordstream German/European economic forecast. Even the poor should be able to afford to keep the lights on and the A/C running once the sun has set.

>people who have concerns different than mine

"Trying to abduct my child either directly or by proxy" is not merely a question of polite differing concerns.

That does not mean attempts to defeat them should not be made. Sometimes they even succeed.

Karen delenda est.

The exact same people calling CPS on kids walking down the street claiming it's too dangerous are the people who advocate for turning communities into low-trust economic zones.

The reason it's more dangerous now is because of them. They privatized profit (in this case, the warm fuzzies of addicts shooting up on playgrounds) and socialized risk.

That is pollution. We should clean up that pollution, and ban those who created it from causing more.

>That wouldn't work in US until the whole culture changes.

This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.

It works for Utah (and to a point, Texas); it can work for your polity, too.

When children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State, and they very much are in New World countries, your society is broken.

Early '00s was the peak of computer UX, too.