I have a 40in 5k (32in 4k, but wider). IMHO, 138ppi is the bare minimum, but it really depends on a person's eyesight and preferences.
I would love a large-ish ultra-wide with > 160ppi. One day, maybe, that being said, by that time those things will exist and be reasonably priced, my eyes might not be able to appreciate the difference.
I'm using three 4k 32" screens arranged vertically, for 6480 x 3840 desktop size.
The only real monitor upgrade I'm willing to entertain is a ~50" 8k curved screen (basically a curved TV-sized screen), which has not been made yet AFAIK. I'm not into "ultrawide", for me it has to be "ultrawide" and "ultratall". I want all that screen real estate in high PPI.
I tried test-driving a 50" 4k TV for a week and the flatness of it was not what I wanted, it has to be a curved screen for workstation use.
100% I used to have a 43-inch 4K "monitor" (16:9). The lack of curvature meant that at the sides of the screen, there was noticeable color shifting due to variations in viewing angle. That's with an IPS panel.
Your dream is probably a ~50in 8K TV (with RGB pattern if you are on macOS), but curved. I don't know if that will ever exist.
Personally, I found that with a bigger 16:9, I would not use the top and bottom of the screen. When I "downgraded" to a 40in ultra-wide, there was not much difference in the space I was using.
What planet are those people on? That's Gucci bag territory. They can take their res and shove it, that's almost NINE GRAND (granted, Canadian pesos) for a freakin display! Who is this for, just Pixar employees?
And how much do you think the Humanscale mount costs that you would otherwise use? The Pro Display XDR is too heavy for a $30 Amazon Basics mounting arm or anything similarly cheap.
In terms of pixel count it's between Apple's 5k and 6k monitors, and its pricing is between the two. It's also far lower pixel density. So, not really.
big auto style manufacturing was never going to be competitive, and propping it up is a jobs program. Just pay them to dig holes and fill them in, and let Canadians have a competitive vehicle market
That's basically it. The Chinese government views the rest of the world through Hobbesian self interest, but in the late 20th century financial way. They want your money, but lawfully.
The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
> Lawfully? How many IPs have they stolen from universities and companies across the world?
Probably about the same as the US when it was a developing nation. "How the United States Stopped Being a Pirate Nation and Learned to Love International Copyright":
> From the time of the first federal copyright law in 1790 until enactment of the International Copyright Act in 1891, U.S. copyright law did not apply to works by authors who were not citizens or residents of the United States. U.S. publishers took advantage of this lacuna in the law, and the demand among American readers for books by popular British authors, by reprinting the books of these authors without their authorization and without paying a negotiated royalty to them.
> Despite political independence, the United States remained dependent on imports for manufactured goods. The conflicts between the European Powers and the Embargo of 1807 severely disrupted trade between the United States, Great Britain, France and Asia. Lowell reached the conclusion that to be truly independent, the United States needed to manufacture goods at home. In June 1810, he went on a two-year visit with his family to Britain. ... Lowell developed an interest in the textile industries of Lancashire and Scotland, especially the spinning and weaving machines, which were operated by water power or steam power. He was not able to buy drawings or a model of a power loom. He secretly studied the machines. In Edinburgh he met fellow American Nathan Appleton who would later become a partner in the Lowell mills. As the War of 1812 began, Lowell and his family left Europe and on their way home, the boat and all their personal belongings were searched at the Halifax port to ensure that no contraband was being smuggled out of Great Britain. Lowell had memorized all the workings of British power looms without writing anything down.
> Samuel Slater (June 9, 1768 – April 21, 1835) was an early English-American industrialist known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution", a phrase coined by Andrew Jackson, and the "Father of the American Factory System". In the United Kingdom, he was called "Slater the Traitor" and "Sam the Slate" because he brought British textile technology to the United States, modifying it for American use. He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21.
---
Industrial espionage and acts that would be considered patent infringement in today's timeframe were key parts of the early independence for the United States.
Yeah, people forget that IP is a social construct, and there's no reason a different society can't simply have different constructs. Open source / Free software is a different social construct too; and Stallman would have us live in a world where nobody is enriching themselves with proprietary technology they exert unfair control over.
Problem has always been ensuring that people who have brilliant ideas get appropriately rewarded for their contribution to humanity - but not disproportionately.
Taking your China comment in good faith: the copyright term on paper has long elapsed anyway, even if there's Mickey Mouse drawn on the paper in question.
Intellectual property as it exists and is used today overwhelmingly is used to stifle competition and lock down monopolies. It's used to project power internationally by deputizing foreign countries to protect American business interests. It's a far cry from how it's popularly presented as a way for the "little guy" to protect their inventions.
Japan did the same in the 70s/80s while growing their homegrown tech companies, over time it seems they've been forgiven. In the end we all benefitted with better products from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and many others.
