Sprocklem

No province pays equalization payments. They come out of the federal government's general revenues.

The UCP are trying to prolong this whole affair and, I think, trying to pander to separatists without actually risking that Alberta separate.

ETA: There is definitely a significant pro-separatist faction within the UCP, but I don't think the current party leadership is really willing to commit to separating, even if they are buddy-buddy with key figures in the current US regime.

Also note that this referendum does not require that the question be clear (per the Clarity Act), which will allow them to confuse voters and garner apparently higher support, that they can use to coerce the federal government into giving them what they want.

This is my experience as well, as someone who grew up in Alberta and has spent a fair bit of time in other provinces. This narrative that the rest of Canada is anti-Alberta or anti-Quebec (or that the federal government is seeking to undermine those provinces) seems to be invented and pushed by those provinces' governments to drive votes and avoid culpability for their role in their province's problems. It does not seem to be reflective of the opinions of people (or governments) from other provinces.

44oz? That's huge. I couldn't imagine drinking one of those a day.

It is not surprising the the properties would not be called the same.

It is a bit surprising that xdg-desktop-portal has two very similar APIs that differ in non-obvious and seemingly-arbitrary ways. I was also a bit confused about how the two APIs correspond (or don’t) when I first read their documentation.

My uneducated guess at why Wayland failed to succeed is that it went for extreme modularity and refused to say (back in like 2009) "Here's the security mechanism everyone has to use to take screenshots, etc. If this breaks your spacebar heater, sucks to be you."

I tend to agree. I have long attributed the mess that is wayland-protocols in large part to the fact that they didn’t define a security mechanism or permission model in place from the start.

They seemed to assume, at first, that it was reasonable to prevent all programs from doing what any program could abuse. Had they instead acknowledged that some programs need to be granted the ability to take actions that otherwise risk insecurity, they wouldn’t have needed to try to distort the protocols to fit the lacking security model of Wayland (or, in some cases, wouldn’t have needed to circumvent Wayland entirely to achieve their ends).

What direction is that?

Canada doesn't. It puts Canadian monarchs on its coins. The fact that they are physically the same person as the British monarch is incidental.

I think a more generous reading of their comment would be: do people with Down's syndrome vary significantly in terms of their Down's syndrome symptoms? Or: do they vary significantly in how they experience their symptoms? I don't have enough experience with Down's syndrome to answer either – I've only met a few such people in passing – but would be interested in knowing the answer.

Edit: I feel I should note that, given the phrasing of the comment, I think your interpretation is closer to the original intent – or at least, a clearer reading of what was said – but I wanted to add this in the interest of taking the strongest interpretation of their comment (and to satisfy my personal curiosity).

Curriculum-setting neither limits anyones free speech nor does it restrict their access to the free speech of others. Teachers are generally allowed to expand on the curriculum and students are given access to literature with information beyond that in the curriculum. These laws do effectively restrict access to information and ideas.

This is a strange framing. These laws are neither about what is taught in schools nor what books schools are required to stock, but rather restrictions on what books schools may chose to make available to the children. The government is not limiting the free speech of the authors, but these laws are the government limiting access to the authors' free speech, which is at least related to free speech, even if you don't buy that it is an restriction of free speech per se.

I do, however, think it is also worth noting that there is value in critically discussing the ideologies espoused by "The Bell Curve" and "Mein Kampf", since both ideologies persist and continue to have influence on American politics today.

As an Albertan, I agree, but it is the inevitable result if Alberta were to separate. Fortunately, separation remains a minority position (for now, at least), despite certain parties fanning the flames.

The Alberta NDP under Notley was a centrist party and its policies were far more aligned with the federal liberals than the federal NDP. Obviously, there has been a change in leadership, but I don't see any reason to believe that the Alberta NDP will be any less centrist under Nenshi.

It's a contract with NASA. Taxpayers already are footing the bill.

I can't speak for GP, but I personally find it kind of fucked up that we selectively breed a lot of dogs for certain asthetic traits at the expense of their health. I assume they meant this brand of artificial selection rather than letting dogs reproduce at all.

I have successfully signed up to a google group with a non-gmail account, although I had some difficulty finding the instructions for doing so.

IIRC, this was one of the explanations proposed when the existence of a red shift was first noted: that the light is somehow slowly losing its energy over very long distances, becoming “redder” as it did so. It ultimately lost out to the dark energy / space-time expansion theory, although I do not recall why. Presumably there was some observation that precluded “degrading” light from being the sole explanation.

tar isn't a POSIX command, and retains its argument format from before the POSIX CLI guidelines were standardized (as does the POSIX ar command). pax, the POSIX-specified (but rarely implemented/used) equivalent of tar does follow the POSIX CLI guidelines.

Support for the other two may vary based on hardware, but sound seems to have mostly been solved by pipewire.

Crucially, however, the commit message is not documentation of the code, which would need to be changed and updated. Instead, it is documentation of the change, describing the reason for the change, what the code does to achieve that, and, if relevant, why you chose that solution. It provides necessary context to the already immutable diff and therefore need not be mutable itself.

I'm not sure how exactly the circulatory system developed in our ancestors, but I will add that simpler circulatory systems do exist in animals today, including the open circulatory systems that are found in, e.g., arthropods. In these animals, blood is pumped across an body cavity by a heart, before flowing back through the fluid-filled body cavity itself, outside of any blood vessels. It is definitely possible to have "partial" circulatory system that functions fine while lacking some of the components present in humans.

Similarly, simpler versions of, e.g, eyes have been observed in nature with structures that are thought to be analogous to those of our early ancestors when eyes were first developing.

My understanding is that that was not true of clothing of that era. That being said, the description of the pocket is unclear and it may have been a normal pocket, which would have been built into the folds of the dress so as not to be overtly visible.

ETA: If memory serves, pockets disappeared from women's clothing as skirts became more form-fitting in the 1910s and 1920s.

The strings in environ is only contiguous at program start. In every libc I'm aware of, both putenv and setenv replace only the specified key-value pair (and possibly environ itself, if it needs to be larger) and should not affect the address of any other environment variables. It is still thread-unsafe, but far more limited in its unsafety.

They are in some languages, but Rust instead implemented them with a pollable Future trait. The async keyword, then, causes the block to desugar into a new type that implements Future. In order to emulate a coroutine, the generated poll function includes a state machine that tracks the await point where the function was suspended.

We also have no surviving Egyptian accounts of Atlantis. It was not uncommon, however, for Greeks to attribute fictional and fabricated information to the Egyptians due to how relatively ancient – and therefore, wise – they were believed to be.

Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; [...]

I mean, it certainly isn't learning in the same way humans learn. Human learning involves some degree of understanding, which is wholly absent in AIs. There is, to my mind, no good reason to treat them the same because of this difference.

There is also ongoing work to add a `try_collect` method specifically for collecting into `Result`, etc. Hopefully, when this lands it will make this pattern more intuitive/obvious and eliminate some inconveniences in its use.

POSIX only guarantees write atomicity for pipes and FIFOs, not for regular files.

I was not suggesting the caller hold a mutex, but rather getenv(), which eould be transparent to the caller.

A number of libc functions return a pointer to an internal thread-local buffer, which is invalidated on subsequent calls. If the function copies the environment variable's value to such a buffer while holding the mutex controlling access to the global state, then the returned value is guaranteed to remain unaffected by other threads.

There are, however, other problems (discussed elsewhere in this thread) that complicate such an API in the context of getenv().