aceofspades19

No need for the snark. I live in BC and have been both to the Okanagan & various places in Ontario. My point was that simply something happening at a certain latitude does not necessarily mean anything as you can find all sorts of climates at different latitudes. It's notable that not only is Ottawa (or whatever example you want) is at a certain latitude but that it's traditional climate is rather cold.

There have been wineries in the Okanagan Valley in BC since the 1800s which is farther north than Ottawa. So I am not sure that's a particularly good example.

On what sort of basis do you make the claim that the US is on track to be the only 1st world consumer driven economy 5 years from now? What do you mean by a 1st world consumer driven economy, as opposed to what exactly?

I do agree that having tariffs on certain items to encourage domestic production definitely does work. The tariffs have to be consistent and on things that can actually be produced in the country.

The issue with Trump's approach is that its not consistent, has nothing to do with which products can be made domestically. Changing tariffs daily/weekly/monthly is not going to encourage domestic production.

I find it difficult to believe that AI will ever be able to clone your voice with just one word being said. There is a lot of variety in someone's voice thats not captured with the word "hello". Additionally, people have been saying for years that they can simply record you saying "Yes" and use that to agree to things but I have yet to see an epidemic of that being an issue either.

It's not only that engines have gotten more efficient and powerful, its that they have also increased the reliability. The other issue is that 4 engines share almost all of the failure modes that 2 engines do. If you have 2 engines that fail that are on opposite sides of the aircraft, having 2 others isn't going to help as its likely a system failure in the aircraft or a fault in that particular model of the engine that could affect all of them. For example, if you run of fuel or have a failure in the fuel delivery system, it's not going to matter if you have 2, 4 or more engines. The mistake is thinking the probability of a 4 engine failure is significantly less than 2 engine failure for all types of failures.

Well actually, lots of places have special fuel for farm vehicles that are exempt from certain taxes. It's dyed a certain colour so if you get caught with that colour of fuel in your vehicle you can get in trouble. So its not a crazy thing to suggest that we tax different fuel at different rates.

Where can you get evicted for something like that? The worst case is that they would sue your insurance for damages, or you'd have to pay them out of pocket.

The US has spent a significant amount of money and manpower in the past 70 years to convince countries, not just Canada, to be dependent on them. The US has reaped the benefits of this, such as having military bases abroad, using the US Dollar for trade, easy travel for its citizens etc. So then why is the US upset about countries being dependent on them when they set that system up and received benefits from it?

So therefore that allows the President to go back on a trade agreement he personally signed in his last term? I'm not going to disagree Canada should do more about reducing Fentanyl, nor that Canada can't control it with better policies. I am not clear on why this allows the United States to go back on agreements and allows the President to threaten with tariffs that seem to change weekly.

What modern jetliners are you referring to? the 787 has a sweep back of 32 degrees and a 707 had a sweep back of 35 degrees so not really that much difference. The 737 has a sweep back of 25 degrees and it first flew in the 1960s.

This is not true, winter tires are only mandated on some highways. Winter tires are not required by law throughout the entire lower mainland which is where most of the BC population is.

B-52s aren't subject to the same stress as fighter aircraft are, that's why they are able to keep flying for so long (among other reasons).

> That's simply not true. If it were, then carriers would never have bothered with the administrative overhead of locking phones in the first place. People do respond differently to economic incentives like whether their phone will turn into a brick or not -- that's Econ 101.

Well its not like they have to individually lock each phone they sell by hand and your phone does not turn into a brick if its locked to a carrier. Yes definitely the functionality is drastically reduced but there are also people/services that will unlock your phone for you that don't work for the carrier. Maybe if the phone actually was unable to be used at all if it was locked and you didn't pay the bill, that would be a valid argument.

I can't really agree with just because they do it, it must work argument, I have, and I'm sure you have too, worked for a lot of companies that had policies or practices that did not work.

I worked in customer service for Rogers, a large telecom in Canada before unlocking was mandated. There were lots of customers that did not pay their phone bill despite their phone being locked. If people don't have the money (whether it be their fault or not) they aren't going to pay their phone bill no matter what sort of incentive you give them.

That's not true, it may have been true at one point in time like 20 years ago. Even Bell Canada says you can use your Canadian phone in most countries in the world: https://support.bell.ca/mobility/network_coverage/where_can_... (obviously not super authoritative but they wouldn't tell people their phone worked in a country if it did not.)

It's possible there are some obscure features that may not work properly but for general usage as far as phone calls, texting, data usage, I've never heard of anyone having any issues with their Canadian phone internationally, besides maybe the cost of roaming.If you have a source from recent times that says this, I'd like to see it.