I very much agree. Technology moves far too fast in this century for companies, who will only need to invest less as AI improves, to have a monopoly over things that would inevitably (or were already) also being developed. It made sense when you invested 20 years into the research for a thing, back when that was necessary due to the slower pace. People had to travel places more often, spent more time doing so, communications took longer, and generally everything took significantly more time. Those policies served companies well in the last century. These days a grad student tested something on a weekend, a professor viewed the results in the morning and a reaction is already in progress. It simply isn’t reasonable anymore; they should have a right to recoup a reasonable costs, of course, paying off their investment. When that investment becomes a company worth more than at least 50% of the others, maybe they should need to compete more, not less? Make them innovate to maintain customers rather than simply sit on their patents. Just an opinion, but I believe that internal competition will only help us innovate.
"stolen" should not be used in conjunction with IP, "infringed" if you like.
To steal is to deny the original owner access to their property.
That is true for physical objects, if I steal your wallet or your car you no longer have it.
But if I illegally copy some of your IP you still have access to it.
Sure you may experience some financial prejudice from that but you still have it.
Their train industry was built on ripping off companies they forced into poor agreements. They have wrecked industries with technological theft. I suppose it’s lawful from the CCP perspective.
No they don’t. Source: me, lived/worked in China for 6 years. There are two rules: 1) to the strongest (doesn’t matter how you get there, 2) make/keep the right connections (guanxi) that will “apply” regulations to your benefit. Most cut-throat place I’ve ever worked.
it's not comparable, not by a long shot; the level of insider dealing, corporate theft, and corruption, is nothing like what's in the US (that is until Trump 2.0)
Well, I mean, the US is straight up demanding money from its allies (in the form of an "investment agreement" exclusively controlled by the Trump government), and threatening them with economic doom if they don't comply.
Stealing IPs from universities almost look quirky in comparison.
Probably around the same amount of IP that US citizens stole from the UK in the 19th century. We stole loads of inventions during the Industrial Revolution.
Does it surprise you to find out that a lot of old money families in the US made their money smuggling opium and other similarly unethical things? We are a nation of crooks and thieves and always have been.
I ask anyone reading this comment to please study history more frequently, it will help you understand the world better.
The Chinese can just request IPs from APNIC too, you know. Or are you referencing the shenanigans with AFRNIC? That still isn't stealing them from companies and universities though. Is there some ongoing mass BGP route hijacking I'm not aware of?
Fine, I’ll bite. What exactly did China steal in 2025, who did they steal it from, which authorities did the victims approach in China for redress, where did they report failing to get redress?
You would have to know all the above for it to be real.
>The US has turned into something much more vindictive and unpredictable, including threatening to invade Canada.
The thing about China is that they are basically hard on the up slope of their advancement as a society/economy/nation, just like US was post ww2.
US on the other hand, has flatlined to the point where we think stuff like trans athletes in sports are a drastic enough reason to elect a president who is a convicted Felon.
China is def gonna outpace US in the next 10 years as the strongest economy, but the interesting thing is gonna be is if they are gonna fall in the same trap as US does in 20 or 30 years.
The US definitely peaked a long time ago, and we're in the slow demise phase of its empire, but I think China has already peaked as well. They have the same obesity and consumerism crises that have plagued the US. Add to that a demographic implosion, and I think the best they can do is hope for 20 more years.
Next 20 years is when PRC will really start cooking. In that period, PRC going to be doubling/tripling skilled workforce more than they have now (currently slightly above parity with US), this is already baked in from past 20 years of birth and current tertiary trends. That workforce, the greatest high skill demographic dividend in recorded history, will hang around for another 40+ years. They will have 40-60 years of operating with as much high end talent as OECD combined within a coordinated system. Past 2080, unless they sort out TFR, things could go bad, but for relevant timeframes, i.e. most of our lifetimes, they're going to be peaking.
> Next 20 years is when PRC will really start cooking. In that period, PRC going to be doubling/tripling skilled workforce more than they have now
The population pyramid for 2045 for China is not favorable ( https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2045/ ). Currently the 30-39 bracket is 121 million, but by 2045 it will be about 83 million.
You could be arguing that the percent of skilled labor workforce in there will be going up over the next 20 years - but the size of the bracket is drastically decreasing while it becomes more and more weighted to the 65-85 age bracket.
Excuse wall of text. TLDR Generic demographic doomer math based on naive reading of demo pyramid fails in PRC case (and many others), demographics =/= destiny, i.e. doesn't account PRC social economic factors. Not all cohorts are equal in income/education disparate country like PRC, where old cohorts are literally worth "less", which allows PRC to arbitrage between young/educational/rich vs old/uneducated/poor.
1) Workforce is 20-60yos, conservatively ~600m (more with retirement reforms) in 2045, roughly 2-3x US workforce with disproportionate STEM bias. If current tertiary trend keeps up, that's 6-8x US STEM workforce backed by RoW combined in automation synergy, which will slowly decline over decades, and since white collar they can hang around much longer past retirement unlike blue collar. Now the 2045 demo pyramid is not favourable for 2065 talent generation and if no fix, trend towards disastrous by 2080s, but in terms of actual absolute high skill workforce advantage vs competitors, it's almost unassimilable amount combined with industrial density for like 50 years. That's within the timeframe of building hegemons.
