Yeah, it's not a historical quirk, really. In talking to many Americans it seems like they don't really cover loyalists at all, or what happened after the Revolutionary War. Much of what became Canada was settled by former colonists from the what became the United States who remained loyal to the crown. My hometown was founded by loyalists from New York -- including the mayor of New York City -- after the Revolutionary War.
Essentially we are even closer than many people think in terms of history, but Canadian identity was seeded from the beginning with the idea of rejecting being "American". We are indeed your closest brothers and sisters because of history, but it's no quirk at all that we're separate -- it's the entire reason we stayed separate at all.
You can also see the reverse play out -- what would become Alberta was settled by large numbers of American colonists moving to Canada, and to this day you can see the cultural impact of that in the politics and world view from the region.
While I agree as a whole, there are parts that are easily captured even with some small false positive rate, like credit card numbers. I do think it's acceptable to do PII detection probabilistically for some classes of identifiers/quasi-identifiers, because you can't really do any better without crazy false positive rates, things like credit card numbers have enough structure that it's more work to do it entirely via an ML model with a higher chance of failure, versus just building a simple heuristic for it.
Add to that the fact that missing a credit card number is way higher stakes than missing something like a zip code, you can understand why something like this is just not acceptable in a product like this, with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.
I’ve only been sailing a few years, but I racked up about 500nm of racing this summer. I’ve only been in these situations a few times, but had a ton of confidence in the boat and the skipper. It’s honestly a ton of fun, and feels more dangerous than it is, since the boats are (supposed to be) designed to handle this. That said, I keep the family away from this sort of thing, and take them out on our family friendly coastal cruiser for more leisurely sails.
From what I understand, leaving the keel up would be reasonable enough if a boat was rigged as designed. Typically the boat would be ballasted differently if you have a retractable keel/centreboard. Sounds like converting the rig from a ketch to a sloop is probably the root of the design issues, combined with some troubling risks of down flooding from the various vents mounted close to the water line.
It's pretty shocking that a boat with no sail area could get knocked over bad enough to sink that quickly. Something had to be seriously wrong with the design. I'm not particularly salty, but I've sailed in 25-30kts with the rail buried and not even had a second thought about the boat sinking. I've been knocked down with full sails up in 25kts, and had a broach while racing -- sailboats can be expected to spend at least brief amounts of time on their side, even if you're not out doing anything particularly dumb. I just can't fathom how a boat wouldn't be able to survive 2 minutes on its side and still be signed off by a builder.
I’m going to assume I wasn’t part of their target audience, given what I’m about to say, but the whole thing looks like a bunch of amateurs with a ton of money.
First off you’re spot on with the name — what a terrible decision. Secondly because the name doesn’t tell you anything about who they are or what they do they needed to have advertising spots that got that across quickly. Except for some completely inexplicable reason they ran ads from a show about a mobile app, requiring you to watch for over a minute (!) before realizing the spot was for a show, not for some new app named Quibi. I literally saw their ads dozens and dozens of times before accidentally letting it run long enough to figure out what the hell it was. Did they recruit marketers from Microsoft or something? They’re the only other people I’ve seen capable of causing that degree of product confusion in marketing decisions.
Next, where the hell did the focus on short form content come from? If anything the trend has been for longer and longer form content as seen by the success of HBO, where a shorter medium (cinema) has moved into a longer form medium (television) in order to tell the stories they wanted to tell. Given the focus on celebrities I’m sure I wasn’t their target audience, but what mobile-first audience WAS the target anyway? Why wasn’t YouTube serving their needs? Why weren’t there production companies making and promoting this form on YouTube and other platforms already? The mind boggles. The whole thing reads like a bunch of amateurs with too much money.
Everyone is focusing on the aircraft, but the pilots are also super important here. They need to maintain a certain number of hours every 90 days, IIRC, in order to be flight ready. If not, they need to do a refresher in a simulator. As I’m sure everyone is familiar after the 737 max debacle, there is a shortage of simulators. This would mean it would take months or perhaps even a year to get all pilots recertified for commercial flight. That’s not a great situation to be in, and easily solved by keeping them flying.
The design predates broad availability of jetways at airports. The concept, in the 1960s, was that by being able to use stairs they'd be able to service many smaller airports. By the 1970s this was clearly the wrong choice -- smaller airports just installed jetways too. This was a design decision that didn't even last the decade, but was brought forward for the next 50 years because changes would mean a recertification. That is why the landing gear is short. There are essentially no operators who make use of the low height of the aircraft, and there hasn't been for longer than most of us have been alive.
