Instead of treating this concession like something that could be negotiated away at any moment, BYD is going hard right out of the gate. Even Tesla only built a small and inadequate charging network in Canada. If BYD builds a more substantial charging network while they have the access, that access will be much harder to take away. It would go from a potential negotiating chip to something Canadians won't want to do without.

Shut up. Just shut your mouth.

The U.S. has a long history of easily pushing Canada into new and more disadvantageous trade agreements. There's usually not much you can do when the 800 pound gorilla takes your banana. However, this time around, Trump's constant yapping about annexation and economic domination have given the Canadian government something they almost never have: A strongly unified Canadian public that wants them to push back for a deal that's actually fair. Canadians are so fired up that signing even a marginally bad deal would spell certain doom for the Carney government.

If Trump had just kept quiet on the Canada front for the last year and a half, we'd likely have a new trade deal signed that set significant tariff's on Canadian goods in stone. Now, mainly thanks to Trump's big mouth, what is typically a snooze-worthy affair for most Canadians is a dire matter of national sovereignty. The Carney government doesn't even have to ban goods to push back. Canadians are boycotting American goods all on their own!

Now Canada's leaders are doing formerly unthinkable things at unprecedented speed because Trump still hasn't learned to shut up.

Trump needs to just close his mouth. His incoherent lip-flappings are only hurting himself and his nation. Does he really think these threats will have any impact on Canada-EU relations other than to drive them closer together even faster? What a fool.

The reality is that the joining the EU as full members involves too great a sacrifice of sovereignty for middle powers like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.. Brussels is too far away and the EU itself barely functions with the members it already has. There is, however, broad will among middle powers to work together more closely than they do now. This associate EU member thing needs to strike a balance where countries who join it can cooperate and contribute without feeling like the EU is becoming another U.S..

It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.

I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.

_________

*NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.

Also, the U.S. is currently prosecuting a trade war against Canada that has, thanks to Trump, become a question of sovereignty for Canadians. The U.S.'s largest source of foreign oil is, potentially, one outburst from Trump away from Canada placing export duties on oil. It has been discussed in Canada, and it's viewed as an extreme option, but an option nonetheless. Trump would have to say or do something truly outrageous for that to happen, but his ability to turn allies into enemies should not be underestimated.

Bottom line, fuel could become a lot more expensive, quickly. Even if there's still gasoline to be had, it still qualifies as a shortage if it becomes unaffordable. Fuel prices affect food production, delivery of goods to markets, and pretty much every aspect of the economy.

Oil tankers travel at about the speed of a bicyle. If a price shock does happen it will last for months. If the war with Iran is not resolved promptly, this is precisely what will happen.

If a resolution to the conflict is not reached in very short order (i.e. days, not weeks), the crisis will be in full swing right when the midterms are going on. Of course, foresight and the ability to understand consequences do not seem to be strong points of this administration.

It's probably better to make a little less in a country that will treat you far better.

Hear me out. Google, Meta, etc. offer "free" services to a significant portion of the world's population. This isn't charitable work. They do this for data that makes them money. Lots of money. Data has real monetary value, but governments don't treat it as such. Few, if any, jurisdictions view data exports as taxable. It's simply not tracked. If data collection isn't tracked, how can one realistically enforce privacy standards?

If we tax data, then we'll have an incentive to track how data is being used and corporations will suddenly have a direct financial interest in not just casually collecting data if they don't need to. Such taxes should be gauged to be tolerable for Google and Meta, but high enough to make companies who make their money via other avenues (e.g. Smart TV sellers) to take a pass on data collection.

One thing the EU has not done is threaten to use economic coercion to force annexation, as the U.S. has done repeatedly. If becoming an associate member of the EU involves some loss of sovereignty, it will probably be less than we'd surrender by choosing not to diversify our trade away from the U.S..

___________________

[1]https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/carney-pushes-idea-ma...

If you are reliant on ad revenue, you should be expressing your displeasure to google right now.

It's the CPC's job to be critical of Carney. It's everyone else's job to decide when their arguments are grounded in reality.

Lost jobs can be created again, but signing away sovereignty is not reversible. If the democrats take over in 2028, they're not going to give back what we let Trump take. We know that from past history. We also know, from very recent history, that giving Trump everything he asks for would likely not have spared us. If we had capitulated he'd just come up with new demands.

When your largest trading partner violates its signed commitments and betrays you, there may simply be no way out that doesn't involve some pain.