2) For 2045s 65-85s - they are overwhelmingly old/poor (undereducated, left behind by modernisation). They "weigh" SUBSTANTILLY economically less than their actual headcount. The bottom 2 quantiles of PRC constitutes <10% of GDP, each skilled young-rich workforce making just median income replaces ~6 low productively elderly. People fixate on the 4:2:1 dependency ratios as if each generation is weighted the same like in advanced economies - they're not - PRC's income disparity is huge buffer against dependency ratio. Those 65-85s are tail gen of worth "less" cohorts who will also die magnitude richer than any generation before them. This also not considering PRC has 90%+ home ownership rate, some of the highest savings in the world, i.e. the 4:2 generation is brought up to depend on themselves. This is a very different cohort to caretake for - PRC is not advanced economy demo composition, where paycheck to paycheck new gen are increasingly less rich/young than previous gen but still has to prop up onerous social welfare net for rich/old. PRC is unequal society where new gen massively more productive than old gen, has high savings culture, many geographic income disparities to arbitrage COL, and high home ownership, i.e. you can throw all the elderly in a nicer tier4 city where COL is peanuts. People don't realize PRC old before rich is a FUCKING BLESSING, i.e. they're not even JP/SKR where old is now rich and a high burden, where they tapped out on skilled workers as % of workforce with lower home ownership and savings rate, and uniform geographic economy means they can't dump old in substantially cheaper COL regions.
Finally flip side of 4:2:1 ratio, where the 4:2 has high savings + property) is once older generation starts to croak = multiple wealth transfers to younger gen (at least in terms of property). If extrapolated (this is speculative but mechanically likely) much of current PRC TFR issues is combination of excess competition and delayed family formation due to absolutely brrting tertiary in compressed period where talent:job supply:demand are mismatched. Current cohorts are growing up in fucked period where 20m new grads were competing for 15m jobs, vs near future where 10m new grads are pick and choosing from 15m+ jobs. By 2030s, aka when most current skilled cohorts are established it's going to be MUCH easier justify having kids, because projected involution pressure will be gone, no need to be top 1% of gaokao etc, unless AGI and crazy automation because their kids will be guaranteed to enter society with stupid amount of job vacancies / opportunities, and likely multiple properties. Like the natural outcome of current demo structure is most PRC new gen will have roof over head, not live paycheck to paycheck, and once cost of competitive child rearing goes, because every child guaranteed job, all current factors stalling family formation disappears. Of course other factors can throw this off, but this is likely where current PRC demo + social economic factors will converge.
For all intents and purposes, Xi is worth far more than anyone in the west could dream of. It may not be reflected in stock certificates and bank balances, but if money is just the potential energy of power, Xi can do more than every US billionaire combined.
>US on the other hand, has flatlined to the point where we think stuff like trans athletes in sports are a drastic enough reason to elect a president who is a convicted Felon.
This is very one-sided and unfair. The trans stuff is indicative of a larger social movement. For example, in the U.S., it would be illegal to use IQ tests to hire employees while in China, that's practiced. China is far more meritocratic. The U.S. is driven far more by ideology, and the trans stuff is an example of that.
And someone on the other side of the aisle would point to the prosecution of Donald Trump as politically motivated, where opponents found an obscure law that he violated and charged him with 34 counts based on the 34 forms he submitted with the expense mislabelling.
> China is far more meritocratic. The U.S. is driven far more by ideology, and the trans stuff is an example of that.
I'm guessing you never lived and worked in China before? People who get jobs because of guanxi are not rare, even today, and ideology is far more important in China than in the US, it is just that the ideology is very different from what people are used to in the states.
Hobbesian self-interest refers to the idea that human actions are primarily motivated by the desire for personal gain or advantage. This concept is central to Thomas Hobbes' political philosophy, where he argues that without a strong governing authority, individuals would act solely out of self-interest, leading to a chaotic and violent state of nature.
The Chinese government’s territorial claims in the South China Sea show near-total disregard for international law. China has constructed heavily militarized artificial islands roughly 200 kilometers from the Philippine coast — and more than 1,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland — in order to assert control over waters that, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and a binding 2016 ruling by an international arbitral tribunal, lie squarely within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. China lost the case on the merits and simply rejected the ruling.
(Obama administration, although not personally his fault)
We could also discuss the provision of Armalite rifles to terrorist groups in the UK, Iran-Contra (an early accountability failure paving the way for pardon abuse), and so on.
The actual reason was lobbying from US companies that were completely losing the competition because of the much lower price for the same or higher quality. But of course, we can try to come up with stories that don't hurt the patriotism ego.
Yep. I don't know if anyone is interested in anecdotes, but looking from Europe, I will do my best to avoid any kind of US dependency until US has a) overhauled the legal system starting from the Supreme Court and b) gotten rid of the de facto two-party system. (No, one-party system does not count.)
The two-party system is fine. We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life. But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
The efficacy of US democracy has eroded over time, and it's clear we're going to need reforms to preserve democratic governance for future generations.
Every branch of the federal government has experienced a decline in democratic accountability.
The House is so gerrymandered that only 10% of seats are remotely competitive each year, and it hasn't kept up with population growth.
The Senate is permanently gerrymandered, with state population differences that are far more disproportionate than what was originally designed for and intended when the Constitution was written.
