OP's alt text makes it clear that by "Galapagos Island" they mean Vancouver. I assumed that this was some sort of local nickname, but all of the references to "Galápagos of Canada" I could find are talking about Haida Gwaii instead.
This is a good story, but you can read both the Treaty of Ghent (which ended the War of 1812 while keeping the US-Canada border the same) and Rush-Bagot (which restricted naval fleets on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain). Neither document states anything about the border needing to remain open or without barriers.
The podcast's transcript suggests that their source for this is https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/peace-arch-u.... The person confidently claiming that any closure of the park would result in catastrophe is an immigration lawyer, not a historian:
"Saunders said the treaty stipulates there could not be any boundaries or physical barriers erected on the northern border of the U.S. — and if either side violated that treaty — the boundaries revert back to pre-treaty."
Since the Treaty of Ghent restored the pre-War of 1812 borders of both the United States and Canada, this doesn't make any sense. Canadian historian C. P. Stacey states that the period after the War of 1812 actually saw more border fortification than the years before (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1840618).
I mentioned that the idea that a 19th century treaty keeps the US-Canada border demilitarized was a good story, but I think the truth is an even better one: that the border is demilitarized because both countries know that they can trust their neighbor. Let's hope it stays that way.
This initiative isn't about maintaining a certain population density, it's about restricting immigration and separating Switzerland from the European Union.
While I agree with you that this blog post (and the "carrot disclosure" described in it) is ill-considered, the pull request is not really "new code", it adds quotes to HTML attributes that are missing them. I think it's entirely reasonable for a contributor to assume that a new test case would not be needed for this small change, and that the maintainer's response ("So a simple question: is this code covered under a test? If not, you will have to add one.") is more abrasive than necessary.
> "Its fine if the media lies to the people if the people believe the lies."
That is low, but that's neither a direct quote or not an accurate paraphrase of my comment. While I realize that the comment I replied was edited after my response to talk about lying in more recent conflicts (which might be causing your confusion), I don't think you (like OP) are trying to make the argument that the New York Times is bad because of their reporting in the 1930s.
Your comment is full of historical revisionism. The Second World War has little or nothing to do with the Holodomor. The Times' lack of reporting on it has nothing to do with American foreign policy (both Duranty and Gareth Jones were British) and everything to do with credulous reporters. The idea that America and the Soviet Union would be natural allies was not the majority viewpoint in the 1930s (outside of American communist propaganda) and is clearly disproved by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
> World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin.
Duranty's New York Times articles were written in 1931, a decade before America entered World War II. They not only predate an American alliance with the Soviet Union, but they also predate the United States having any diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union whatsoever.
> Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these.
Are there other major American newspapers who have a history of dissenting against war? Wasn't the New York Times' behavior in most of the conflicts you mention in line with American popular opinion?
"The fundamental issue is that SendGrid’s business model depends on making it easy for legitimate businesses to send email at scale."
I disagree with this conclusion, if not only because other email service providers don't have this issue.
It wouldn't surprise me if something was broken with SendGrid's internal infrastructure. I used to be a SendGrid customer until my deliverability started being affected by this issue. SendGrid took weeks to reply to my customer service messages about resolving this, even though I was a paying customer and was renting private IP addresses from them to send mail.
I finally gave up and closed my SendGrid account in July 2021. Despite this, they continued to send me monthly invoices until May 2022. Multiple SendGrid representatives promised that they had resolved the issue, but it wasn't until one CSR added me to SendGrid's global suppression list that they finally stopped.
> In this case, the fact that it took 2 years. And of course now that FFmpeg is getting more exposure in the media due to their association with AI hype, now they finally get 'fair' legal treatment... I don't call that winning.
It took 2 years because FFmpeg waited 2 years to send a DMCA notice to Github, not because of delays in the legal system. I think you are conflating different unrelated issues here.
A lot of comments here seem to suggest that we should discount or ignore this paper because the OLPC program had other benefits (increasing uptake of lower cost laptops worldwide, giving children computer skills, etc.). This is a reasonable argument assuming that most people have only read the free abstract, but this isn't the conclusion that the authors come in the actual paper. Instead, they suggest that the program might have been more successful with increased teacher training and internet access in schools.
I was able to access the NBER version of the paper, but it looks like working copies are also available in a number of other locations:
I think that when a wealth of other reliable sources don't describe an economist as Marxist, Wikipedia shouldn't give precedence to a single op-ed in the Stanford Daily from 1976.
You're focusing on when the word "Marxist" was removed in 2024, but you might want to consider when it was added to the article (in August 2020, about two weeks after Harris was selected to be the vice presidential nominee): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_J._Harris&...
I know the comment you're replying to called it a "180 degree hinge", but the linked Ars Technica article states that it "flips around to the back with a flexible hinge, a la Lenovo's long-running Yoga design". This is not clear from the pictures in the article, but was on display during the livestreamed event earlier today.
Please use [email protected] to send me messages.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/martey; my proof: https://keybase.io/martey/sigs/-oWnmv3xB1ahfFU6PuJ55x60S6xeGVRkSX5ys2NxmGw ]