I'm Canadian. (Full disclosure: an immigrant, like many others here)
Are 30%-40% of Americans really cheering for shredding of the friendship with Canada? Is that supported by some specific survey or are we just looking at approval ratings or some proxy?
Isn't this more or less normal for the USA in the broader perspective? Certainly had some very weird presidents in the past? We had things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement
I feel like we're just not living in normal times. The lack of normalcy is social media, conspiracy theories, politics. This isn't simply a US-Canada relationship question and "return to normalcy" isn't really just about "how do we ensure a certain level of quality of leadership". I'm not even sure what's normal any more ;)
"Our latest survey finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the United States an enemy country, up 15 points from June 2025. At the same time, 64% say their impression of the United States would change if Donald Trump were no longer president."
I find this insane. Also the weighting towards 55+, male, Quebec, is interesting. It says something about how humans are easy to influence IMO. Not exactly a surprise I guess looking at humanity as a whole but something I would have hoped we had some immunity to in free western societies.
“The Great Firewall operates by checking transmission control protocol (TCP) packets for keywords or sensitive words. If the keywords or sensitive words appear in the TCP packets, access will be closed. If one link is closed, more links from the same machine will be blocked by the Great Firewall. The effect includes: limiting access to foreign information sources, blocking popular foreign websites and mobile apps, and requiring foreign companies to adapt to domestic regulations. Due to the Great Firewall, China has one of the lowest cross-border internet traffic rates in the world. Usage of foreign apps in China is minuscule; Asia Society estimated in 2026 that foreign apps blocked by the Great Firewall have extremely low traffic, particularly compared to domestic apps; the top five domestic apps saw traffic that was 1,000 times more than the top five foreign apps.”
Are you suggesting the other side didnt get to dispute that Biden won? There were literally a 100 lawsuits, all of them lost except like 1 on some random technical issue that had zero impact to the results.
The article references Magnet Forensic’s Graykey being used for this. Wikipedia shows its like 15-30k per year[1]. Doubt the relevant exploit is available to the average phone thief.
The German signalling is built around _Fahrstrassen_, literally 'roads to drive on'. Each one has a start and end point, and the station designer comes up with the ones to implement like 'from entry signal X to platform 1'. These 'roads' are usually a strict subset of the physically possible settings of all the switches.
In the old mechanical lever boxes, there were three kinds of levers: 'elements' (switches, derailers, gates), 'roads' and signals. To let a train move along a road, you first had to set all its elements correctly, and the road lever would only unlock when this was done. Pulling the road lever would also lock the associated elements in place. Then, you could 'open' the signal lever associated with the road, which is only unlocked when the road lever is pulled.
The interface in the page is built of modular components for elements and signals, which behind the scenes are connected to 'road' circuits. You select a road by holding the button at the start and pressing the one at the end. This tries to set up all elements along the road correctly, locks them electrically (with relays) if this succeeds, and then switches the signal at the start of the road. Obviously, the safety property is that you cannot set a road (or an individual element) while it is locked by another road, and no two roads can ever conflict with each other.
It works great except it can have z-fighting issues, especially near t-junctions.
I'm wondering if there's a way to calculate scan lines along 2 or more axes, then choose the ones with the least uncertainty.
A similar issue happens with convex hull algorithms. If we wrap along the x axis, we might get a different triangle mesh than if we wrap along the y or z axis, because vertices may be coplanar along an axis. I've considered wrapping along all 3 axes, then choosing the mesh that matches in the most axes.
Is there a general solution for this? Some point clouds have sets of vertices that are coplanar regardless of which axis we use. I suspect that the number of axes needed might be proportional to the number of vertices. I wonder if we could use something like change of coordinates to wrap the mesh from the frame of reference of each vertex.
If we had that technique, we could apply it to Slug and render glyphs having minimal error, regardless of how they're transformed, if we're willing to sacrifice some performance.
