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.
> 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).
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.