This combined with hyper-partisanship prevents the US from accepting new states like Washington DC (population 700,000+) and Puerto Rico (population 3.2 million), depriving millions of US citizens from Congressional representation (no, non-voting representatives don't count).
The Supreme Court has become hyperpartisan, and appointments are a high stake circus that rely on arbitrary retirements and deaths. They need to be elected at this point to preserve democratic legitimacy.
As for the Presidency... the Electoral College has resulted in the election of the loser of a popular vote twice in 25 years.
I don't know how reform will happen, or if we'll ever see it in my lifetime but we desperately need it. The US government needs to be accountable to the people again.
Democracy is precious, and it's so tragic to see how much it's declined.
States with a total of 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The effort appears to be stalled, but there are 209 votes from states who've already passed the law (which is in effect only once 270+ electoral votes are reached).
The Supreme Court's composition can be changed with a law, and the most popular option appears to be 18 year terms, staggered so that there are two appointments for each presidential term. The court can also be expanded, and should be to 13 (one for each circuit).
Gerrymandering is a serious problem, and would properly be solved by coming up with some algorithmic way of drawing districts. But for practical purposes this unlikely to ever happen. But I'm hopeful because of the effort of Democratic states to recognize the gerrymandering and turning it into a standoff of sorts. To date, there's been no reason not to gerrymander if you can do it, and Republicans have seriously overreached.
No, its not, as anyone who has paid even a slight amount of attention to the study of comparative government among modern nominal representative democracies would recognize.
> We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
Parliamentary systems can be two-party and multiparty systems do not need to parliamentary, so you are starting with a false dichotomy. And the problem you describe is less often a problem with multiparty systems (parliamentary or otherwise) than two-party systems, because the reliance on ad hoc coalitions means that there is much more likely to be the option of replacing a faction that is leveraging its marginal role in creating a majority to wag a coalition that is a small part of, whereas a small faction within a major party in a two party system that is crucial to maintaining a partisan majority cannot practically be defied without the rest of the party surrendering its majority, giving it much more power than a minor coalition partner in a multiparty system.
(Parliamentary or semi-presidential systems are also generally better than presidential systems, but that's a whole different issue from the multiparty vs. two-party issue.)
> The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life.
The first two of those are also problems (though actually being a Presidential system is a bigger problem, and a problem without which the electoral college would be moot.) The third is simply inaccurate.
> But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
The Supreme Court decision on how amendments can be ratified (basically, however Congress decides) does not substantially limit what amendments can be passed. And it is the first two are set in the Constitution, the third (even using the correct current number of 9) is not, and can be changed (that the Supreme Court exists and that federal judges have lifetime tenure as federal judges are set in the Constitution, the number of seats on the Supreme Court, whether that number is fixed or floating over time, and the tenure of judges on the Supreme Court separate from their tenure as federal juddges is not; all of those can be changed by statute. If Congress wanted to make Supreme Court justices appointed for a fixed term of years from among the set of lifetime federal judges, that would be possible. If Congress kept lifetime tenure for justices, decided to have one appointed every 2 years regardless of the current size of the court, and have the Chief Justice appointed for 4 year terms from among the sitting justices, that would work too.)
Is it? Many western countries are having more or less prominent populist right wing movements, and the two countries I can think of where that movement has gotten its hand in power on really significant issues during the last decade or so are UK and US. Both strongly two party systems at the time of the "interesting" developments. And I do not think a two party system is typical, I am sure there are some countries happily trodding along with their two political parties, but they are not the rule.
> We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote.
The American two-party system gave massive power to a tiny fraction of the population, which the large Republican party then retconned into most of their members as their party platform. Now they're a large fraction of the population. I'd choose the approach where the small faction remains its own small faction, even if they occasionally get to pull the levers of power.
Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ?
As an American I keep trying to surmise what we're going to need to do to start repairing the damage from this massive self-own. It's kind of hard because we don't know where the bottom will be, but we at least need to start having these discussions on what constructive approaches might even look like - we can't have our milquetoast opposition party phoning it in yet again with entitlement as the less-bad option.
External context is key - one of the main goals of this hybrid warfare attack on the western world has been to disrupt our relationships with our allies, and also because other countries have developed Democracies that function way better than ours. So please know that at least some of us are listening.
> Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ?
Well, if you ask my other wishes, once Europe has gotten its act straight and decides to tax/tariff/regulate/whatever (american) big tech to hell and back, I kind of would expect that any decent person on that side of the pond would just humbly nod their head and note that, yes, we/they deserved it.
I think domestically we need some analog of the EU's GDPR, as table stakes for preventing the surveillance industry ("big tech") from amassing so much power over the People that they're inclined to try for another coup.
We also need some kind of antitrust enforcement against the forced bundling of products from the distinct categories of hardware devices, network services, and client software.
Those should leave us with a similar environment to the EU. Beyond that, sure tax away, whatever. If we've done our job right domestically, these services should be a lot easier to value in terms of subscription fees rather than nebulous values siphoned away from surveillance subjects.
No, the US, through its government (which is not just the executive branch) as chosen (in theory, via election) and, in practice, tolerated by its population at large.