The question is whether the people who control the police are subject to democratic processes. They are not. We live in an oligarchy whose control over the government is exercised through two small private clubs who have written themselves into the law. To which it has been decided that infinite money can be donated, that money given without explicit quid pro quo is simply a gift, and that money given after something has been done is simply a "gratuity."*
It's an evil country, and the most lucrative middle-class profession is to generate daily the vocabulary to justify its evil acts.
I can tell you who doesn't ever get searched at the border. In fact, I bet you could tell me. Peter Thiel doesn't get searched at the border. Kamala Harris doesn't get searched at the border. Jeffrey Epstein never got searched at the border. Tom Cruise doesn't get searched at the border.
> I do imagine these panels must have been interactive with all the buttons?
"Spurplan" (roughly "track plan") signalling control panel. To allow a train from point A to point B, you hold down the button at A and then press B. If there's no conflicts, it will set the switches along the way, lock the route (so you can't set a route that interferes) and then "open the signal", as they say in German, at point A.
This was a customizable system built out of standard components, which served its purpose well for a long time. Point your favorite translation tool at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaisstellwerk for more details, or http://www.stellwerke.de/ if you want to go down a rabbit hole.
> Rotte [And I believe this was a way to annotate that something was… fixed, maybe? Or on its way to being fixed?]
Rotte = work gang. Reminder tag to not send a train down there.
The article says the last release of Jython was 2 years ago. I wonder how much it is used these days. It did seem like a good idea when it was first released. I had only tried it out a little at that time.
Weather dependent renewables (wind, solar) are not an alternative to nuclear, even when they are perceived in this way by the public.
From point of view of an electrical grid operator only wind/solar+fossil are alternative to nuclear, if you want to maintain stable electric grid without blackout or rolling blackouts.
Aren't hardware design issues incredibly costly? I highly doubt they're going to "dark software factory" it or they'll be eaten alive by failed launches, product recalls, lawsuits.
You can also synthesize plutonium in particle accelerators without a nuclear reactor, but only in very small quantities and very slowly.
"
Plutonium (specifically, plutonium-238) was first produced, isolated, and then chemically identified between December 1940 and February 1941 by Glenn T. Seaborg, Edwin McMillan, Emilio Segrè, Joseph W. Kennedy, and Arthur Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch (150 cm) cyclotron at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
"
There are interesting designs for Subcritical reactors. A nuclear fission reactor operating without achieving criticality, but with additional neutrons from a particle accelerator.
Numbers like that are almost always the same story. I wasn't familiar with that exact battle [1] but it also matches the pattern. It's not like the peasants actually took on the soldiers, but rather you had some peasants inexplicably leave a town, and organize themselves within a circling of wagons, a 'wagon fort'. That wagon fort was then fully encircled, and 'ambushed' starting with artillery.
The peasants immediately broke and fled, which is where you get the crazy ratios from - fleeing armies are extremely vulnerable and near harmless. Had they fought, they likely would have inflicted far greater casualties on the military forces. However given there were roughly comparable peasant and military forces, the outcome was not in question, so it would have been suicide. Of course so was fleeing.
My math teacher used to say that “obviously” means “I don’t know how to prove” and “trivially” means “tenuously at best”. Thanks for the demo of this in action.
If you consider this the "boldest" claim, I must assume you didn't read Turing's original paper? Here it is, you appear to be making the claim he attributes to Professor Jefferson's Lister Oration for 1949 in section 4: https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf
> If that's a distinction without a difference, as you say, then whenever someone says something they must understand the full contextual meaning of those words and all of their consequences, such that any harmful consequences can be assumed to be deliberate, right?
I think you've set up a straw man in this paragraph: What you say in this paragraph would be to claim that "understanding" is denied even to humans, given none of us can foresee the full consequences of our actions.
In philosophy: justified true belief, the problem with naïve realism, Cartesian demons, etc.
> if saying == understanding, then why don't we allow children and teens to vote? Why do we limit who can enter into contractual agreements? Why does intoxicated consent not count? Why do we have the insanity defense in criminal trials? Why is psychosis a psychiatric disorder and not just an alternative way of perceiving the world?
