solox3

Canada and the US were not in an exclusive relationship.

> US President Donald Trump earlier called the idea "laughable" and threatened "very serious tariffs" on Europe if he considered it a "hostile act".

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.

Did this move improve the ratio of gender representation in the software development community?

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.

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.

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"?

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.

> Core 2 Duo

Is that not one of Intel's trademarks from the past 20 years?

That's because the article was from 2019.

Novel idea: move these mattresses onto the floor?

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.

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth:

1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in.

2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by dosage (and frequency), which is, again, what is required from the brief to make that claim.

Again, while I don't necessarily disagree with what's in the report, and that it is already established that drinking too much is not good for the heart, considering many otherwise toxic substances have a hormetic zone, it is critical that a study like this rules out the its existence for ethanol.