It's not just Trump. If the US decided not to follow him he would have no power.
This is a point in time for the US and there are institutional paths to change. The comparisons to China forget that China does not have the same mechanisms for change. China is an immutable state outside of revolution or the administration just deciding to transfer power.
If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028.
> If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028.
But again, and I say that as a European, we don't really care: what we see is the position of the US no matter if it is coming from your congress, president, secretary or whatever.
China hasn't dropped bombs on foreign soil in over 40 years. The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
I think this "China evil" framing is a smear, like how Republican conspiracy theories used to say Democrats are pedophiles. Guess where the real pedophiles were hanging out the whole time.
And the only thing that stopped in Xinjiang is the news coverage and press access.
I find it deeply ironic that for some, the vibes have shifted towards "hey maybe the CCP isn't all that bad" just because...what, the solar buildouts make them look more competent and long-sighted compared to your local upstart authoritarian party? Such is the nature of vibes, I suppose.
> The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago.
There are an estimated 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps currently [1], but you are correct - neither that, nor the invasion of Tibet, nor whatever process they used to turn a diverse part of a continent into a Han ethnostate [2], or block the NYTimes app from their phones, involved dropping bombs on foreign soil.
There are ~ 2 million black men incarcerated in the united states, many engaging in what is effectively modern slavery. I don't think we can effectively weigh human rights atrocities between nations, but the U.S. is certainly not "better" than China in many respects.
I was not "weighing between nations", I was responding to: "I think this "China evil" framing is a smear"
> There are ~ 2 million black men incarcerated in the united states
In 2019, whites+hispanics committed 0.92x as many homicides as blacks [1], but their 2021 incarceration numbers were 1.72x that of blacks (0.75x for non-hispanic whites alone) [2]. Using homicide to estimate criminality, because it is immune to over-policing.
So, per crime committed, blacks are less, not more, likely to be jailed. But it sure looks pretty damning if you ignore behavior, and don't compare to others!
Now maybe you still think the US incarcerates too many people in general, regardless of race. Well, then I welcome you to calculate the ratio of the incarceration and homicide rate, and compare the US one to that of some other countries.
Using homicide numbers when the point was about overall incarceration statistics is disingenuous at best, and a wildly racist diatribe worthy of a significant scolding at worst. Murder / homicide account for a small single digit percentage of all incarcerated people in the US.
Honestly a bit disgusted to have even read what you wrote here. Shameful.
Edit for more substance: your use of homicide numbers belies the common racist American stereotype of blacks as not only a violent, but coddled minority. The fact that your mind would even begin to think that it’s fair to compare 2 million incarcerated black people to the 3-5% of people who are incarcerated for murder for a statistical gotcha is despicable.
As an American I'm rooting for everyone else these days. Good for Canada. I hope the EU builds stronger trade with China too and America gets left in the cold to whither and die. Trump, Vance, Miller, Noem, Musk, Bezos all of them just forgotten about and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.
I feel the same way about the US, but China is even worse. It’s basically what the US is becoming but still further down the road of authoritarianism. So I’m not rooting for it. EU, Canada, Japan etc are a better allay this point.
When the Chinese press criticizes Xi in the way that the non-Fox press criticize Trump, I'll start listening to such claims. Until then, you're showing either massive ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth.
Now that Bari Weiss is running CBS there’s at least one fewer network to worry about. But you’re right, there’s still plenty of Trump criticism to be found, for now.
You realize there are a lot people (who aren't in the administration and didn't vote for them) that would be significantly hurt if all that happened. These people are your family, your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. You hate Trump so much that you'd prefer to see all those people suffer than have him succeed?
I strongly disagree with most of what Trump says and does, but I can't root for an outcome that would make my kids' quality of life be much worse. I'd much rather see us right the ship.
Do you think maybe I created the account so that I could post it and not feel afraid of repercussions, because I live in a fascist country run by thugs?
I'm really into geopolitics, and it's clear to see what's happening from the US side.
America still wants to play hegemon, but since Bretton Woods 2.0 didn't happen, they're going to lock up the entire North and South American continents from Chinese and Russian influence. And it'll be fierce.
The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next.
(Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Venezuela wasn't about drugs or oil, it was about China. And it wasn't Trump's thing, it was the career DoD folks. (Venezuela is within medium-range missile range of 50% of US oil refineries. The US doesn't want foreign basing there or in Cuba.)
The DoD is pushing Greenland too as it'll be a centerpiece of Arctic shipping in the coming century. And Cuba, as it's both extremely close to CONUS and a choke point for the gulf.
You can see the plays happening if you watch. The Chinese-owned Panama Ports Company being forcibly sold to BlackRock, the increasing trade and diplomatic ties between China and South American countries, etc.
My bet is that a Democratic president would continue this policy, just with less rudeness and more "cooperation". The Department of Defense -- apolitically -- doesn't want China to have the US within arms reach.
Trump is going to try to speed run it, though.
---
edit: downvotes rate limit my account, so I can't respond.
> I would love to hear how you think Trump will manage to get Alberta and Saskatchewan to become US states within this century.