We do not say children and intoxicated people do not understand, we say their judgement is impaired or limited or that they are easily manipulated.
We also test children (and for intoxication to prevent driving under influence), just as we test AI. The standards we use for testing knowledge in humans, when applied to non-trivial LLMs, makes them appear to have the knowledge of a graduate; the personality tests we use for humans say this comes with the manipulability of a child or a drunk.
In the US, claiming authorship isn't as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for "works of visual art". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as "[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work."; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload.
It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them, it was to ensure you weren’t bringing dangerous goods or produce into the country. It was a physical search of physical items.
The issue now is that my entire life is literally on my phone.
Now, within 100 miles of the border, should CBP choose to, they can search me without a warrant and search everything in my phone, and even retain it if they’d like. If I want to challenge that, I need tens of thousands of dollars and time.
This is the very definition of an unreasonable search; but to change that we have to change the politicians and change the judiciary. It’s up to us, but until we get it changed, we may as well consider the 4th amendment a dead letter, and that means trouble for all of us.
> You are talking about someone who gets zero matches at all
No, I'm not.
> People are far more willing to pay to upgrade a good experience than they are to pay to try to improve a bad one
This is an assumption and one I believe is false. My belief is that people are more risk-averse rather than they are risk-taking [1]. People don't care to upgrade when they're winning.
> Further, an unappealing profile that gets zero likes will continue to get zero likes after they upgrade to a paid subscription.
Not matching with someone does not mean they have 0 likes. The platform just isn't incentivized to show you who likes you for free. Concretely we can take Tinder as an example. They will show you that someone likes you even when they won't show you who. Swiping enough to find the person who likes you usually takes countless hours.
> This user is far more likely to get frustrated and uninstall after a few minutes than if they were to download the app and be shown profiles that are appealing
If you're extending this to anything past the first profiles shown, this is simply untrue. You just need to dangle a carrot in the form of "someone likes you," even when the person liking you is a bot account.
> The BWRX-300 footprint is so large they might as well just build large nuclear power units again and get 3-4x the power
There's other factors to consider.
For example: in some areas there were small/medium coal-fired plants built right by the coal mines, and so have some grid infrastructure already present. You could replace the coal-fired component with an SMR and have a good portion of the rest of the infrastructure as-is (not have to spend effort / political capital on more grid pylons, which many folks oppose).
Or, for a smaller regional area, having more smaller units allows for more HA since each individual unit can be serviced independently. E.g., in Canadian Maritimes there is a big CANDU, which serves just fine when online, but when it goes offline it needs to be backstopped. Their demands need (say) 'only' 600 MW, and instead of 1x600MW, having 2x3GW allows for more HA. So if one units goes offline for maintenance/inspection the backstop that is needed is much less.
Went around the internets to find the one I thought of and while I can't find it - doesn't surprise me - it was something very much like a cross between Denshi Block (connectors) and Braun Lectron (aesthetics)
There was a point in relatively recent history where, once people met in the workplace, the woman would be expected to leave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_bar
Are 30%-40% of Americans really cheering for shredding of the friendship with Canada? Is that supported by some specific survey or are we just looking at approval ratings or some proxy?
Isn't this more or less normal for the USA in the broader perspective? Certainly had some very weird presidents in the past? We had things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement
I feel like we're just not living in normal times. The lack of normalcy is social media, conspiracy theories, politics. This isn't simply a US-Canada relationship question and "return to normalcy" isn't really just about "how do we ensure a certain level of quality of leadership". I'm not even sure what's normal any more ;)
https://leger360.com/in-the-news-canada-us-trade-war-canadia...
https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/OMNI_tradewa...
"Our latest survey finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the United States an enemy country, up 15 points from June 2025. At the same time, 64% say their impression of the United States would change if Donald Trump were no longer president."
I find this insane. Also the weighting towards 55+, male, Quebec, is interesting. It says something about how humans are easy to influence IMO. Not exactly a surprise I guess looking at humanity as a whole but something I would have hoped we had some immunity to in free western societies.