Omg thats hilarious.

"“We should have expected something like this,” said one Trump ally who would only speak off the record as she’s currently the premier of a western Canadian province."

Hahaha

Yep, it was really perfect for the liberals. I wonder if choosing Carney was a calculated choice to benefit from the turmoil in the US, or if it is just ridiculously good luck.

Yep!

Yes, they are. There is also an instinct giant awawa.

Except that he has no executive power over those people.

It is most likely a false-flag, because the criticisms in the document all are clearly insane, and each question makes the actual Conservative policies appear saner in comparison.

Whether they are appealing or not, this sounds like the administration is breaking the law. The ruling to allow AP doesn't stop taking effect if an appeal is in process.

The Trump Administration keeps abusing that. They appeal something, and just do whatever they want until the appeal is processed.

Yes, it is legal. There are many christians in Saudi Arabia, for example. What is usually illegal is public religious practices of religions other than Islam.

Is this possible in Canada? I mean, is it as easy to do that in Canada?

Genuinely asking.

It works very well for me. My evidence that it is private is that I download plenty (more than 1 TB per month) and I never get a copyright notice from my ISP. When I torrent non-privately I get plenty of copyright notices, sometimes several times for the same torrent.

It does have, however, some major performance issues. It can be very slow, and it can use up a lot of RAM and a lot of CPU. Its internal database, which saves state of downloads, frequently gets corrupted at which point it has to be re-generated, meaning the list of torrents (not the downloads) is lost. It can be quite a bit slower than other torrent downloaders, and sometimes torrents stall for a while as it waits to prepare the network, especially at start-up.

It's been getting a lot better though with every update, which is quite frequent.

Not making sure the result even makes sense. There was a real example, where a ~2010 news article said that the number of crimes in their city has been doubling every year since ~1980.

That is not possible. Assume that there was one crime in 1980. In 2010, there must be at least 2^20 crimes.

Hypocrisy! Someone is committing hypocrisy at the church on 325289 ave!

That's it exactly. JBP, JD Vance, etc., play word games of rhetoric to get what they want. It's like they are defence lawyers and morality is a legal system they are trying to game - they argue whatever just to win.

Yeah they do that. It is really sneaky to call illegal immigrants criminals because of their illegal immigration. It's like someone being called a criminal just for resisting arrest.

I think FPTP keeps fringe or unpopular ideas out. Assuming its a 2-party dominated system, it will keep extremists out only if the extremists are fringe.

This is a shallow analysis.

What do you dislike about the AI act?

I dont think so, but I would love one

Oh. Actually that clarifies alot.

Facilitate is the key word. The SC judge left it to the fedral judge to define what it means, taking into account impact on foreign policy.

So, it is not necessarily just an empty word.

I would love that here