I think one additional factor here is that storage isn't the only option. Once a larger amount of waste needs to be managed the attractiveness of fast breeder reactors starts to increase. These reactors can then extract more energy from this high level "waste" (really fuel for fast breeder reactors). These reactors would then reduce the volume of this waste by a factor of about 100. So in the end, those 400 car-sized containers of waste per 50 years becomes 4. One hundred years worth of energy for an entire country producing about a house's volume of waste, total.
Even more than that, you pick up speed due to the nose down configuration. This means the forces on the control surfaces are so great that you can no longer manually trim via the trim wheels. This was, apparently, a well known handling characteristic of the 737, with original versions describing a "roller coaster" maneuver where you dive briefly to relieve the forces on the control surfaces and incrementally trim. Unfortunately, because of how MCAS was set up, it was inactive while flaps were set, but kicked in immediately upon flaps up, meaning that they essentially had no altitude to work with.
But doesn't it seem like that, as total ownership of the market shifts towards passives, higher returns would be driven by funds running active strategies such as these, thus making them more attractive investments? It seems like this sort of thing chases an equilibrium.
This article seems to get Numidia screwed up twice — once calling it Mumidia, and once referring to it as Nubia! It was a really important region politically, especially in the lead up to the fall of the republic. Come on, Nat Geo...
Even a replacement is unnecessary — silphium was a commercially important plant traded in antiquity. It had well known uses in antiquity, was sought after (considered worth its weight in silver), was mentioned in literature of all sorts and appeared on coins. It’s also potentially where we get the heart symbol and its connotations in modern times (it is theorized to have been a contraceptive of some sort).
And it went extinct, and a we’re not quite sure why. Plants can be very useful and not survive attempts at cultivation before going extinct in the wild. It doesn’t need to get more complicated than that.
On the one hand, sure, this is true. On a deeper level this is just a criticism that the methods may not apply across the whole population -- that they may not be able to reduce the rate to 0. Fair enough. But given that more than 80% of Canada's population lives in urban centers, and indeed, that about half the country lives in the corridor you mentioned (Windsor-Quebec City corridor), it's a really good start, and may yield many more dividends yet.
A couple of factors -- I'm not a recently out of school grad, I got my first job working as an engineer at a startup at 17, and worked at some other startups while in school (full time, not co-op), so I've got at least 12 years of experience (not including some of those early jobs) spread between a handful of startups and some much bigger organizations. I'm technically not just an engineer -- I also have some management duties at work. I also have a spouse who works full time, but earns significantly less working in a finance related role. This is a big factor WRT to take home pay -- marginal tax rates are a killer, and a second income puts that income in much lower tax brackets.
When it was time to look (mid 2014), we were pre-approved for an irresponsible amount (very low debt load, don't own a car, etc), took that number and cut a few hundred thousand off, and went looking for somewhere where we could put more than 10% down. When it came time to do the mortgage, which was admittedly handled by a family friend, they arranged to float a top up to 20% to skip CMHC fees (we end up paying the bank a few thousand in interest, but save tens of thousands we would've had to pay in mortgage insurance). All said and done, the mortgage plus other financing costs us about the same as a nice studio apartment in San Francisco. In about 3 years we'll have the extra financing paid off, and our mortgage will cost us less than sharing an apartment in SF.
As far as lifestyle/savings goes, not really. My wife has always been a great saver, plus while her current gig is a bit stodgy it does come with some old fashioned benefits (like a DB pension along with a DC pension on top). We go on frequent trips, enjoy dinner around the city on a regular basis, and other things.
edit: I'd also like to add that you have to be picky, and be picky about the right things. Our place had some cosmetic damage and beat up appliances included (cheap things to fix, relative to the price of a house). We only paid a bit more than $100k extra for a 3 bedroom freehold townhouse (no condo fees, we own the actual land and building) compared to a 2 bedroom stacked townhouse that was literally half the square footage and came with a $400 monthly condo fee in the same neighbourhood. That was a new build, while ours was from 2009, about 5 years old at the time. Several of the other units in the complex have sold since we moved in, at hundreds of thousands over what we paid for our unit just 2 years ago. It feels like the market was discounting some easily fixed issues with appearance at a huge premium over the actual cost of the repairs and new appliances. The listing online was also DREADFUL. It really looked terrible in the online photos compared to an in-person viewing.