As far as minimal competition goes, there is not an infinite amount of cellphone carriers in the US either that will give you a phone on credit, especially if you have bad credit. I'm sure there are existing ways you can scam phones out of carriers too if you are fine with being banned from the carrier and/or torching your credit.

Why would a carrier give someone a phone if they have bad credit? It's not like they are mandated by law to provide everyone the latest iPhone regardless of credit score.

I worked in customer support for Rogers(A Canadian phone carrier) for a very short period before it was mandated to have unlocked phones and people still stopped paying their bill even if the phone was locked. The vast majority of people want to pay their bills on time especially for something as critical as phone service. The people who don't, are going to not pay their bill no matter what sort of rules in place because they either simply don't have the money or they don't care.

Yeah as a fellow Canadian, I agree. When the unlocking policy was first discussed here, people had the same fears and that people would just run off with the phones. It turns out that people generally don't like being banned from a carrier or getting the hit on their credit.

I don't see why its different than a car really. While some dealerships are adding GPS trackers nowadays, there is nothing stopping you from buying a car on credit and driving it to Mexico and hiding it in a locked garage. It's going to be very difficult to buy another car if you do that though, and that's enough of a deterrence for most people as they have to continue living their lives and eventually buy a new car.

Well there are a number of reasons, the primary reason being is that there is no need for them as any place that supports commercial air transportation has an airport nowadays. So why make a separate model that can't fly inland? Secondly, if its a seaplane vs flying boat, the floats are not good for aerodynamics. I would suspect on flying boats the design compromises to make it work on the water would bring other issues that would make it difficult to compete with land-based aircraft. There are definitely smaller operations, for example in the Pacific Northwest that use seaplanes/amphibians for island hopping, and they are used in bush operations in Alaska and northern Canada. I flew on a seaplane out of Lake Union to do an aerial tour of Seattle.

People made the same argument in Canada but they changed the rules so you either get an unlocked phone or they have to unlock it upon request. Yet there has not been widespread issues of this happening. They can still ding your credit & there is only a small number of carriers so you can only do that so many times before you are going to have serious issues if you don't care about your credit or collections.

Also you can still get the phone unlocked without the carrier anyways if you really want to so it would not deter anyone who really wants to run off with the phone anyways.

I get lots of spam emails threatening all sorts of things, according to my spam email, Scotland Yard, the FBI & Secret Service are all after me if I don't give them my personal information. So yeah if I got a threatening email about imminent violence, I would probably assume its some sort of weird spam email and ignore it.

At least in Canada, you can get an official warning where they fill out the ticket slip but don't fine you. I'm not sure how long its tracked for but it is a real thing. Also I do believe that the car being pulled over is likely logged somewhere usually in the officer's notes.

Loblaws owns a huge variety of grocery stores in Canada and they also have a bank (President's Choice Financial) as well as large real estate holdings. There are a fair amount of places in Canada that only have a Loblaws store in the vicinity. As a Canadian, painting them as some sort of boutique luxury store is very strange to me as they have huge grocery stores and are generally considered to be on the cheaper side. You can see by this graph here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/481019/leading-grocery-r... that Loblaws is probably the biggest grocery retailer in Canada.

I don't see anything referring to testing in https://stripe.com/en-ca/legal/ssa Other than that you are provided test keys and live keys.

My company has hundreds/thousands of ecommerce clients, of which a huge portion use Stripe and we do real card testing every time we deploy code that could affect payments and its never been an issue.

It's actually the TSA that does the frisking in the US at airports.

Its not against the law in France: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/55977/did-franc... I'm not really sure it matters if wifi is not allowed in schools as cellphones are so prevalent now so you aren't stopping anyone from accessing the internet if they really want to.

No, publicly traded companies are beholden to act in the interests of the shareholders which in practicality is fairly vague. All companies are sort of designed to turn a profit or try to as they generally need that to continue existing but there is no legal requirement that they need to create a profit or maximize it, publicly traded or not. Obviously, companies do try to maximize profit as it makes everyone involved money but they don't have to.

But who gets to decide this? How do you prevent people from making new unapproved technology and using it?

Yeah but I can also make a webpage saying I have $10 billion dollars, doesn't mean its a true statement. If it was at least a 3rd party that was auditing it, I would put more stake in it.

Where has it been proven that HCQ does work, and for what exactly? What actual studies have proven this?

I'm in Canada and I have never seen a pump or gas station in the last 10+ years that allow you to pay after filling up. I had thought all the stations have changed since incidents like this: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/attendant-drag...