It's going to nucleate from within Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Are you an American? Because this feels like a very US-centric view. I know you're not advocating for this, but it feels like the predictions you've set out for Canada are hitting this intrinsic bias that people who are really into geopolitics always have - they always think about the world as a fully-informed chess game where everyone always makes optimal moves, and they're biased towards predicting sweeping world-changing events that rarely happen due to a multitude of issues. The few major events that do happen often end up unraveling in completely different ways than the internet had predicted.
The Albertan separatism thing is largely drummed-up due to American aggression towards Canada, it slots right into the news cycle alongside threats of annexation that Canada was getting not that long ago. That being said, even in a province as conservative as Alberta, it remains a fringe view, even though some politicians are now willing to say the quiet part out loud. Consider how hard Quebec had tried to secede on multiple occasions, and yet despite having a far stronger case and far more supporters, still failed every time. Talking about Saskatchewan is just trying to lump them in with the Albertans, where in reality that group is even more niche.
But then talking about Yukon and the Northwest Territories just makes this look like enthusiastic map-painting. The reality is, both of these places are overwhelmingly indigenous, and they'd have no reason to ever want to not be part of Canada. Also, they're both territories, which in many ways means they're ruled directly by the federal government, a.k.a. you won't be getting those short of a military invasion or completely ruining the rest of the country to the point where they can just cut it all up.
I kinda agree with you. The US policy won't change much. It is a set policy but not very well executed, simply because such a policy is not in the interest of existing power base, so someone new but crude has to be elected, and that's why he got elected not once, but TWICE.
My understanding is that US is going to shrink back a bit, takes care of its neighbours first, but keep its probing bases intact, so that it can slash some costs and be more flexible in next decades. China is going to reluctantly expand its power base gradually -- but I think it's going to be a slow expansion because any rapid one would either fail, or create a new power group within China, that may threaten the existing players.
Not sure about EU though, it better gear up quickly.
>There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next. (Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)
Disagree.
1. If any Canadian province becomes an American state (with electoral votes), the Republicans won't win an election for the next 100 years. Even if it's Alberta.
2. Alberta likely won't secede unless they get full statehood. Nobody wants to be another Puerto Rico.
3. I think if you did a referendum in Alberta today (even with full US statehood on offer), the votes to secede would number over 10%.
Remember, Quebec in 1995: 50.58% voted to stay, with a turnout of 93.52%. And they were all but ready to leave to the point of engaging in IRA-style terrorism.
Also, the famous failure of Brexit all but precludes any such referendums from getting serious wind in our lifetimes.
The FLQ killing two politicians (one being accidental*) is very far removed from the scope of the IRA's terrorism. They were infiltrated to the bone by the RCMP that was trying to get them to escalate to put the war measure act in place and engage in a massive intimidation campaign on the massive peaceful and liberal part of the independence movement, something that is quite reminiscent of what is currently happening in Minneapolis.
*They did kidnap him but didn't intend to kill him, they were dumb revolted teenagers who fucked up.
> The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it.
The polling puts it at 20% support and 80% opposed. This is not going to happen. As a Canadian who was born in Alberta and has lived in Alberta all my life, I will be remaining in Canada.
It's not bad analysis, I upvoted you, but what you're forgetting is that nothing ever happens. Venezuela was just typical American meddling, Cuba might happen (I'd bet against it) but neither the Canada nor Greenland thing is going to happen because it would be too dramatic for narrative continuity.
> neither the Canada nor Greenland thing is going to happen
Greenland is happening, and will be underway soon. It's just a matter of how much international support it will have initially, and how the USA will strong arm support.
Canada is on the back burner after the realization that a country with a leader who was the Governor of the national banks of two major countries might know a thing or two about economic warfare.
> It's just a matter of how much international support it will have initially, and how the USA will strong arm support.
That's where i think France have dropped the ball with its last presidents. Any pre-2007 president would have already declared Greenland as "EU, thus France sovereign interest" and reiterated French nuclear doctrine since 1964 (One warning shot, then tactical nukes, aiming for the army/supply and not civilian infrastructure). Macron will never do that, because if you say it, you have to follow up.
Our official delegation left the Greenland delegation IN TEARS, and we pronounced 'it's happening' afterwards. These aren't shit posters on Twitter, these are our officials and our President ACTIVELY working to take over Greenland.
If Greenland was happening, what's taking them so long? The military could take it without a fight tonight, or last month for that matter.
They want it, but can't take it because it would be too shocking for the public (aka violating narrative continuity.) If they can prepare the public to accept it then it might happen, but most magas I talk to treat it like a joke, trolling the Europeans to make them invest in defense or something. I don't think the American public earnestly believes it will happen, and for that reason I think it won't happen.
Time may prove me wrong, we'll all find out eventually.
> If Greenland was happening, what's taking them so long?
Other priorities.
Plus, they need to arrange some international support to ensure that enough countries recognize the transition. That takes time to put into place both the carrots (weapons for Middle Easterners) and sticks (tariffs for Europeans).
Once this happens, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and maybe Egypt, Japan, SK, will recognize the transition as official.
