Presumably you downloaded Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator (MSKLC), which I still had to do to make a custom keyboard layout in 2022. Funnily enough I was also wanting to use AltGr to add diacritics to vowels, because I don’t want to have to go to the backtick key for àèìòù
For what it’s worth, making a custom layout actually is a huge pain in the arse. That’s a pretty niche use case, but there is definitely no reason for it to be as much of a hassle as it is
By “bigger” here I should have more explicitly made clear that I meant in population and economic terms. A bunch of largely empty land is not that significant in regards to the international balance of power in North America.
This only leads us back to my initial question. If the point of NATO is to keep the smaller members dependent on the US, why do you think NATO is asking the smaller members to increase domestic production? If you think that any Canadian effort can only possibly be inconsequential, fine, that’s a matter of opinion, but according to you that is not necessarily the case for Europe (or at least, some European countries). So is NATO intentionally undermining its own purpose by doing this?
I ignored the part about Europe because the position of “NATO exists to keep Europe dependent on the US” is just as much at odds with the article’s opening of “NATO says it wants its members to develop national plans to bolster the capacity of their individual defence industry sectors” as it was when it was about Canada.
You said “The whole point is to make the vassals dependent on the US militarily which allows the US to control the politics of these countries.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to be asking about how this relates to Canada when you said “these countries” on an article that is primarily about Canada, and you’re now saying “The point isn’t to make Canada more dependent on the US”
If NATO was disbanded tomorrow, Canada would still have to work with the fact that its neighbour is a lot bigger than it. It seems to me that even if it cannot meaningfully escape American influence altogether, at least not for so long as America has as much power as it does, there are still always degrees of independence. So how is NATO wanting an increase in Canadian domestic military production a move to make Canada more dependent on the US? Or, if in your view it makes no difference whatsoever, how is this request relevant to it at all?
If Canada were to increase domestic military production, how would that make it more dependent on the US in your view?
That seems rather at odds with the opening paragraph of the article, which is explicitly saying NATO wants Canada to have better domestic production and planning
Busby should probably not be considered a reliable source
That’s not to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza. They still killed all those people and destroyed their homes, regardless of the weapon they used to do it
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima
Busby has form for spreading conspiracy theories about nuclear stuff and trying to profit off of it
Exercise Formosa
Well this certainly wasn’t the “Chinese troops in Taiwan” headline that I worried I might read. Apparently there’s a Formosa in Brazil and it’s not just the old name for Taiwan
I chose Amazon and a bag design as the example specifically because it’s a real story (although not a rucksack, I misremembered that part)
Potential revenue isn’t, but intellectual property is. At least in most current legal systems, it is
I don’t think that that’s necessarily true. Let’s say someone designs a rucksack because they find the existing options on the market uncomfortable. They produce them on a small scale and they get fairly popular. Then Amazon sees it, copies it, mass produces it for less than the original designer could, and makes sure that any time someone searches for a rucksack on Amazon their version appears first in the list. I think it’s reasonable to say that the original designer lost something there
That doesn’t mean copyright can’t be or isn’t abused, of course
I am also definitely not coming into this with any expertise, but reading the linked paper about it looks at least somewhat promising to me. The ingredients are silica (sand) and a couple of cellulose derivatives (cellulose being what plants are mostly made of)
ahh yeah that’s literally exactly what I said, thanks. Why bother commenting that? I did not even slightly imply that America’s overseas bases were a good thing. I said that they don’t justify invading Ukraine and that Russia is making its neighbours want American bases.
This is exactly what I mean. America’s overseas bases do not justify invading Ukraine. If anything Russia is making every Eastern European country that already has those bases feel like having them is beneficial.
I don’t think we should expect any given offensive by either side to completely overturn the whole war. A move also does not have to do that to be worthwhile. All it has to do to be worthwhile is cost Russia more than it costs Ukraine (relative to the resources available for each side). Given that Ukraine is destroying bridges, I don’t think that they intend to push much further unless a remarkable opportunity presents itself
Welcome to the world of looking at every single world event through the lens of “America bad” and literally only that
They spent a fifth of their sovereign wealth fund covering their budget deficit last year, I’m not sure that Russia has the capacity to scale things up