Even many guest or public WiFi captive portals in the US only seek to enforce agreement to a terms of service and/or privacy policy, not necessarily gathering identifying info and not locking behind a password. (Yes, there are also those which do require a password or identifying info, but that’s not due to a legal requirement.)

It’s relatively rare nowadays that I see a guest or public WiFi network with neither a captive portal nor a password, but again, those do still sometimes occur and are fully legal in the US. Organizations (and their insurers) do tend to like the protections of legalese and/or identifying users, but US law doesn’t generally force them into it in this context.

Can you criticize them instead for firing her for something that their Chief Corporate Affairs Officer explicitly gave her permission to do? If it was a matter of pragmatism, they could have declined her request for permission. (One might separately argue about whether this should be a matter of right vs a matter of permission, but regardless, she did seek permission and was granted it.)

However, since we are discussing the banner that The Guardian website shows to US viewers, I assume they’re trying to comply with California privacy law, which does allow opt-out regarding the sale of personal information.

At minimum he's a politician between now and the end of the Senate election, and of course longer if he wins.

Longer than a generation if you include the Congressional stage of the process as part of the attempt - the last time Congress sent an amendment to the states was in 1978.

Yes, an amendment was ratified as recently as 1992, but that amendment was approved by Congress all the way back in 1789 (!) along with ten other amendments which we now know as the Bill of Rights and one additional amendment that has still never been (and probably won't ever be) ratified. The story of why that ended up getting ratified in 1992 is quite interesting, but it has nothing to do with how to get new amendments through Congress these days.

Note they say “to seek employment” and “without restrictive border controls”, not “for any purpose” and “without border controls”. This does not mean they’re advocating to let in convicted murderers or people who just want to migrate for welfare benefits. Calling it “open borders” is an exaggeration in absolute terms, though it is for sure accurate as a relative comparison to what we have now.

Also, their political party, as such, is the Democrats. DSA is not a political party. But yeah they are members of DSA as well as being Democrats.

I worked at Google in the past, most recently ending in early 2015, and can confirm that the answer to this question was yes when I was there - presumably still the case today with different details.

I have no idea whether the procedures were followed in this case, nor do I have any other inside information on this story, nor am I speaking for Google or Alphabet here.

Here is the Chicago Manual of Style's Q&A on commas: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/C...

One of the answers cites section 6.34 of the Chicago Manual of Style as follows: "Although an introductory adverbial phrase can usually be followed by a comma, it need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones."

For the example we're discussing, "Back in 2022 or 2023", my personal instinct as a university-educated native US English speaker would be to include or omit the comma primarily depending on how much emphasis I want to put on the timing of my statement. I also know that I tend to write overly long sentences with too many commas, so sometimes I'd intentionally counteract my own tendency and limit the complexity of the sentence by removing a comma like that if the sentence still seems good without it. Other times I'd split the sentence into two, but my sentences rarely get as staccato as AI-written ones.

Certainly I wouldn’t support such strict enforcement with the current usual driver approach of aiming for a bit above the limit under good road and weather conditions, nor if applied disproportionately against less privileged people.

I agree that would be disingenuous, but I never said that. Of course the choices made by every Canadian prime minister in their cabinet are still being felt by their party and the rest of the country slightly over a year after they leave office. Trudeau is no exception.

> Painting Carney as a progressive conservative doesn’t seem like a good faith position, I’m skeptical of your earnestness here.

It’s a very widely held position and widely discussed in many sources.

As one bit of evidence that he has some appeal to the conservative wing of the political spectrum, Carney himself stated in February 2025 that former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had offered him the role of finance minister in 2012. The response by Harper-era staffers tried to make him look as bad as they could without lying, which is unsurprising treatment of a then-Liberal leadership candidate given how partisan politics works nowadays, but notably they never denied that what he actually said was accurate.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-stephen-harper-...

To be clearer on the tangent I said was off-topic, I am not saying Carney is opposed to engaging thoroughly with China. He isn’t. But that’s more of a Conservative position than a Trudeau-style Liberal position.

Evidence: former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the one who signed a major free trade agreement with China which has a really long duration (for some purposes a full 31 years), which allows Chinese state-owned enterprises to sue the Canadian government like private investors, and which is in many ways asymmetrical in China’s favour. Not Trudeau. Look up 2014 FIPA if you want more info on that agreement.

The Trudeau quote you cited is real, but Trudeau’s actual actions have been far less pro-China than either Harper’s or Carney’s. Keep in mind that plenty of the criticism which Trudeau received over that quote came from within the Liberal party, meaning it isn’t like the Liberal party is disproportionately filled with CCP admirers. Some individuals will have that viewpoint in both major parties, but it’s certainly not accurate to say that it’s more dominant among the Liberals than the Conservatives.

Also be careful about assuming that the National Post will present things fairly. Like many (maybe even most?) well-known Canadian newspapers, they are part of Postmedia, which is majority-owned by an American financial firm with close ties to the US Republican Party. Their non-opinion news articles generally do avoid factual falsehoods, but they often use style and selective omission to present a very biased view of the truth in the service of right-wing messaging goals.