It is not trolling when OUR OFFICIAL DELEGATION left Greenland's in tears. This is OFFICIAL POLICY, OFFICIAL DIPLOMACY and has nothing to do with MAGA, memes, jokes.
If I asked you 2 months ago 'do you think Trump will steal tankers of Venezuelan oil using the US military, sell the oil, and deposit the funds in accounts setup offshore in the middle eastern country that gave him a free jumbo jet?' would you have said 'there is no way that will happen'?
I'm sick of the 'it's just Trump being Trump' when no one would treat any other politician that way. No, it is the US President, who sent an official US delegation, which, when it left (after reducing Greenlands official delegation to tears) continued to say 'we are taking Greenland'. Fuck off with 'it's just Trump being Trump'. It is the United States President.
I'm not saying that it's trolling, I do think they genuinely want Greenland at least. I'm saying MAGA people, the portion of the voting public which actually support the administration, think it's trolling. The level of genuine support for it is virtually zero. That's the reason it hasn't already been done.
I hope I'm not talking to a wall here, because I already clearly explained this above: "most magas I talk to treat it like a joke, trolling the Europeans to make them invest in defense or something. I don't think the American public earnestly believes it will happen, and for that reason I think it won't happen."
W.r.t "other priorities", logistically it would be trivial. Their problem is political.
I don't know what to tell someone who says ACTIVE, ONGOING, OFFICIAL NEGOTIATIONS that left the foreign country (who thought we were meme'ing until they met with our OFFICIALS) in tears, are just memes.
Meaning to or not you are running defense for it, as news coverage/sane people have done continuously for Trump with the 'it's just Trump being Trump'. Don't do that. Don't let them do that. This is the United State President sending an OFFICIAL delegation. It IS ALREADY OFFICIAL POLICY, we sent an OFFICIAL United States delegation that had official talks with Greenland's OFFICIALS. That is not just memes so I don't know how you accept people telling you it is. That is OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY. Again, OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS meeting with FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT MEMEs. That half the country says they are means zero. It is in part how they empower Trump to get away with what they want.
That you accept 'official US policy that American diplomats are actively engaged in, right now, is just memes' is wild to me.
> I don't know what to tell someone who says ACTIVE, ONGOING, OFFICIAL NEGOTIATIONS that left the foreign country (who thought we were meme'ing until they met with our OFFICIALS) in tears, are just memes.
You've got a legitimate reading comprehension problem right now, because I am not saying that, have not said that, and have explained this to you three times now. Kindly calm down and read.
You keep saying 'it's not going to happen because MAGA' and I keep responding with 'Official Government policy is that it's going to happen, maybe you should focus on official government policy'. Sorry that you can't understand my point. I get that you really want to focus on rando MAGAs. I think it more realistic that we focus on what our Governments actual position is, and events occurring around it (such as Greenlander's that thought it was all meme'ing breaking down in tears when they met with us and realized it wasn't), and I'm not going to let your 'but Maga feelz...' have equal weight to ACTUAL United States policy and current diplomacy. Keep posting, I'll keep calling it out.
Active United States diplomacy trumps random Maga feelz. I'm not waiting for time to tell. I'm calling bullshit out, today, now. You can keep waiting for things to work out.
I agree with your assessment. But I think the leaders pulling these strings are not fully appreciating the costs of this security.
Controlling all of these foreign lands is pointless if the country collapses then Balkanizes. The past decade has brought so many events that nobody thought could ever happen that we need to be rearrange our beliefs. It's very possible that those of us around in 10 years will see this time period as being part of the Second American Civil war.
The only thing keeping people almost pacified is the economy is not total dogshit yet. But that's tenuous at best.
There's going to be a post-trump power vacuum. It will likely be much more bloody than our current situation.
Quebec already has laws on the book that make them de jure separate from Canada by claiming the Provincial governments have powers that supersede Ottawa's authority [0]. Nobody really talks about it beyond a, "lol no". It's the foundation of a crisis.
So Canada is already fractured. And there's a strong chance Québécois offer support of Alberta and Sas succession. Perhaps there will be some reciprocity and all three provinces leave Canada at the same time.
I live in a bubble in Calgary, and am from Montreal originally. Despite that, I saw lines of people waiting to sign petitions for separation in smaller cities. People who were happy to have their photos taken while they are signing petitions for separation from Canada.
There are some cultural factors in Alberta which draw it closer to the US than to Ontario and Quebec. Libertarianism, pro-fossil fuels, differences wrt firearms, differences in attitudes to crime and punishment, etc... The perception is that previous compromises around these items are slowly frayed to appease voting blocks in other provinces (mostly Quebec).
Then, the dirty reality; the Canadian economy has never been "great", at least in my lifetime. Nearly my whole class at university wound up going to the US, because one couldn't get a decent paying job in Canada in a lot of fields. Even our current prime minister did a ton of his work abroad. If separating (IE: joining the US) was only an economic question, only a tiny elite would support remaining a part of Canada.
The question Alberta separatists wish to ask is much less dishonest than the Quebec separation question in 95, which leads me to believe they are much more confident about their success. I wouldn't rule it out.
