prodigalsorcerer

Are you under the impression that this new manufacturer will somehow capture the entire market?

To use Tesla as an example, since they're the largest and fastest growing "new" auto manufacturer... In 2024, they sold about 50,000 cars in Canada, and manufactured 1.7 million. So we're barely 3% of their market, and if their Canadian sales drop to zero (as they should), they would barely notice.

As you said, licensing could save a lot of R&D costs, but it would almost certainly come with a stipulation that we couldn't sell the vehicles outside of Canada. If a new manufacturer were to take up the entire Tesla market in Canada (which would be incredibly ambitious), they'd need to be about a quarter (or less) of the size of the Oakville Ford plant. I don't think that it can be profitable at that scale, but I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

Canada has about 1.8 million new vehicle sales per year. It's not impossible to serve a market that small, but a lot of profits in the auto industry are due to their ability to scale.

Any new manufacturer will have to start in the high priced, low volume, luxury segment anyway, but there isn't huge room for growth while remaining in Canada.

If they expand to the States, then they just end up with the same problems we have now. If they expand to Europe, shipping is a pain, though doable. But if that's the plan, anyone with enough money to start a new car company will probably just start it in Europe to begin with, since Europe has a bigger market than Canada.

The other way to do this would be a non-profit or Crown corporation, where profitability isn't the goal. That has a lot of other issues, but avoids the biggest one.

Can you explain what a trade deficit is and why it's bad?

It's a list of Canadians with the implication, but little to no evidence, of war crimes beyond the fact that they served in Israel's military.

To me it feels a lot like the published lists of people who "celebrated" Charlie Kirk's death. Yes, it's likely factual, but it feels like it's trying to start a witch hunt. And in this case, there's even less proof of any "wrongdoing".

Anyone know what legal issues might exist?

Any potential legal issue would be a civil, not criminal matter, and would be with the other xAI and SpaceX shareholders. Both are private companies, so if someone has issues with this, there could be a lawsuit, but more likely, it'll result in a quiet settlement. If a lot of shareholders have an issue with this, then we'll probably hear something about it.

Why doesn't it mean anything?

It literally means that if NY ends DST, we will follow suit to match them. It doesn't do anything until then, if that's what you mean, but it still has actual meaning beyond political posturing.

It's also not what you said. You said NY had already committed to doing it (which they haven't) if Ontario did it too. I can't find anything about Quebec passing a similar bill, so I may have been mistaken about that.

If violent dictators can't trust that you're making a deal for peaceful resolution in good faith, then a lot of people are going to die to achieve that transition. If the only way out is death, they're going to take as many people with them as possible. Is that worth it, just to kill one rich guy?

Peaceful transitions of power always involve compromises. Here, they agreed to spare his life in exchange for the future lives of countless citizens. If they didn't want to agree to those conditions, they shouldn't have made the deal. It just makes it harder for this situation to play out peacefully in the future.

Did New York say that? I thought Ontario and Quebec had passed bills that would end it as soon as NY also did it.

The Canadian show follows pretty much the same formula. You don't need to have seen anything; there's no continuity outside of the individual seasons.

I think the quality of baking is higher in GBBO, especially in later seasons, but that doesn't really change how the show works. It just makes judging (and guessing who's going to lose) harder.

The theory is that students need jobs and money leading to an oversaturated market of gig workers. So delivery companies (whether it's packages or food) can offer terrible wages and still find people willing to work those jobs.

I do believe there is some truth to that, but the problem isn't the students directly, it's that our labour laws aren't strong enough to protect these workers.

If Amazon and Uber and Skip all had to pay their drivers as actual employees and give them benefits and cover vehicle and insurance costs, they'd be a lot less competitive compared to all the other businesses (like Canada Post) that are providing those things.

I read the article. It says it's actually pretty easy to solve (I disagree with last write wins, especially given their example, but it's pretty simple to implement), and doesn't talk about capitalism at all.

The answer to the headline is just capitalism. It's not technical difficulty, and this didn't need a whole article. Every developer already understands this. It's just not a business priority.

We can ban him, but what would that accomplish?

Like it or not, we still share a border with them. It's in our interest to not poke the bear. We don't have to be welcoming, and we don't need to share our picnic baskets, but we're not equipped to actively fight the bear.