I'm Canadian, so obviously there's some inherent bias. Part of it is the annoyance of visa, permanent resident, and citizenship shenanigans necessary to get into the US (TN visas are non-residency track).
Part of it is cultural -- I feel like people are friendlier here in general (although the difference isn't so great in the bay area), even in the bigger cities.
Part of it is really hard to describe -- there's just something that feels grimy about American cities in general. By comparison virtually every Canadian city I've been in feels much cleaner than every american city I've been in. San Francisco and New York can feel particularly bad -- I never smell human urine walking down the street in Toronto, but it's a regular occurrence for me in San Francisco.
Then there's the homeless situation. Toronto is by no means free of homeless people, but the problem seems to exist on a completely different scale than it does in San Francisco or New York. It really makes a big difference in how you experience a city, for me at least.
I spent a good deal of time in New York when I was younger -- in Manhattan working for an investment bank in technology. I didn't really explore the other boroughs much, but I did stay in the city for an extended period of time (~6 months in one go). I've also spent a good deal of time in the bay area (San Francisco), so the point where I spent more than half of my time there as opposed to here in Toronto. All of that is to say, I'm making a very conscious comparison between the options.
As far as New York goes, I'd argue it's less liveable than Toronto (or at least it was nearly 10 years go). It's much, much more expensive, much busier (obviously), and probably has the best amenities of any big city anywhere in the world. That being said, I'd also argue that it's less cosmopolitan than Toronto. New York is among the most cosmopolitan cities in the world of course, but I think Toronto beats it. I could be convinced otherwise, but in my experience Toronto is simply the best with respect to diversity, interesting people interacting and getting along, and being a fantastic mix of cultures from literally all over the globe.
Then there's the expense -- the likelihood of me being able to own a 3 bedroom house in Manhattan doing what I currently do is zero. It just isn't happening. In Toronto I live only about 3km from the financial district, and I can get to my office in an Uber in under 10 minutes. I'm at an age where I'm starting a family, and I live in a very family friendly urban area -- there's even an elementary school on my street.
And yes, bay area level salaries are hard to come by here -- I was earning one when the exchange rate was closer to parity a few years back, and subsequent pay adjustments have not kept up with the weakness of the Canadian dollar since the collapse of the oil market. The salaries are lower, but they're nowhere near half. And that's fine, as I'm still paid very well, and my standard of living is unobtainable in New York or San Francisco without earning substantially above market rates in either market.
I did. Toronto is a great city. I've traveled a good deal in Canada, and the US, and while I can't compare it to cities outside of those two, I will say that I still consider the best city I've ever experienced.
While the tech scene isn't as hot as the other regions you mentioned, it's still strong. Very strong. It's also starting to be noticed by the bigger players (with Google and Apple both investing in the region). Currently I'd say the biggest weakness for tech in Toronto is the financing side, with the traditional financiers being very focused on revenue and getting cash flow positive early in a company's cycle (a very Canadian, risk averse business culture), as opposed to the riskier but higher reward models favoured in the valley. But the greatest strength is easy to spot: the city itself.
It would be easy to argue that Toronto is the most cosmopolitan city in the world. The standard of living and quality of life are very high, and widely recognized by publications such as The Economist. The diversity in the city isn't just surface deep either: Toronto boasts one of the most diverse economies for a large city in North America. The strong tech industry sits aside a very strong finance industry, media industry (tons of television shows and movies are produced in Toronto), fashion industry and others. The way I like to explain it to people is that Toronto is not the best at anything -- but it is among the best in almost everything.
So there's lots of work. The other ingredient is that there is also lots to do. The strong cosmopolitan nature of the city means a dizzying array of options for dining. Those options are not just the affordable "ethnic food" you typically think of, but run the full gamut from affordable and delicious to some of North America's best fine dining. To that you can add world class museums, excellent (if under built) transit, many interesting bars and cafes, housing that's quite affordable compared to the bay area (I own a townhouse close to the city centre), hot summers and reasonably mild winters, government provided universal health care, and so on and so on.
So yes, people definitely do move here to join the tech scene, but not people whose ONLY consideration is the work they do everyday. That's an important consideration -- perhaps THE most important consideration when looking for a place to live, but it should not be your only consideration. Once you start to add in the other factors Toronto looks fantastic.
These different kernels do not use the same libc. In particular, BSD derivatives are using a BSD libc, while Linux and friends are using glibc (or some cousin). I'm not certain which libc the others are using, but they are likely separate forks as well.