Then Danielle moved the goalposts to make it easier for the Independence folks:
Signature collection period: January 3 to May 2, 2026
Number of signatures required for a successful petition: 177,732
(10% of the total number votes cast in the 2023 Provincial General Election).
I feel that neither justifies 2 generations of separatist blackmail, and the use of holocaust terms for constitution failures between two Quebecois men (Lesvesque and Trudeau) is inappropriate — but completely and utterly unsurprising for the overwrought self-pitying elite of the province. Moreover, it is no surprise that Quebec rejects the constitution but simultaneously uses the Not Withstanding clause to block language and religious rights. It is like the bully in Doraemon — what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
That said I do grudgingly admire Lesvesque and felt he was much better than all of his successors. You could tell he had a philosophy of a Quebec that could be an actual nation, not merely a collection of childless people who spoke French and simply emulated France.
There is no Lesvesque in Alberta and that is why Alberta will never be a nation; only a gas station for the US. Still, if the only thing people value is income maybe that's the better outcome.
That might be the rhetoric, but separation means joining the US. The experience of landlocked country would be one of getting taken advantage of by every country around it.
There is a good 20% of people in Alberta who would vote for separation today. Take a close look, they aren't voting to be an independent country surrounded by a hostile country around it and a superpower that hijacks oil tankers to the south.
It is a stupid idea because the level of changes that would have to happen to everything would be much, much more than people realize. But Brexit has shown us that people will vote for stupid things if they are sold by trusted-but-dishonest actors
There is some small amount partisan support but not public support, massive difference. It might cost them the next election.
They aren't republican voters - there is sizable difference between the Canadian right and the US right. I think many Americans make this mistake (and Canadians too) - the republican positions on many things aren't that tenable to center of right (Canadian spectrum).
Also - There aren't many more things that are more toxic in Canada politics than Trump and Annexation. He single handedly handed the Federal election to the Liberals - it was the Conservatives who were going to win until he but his thumb on the scale.
> Also - There aren't many more things that are more toxic in Canada politics than Trump and Annexation. He single handedly handed the Federal election to the Liberals - it was the Conservatives who were going to win until he but his thumb on the scale.
Watching these discussions from the outside are statistics like four in ten (43%) Canadians age 18-34 would vote to be American if citizenship and conversion of assets to USD guaranteed [1]. I don't think the political similarities or differences between the American right and the Canadian right are what can result in one or more Canadian provinces joining the US; I think it's economic discontent.
You are thinking about this in terms of today. To put it in perspective, the same question polled 17% in the 55+ age group. Canada has serious generational problems, and as the boomers die the number of Canadians who vote that way naturally declines.
Well, I downvoted because I think your views are ill-informed and stupid, not because I think you're advocating for this. You fundamentally don't understand Trump and his ilk - he's petty, vindictive, vain, greedy and a bully. Everything runs on narrative and personal dealings, NOT any sort of rational goals or strategy. Ascribing these things to him is like pretending my cat is scheming about something when it jumps on a window. No bud, they're much simpler creatures.
Venezuela happened because it makes him look good on TV, that's it. There's no grand strategizing, it's a petty, vain person doing shitty things to make himself look great. He believes he is entitled to rule as an absolute monarch and acquiring territory (Greenland, Canada, etc) is just a way for himself to make himself more grand. Sorry, no grand strategy there either. I'll go further and say that part of what makes him so successful is that there's a large contingent of people that can't see him as he is and instead engage in this strategy larp like your various theories.
> John Addison, a senior trader at Vitol[1] who donated about $6mn to political action committees backing Trump’s re-election campaign, was involved in his company’s efforts to secure a $250mn deal for Venezuelan crude.
> The deal kick-started the US president’s controversial plan to sell up to 50mn barrels of Venezuelan oil.[2]
> Addison’s donations to Trump’s re-election campaign included $5mn in October 2024 to Maga Inc, according to a database of donors from OpenSecrets,[3] and more than $1mn to two other Trump-aligned Pacs.
Some folks have observed that the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other established far-right groups aren't marching as much recently:
> “How many pardoned January 6th insurrectionists have been hired by your respective departments?” Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the two officials [Bondi and Noem].
As your link implies, they're not marching because they've joined ICE. Last year [1] Enrique Tarrio, head of the Proud Boys, announced an app where people could report "undocumented immigrants" for crypto.
> The physical size of charmin changed during the pandemic.
This is generlly taken into account. From StatCan, who publishes Canada's CPI numbers:
> 7.10 Quantity adjustment entails accounting for changes in the quantity (e.g. package size, number of tissue ply, etc.) of observed POs. This is another implicit method of quality adjustment because it is assumed that the quality per standardized unit is the same over time.
> 7.11 Quantity adjustment is the default treatment for nearly all of the POs in the food major aggregate as well as some of the products in the household operations, and personal care supplies and equipment aggregates.
The CPI published (and in headlines) isn't about your personal spending, but the spending on average spread over millions of people/households. The CPI is a model of reality, and so pointing to a particular instantiation of consumer will not match exactly:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9799
* https://acmeforonions.org
* https://onionservices.torproject.org/research/appendixes/acm...
reply