Broadening our trade is similar to building a new oil pipeline. Nobody is sure a new pipeline will ever pay for itself, but one we started a decade ago would be making us a fortune right now. Trade diversification won't help us much in the current trade war, but it could help us out considerably in the next one.

Trump is a symptom, not the root cause. He may die of old age soon and MAGA may go dormant for a few years if the midterms and/or 2028 election beat them down sufficiently, but they'll be back eventually with some other clown at the helm. Americans voted Trump in twice. They'll vote clown again, and having options will help Canada when that happens. American checks and balances no longer work. If we'd known this was going to happen ten years ago we'd be in a better position today. Now we know it's likely to happen again in another ten or twenty years, so we'd be fools not to prepare.

e.g. Bitter cassava is a staple crop in parts of South America and Africa. Unlike apple seeds, it contains substantial quantities of cyanide. It's a great crop because you can plant it and forget it. No need for fences. Animals won't eat it. A chemist would be hard-pressed to come up with a more effective method for removing cyanide from it than some of the traditional methods of cooking it. However, problems arise when people cook and consume it in non-traditional ways.

Traditional knowledge can be both constraining and protective. It's like a fence whose purpose you don't know. Tearing it down is a gamble. You might win. You might lose. It's probably not a bad idea to try to figure out why a tradition is there before you mess around.

Our approach is guided by four principles:

Transparency – Helping users understand how smart TV features work and how related data may be used.

User Choice – Giving users meaningful control over optional features and services.

Informed Consent – Supporting informed decisions through clear and manageable consent choices.

Continuous Improvement – Continuously improving privacy controls, transparency, and security protections.

--------------------

Transparency:

This document isn't terribly easy to understand by the standards of traditional TV's. You have to pay close attention to figure out what is and isn't going on, and when. It also should have been taped to the front of every LG TV when it comes out of the box.

User Choice:

There is extensive explanation of how what LG TV's are doing isn't nefarious, but the fact remains that there's no switch to turn it off. Why not just put a simple hardware on/off switch on these TV"s to turn off all connectivity? Maybe some users want dumb TV's, or maybe they just don't want to worry about all of this.

Informed Consent:

Buyers apparently consented to this at the store. Now you're finally informing them. That's now how informed consent works.

Continuous Improvement:

I'll believe LG and other Smart TV manufacturers are serious about this when they add a hardware wifi on/off switch, and not a moment before.

Starlink satellites are emitting unintended and useless EMR that serves no function. It is not necessary for the function of these satellites.

This is a money issue. The question you should ask is whether it will cost more for SpaceX to fix their satellites than it will to build radio telescopes (which are not small devices) in space. Personally, I suspect launching radio telescopes into space will not be the cheaper solution.

If progress is coming easy and fast and you're worried about the danger your product poses, you should also be worried about the danger your competitors' products pose. So, you reach out to governments and ask for rules to constrain and slow things down for everyone, so that your company isn't put at a disadvantage for being cautious.

"Since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration. Once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced and peace must follow."

----------

Clausewitz would have been flabbergasted by this war. If we're being overly generous to Trump, we might call it an act of senseless passion. The reality is probably worse. The U.S. still hasn't seemed to figure out what it's policy goals or winning conditions are, aside from the president's desire to be an all-powerful winner. Trump seemingly places no value on his nation's blood or treasure, so it might be a very long time before he begins to feel the effort his nation is expending isn't worth the value of his own vanity.

The U.S. needs to have its magna carta moment and reign in its mad king. Maybe that will come with the mid-terms, or maybe this war will drag on for two more years. Trump isn't going to stop it, now or after the mid-terms. As far as he's concerned, the pain isn't his.

Is there room for ethics in military research and procurement? Absolutely. An AI company might say, "We will help you choose the best targets when under time pressure, but we won't provide an oracle that lets you justify indiscriminate killing of civilians." An explosives factory might say, "We'll build precision missile warheads for you, but not white phosphorous or cluster munitions, because these kill civilians indiscriminately.". People working for companies that do defence work have a moral obligation to observe how their labour is used and refuse to give it if the results are unethical. It's no different from soldiers having a moral duty to refuse illegal orders.

To answer your question, I'd say that participating in the defence industry can be justifiable if you remain guided by ethics, and unjustifiable if you abandon them for money. e.g. If you're currently doing anything to help develop the IDF's Lavender or "Where's Daddy" programs, it's pretty hard to argue that you have a functioning moral compass.

It's also completely fine to say, "I don't want to deal with moral grey zones" and refuse to work for companies that do military work. You might make less money, but you'll almost certainly sleep easier.