Money is fungible; the funding can come from anywhere. Heck, these days it's not uncommon for Softbank in Japan to invest money from Saudi Arabia into companies in California.

Canadian investors are much too risk-averse, but they will happily follow a funding round led by an American VC.

> Attracting strong talent in Canada is hard given the massive pay differences gained by moving south of the border.

The size of the pay difference is something you, as the prospective employer, have significant direct control of. It is within your authority to point the dial anywhere from "hard to find anybody because of the massive pay difference" to "easy to attract strong talent, while still saving money relative to what it would cost to attract the same level of talent in the US".

The Canadian business establishment will not come after you to break your knees if you offer higher wages than they do.

If you pay more while earning less (or attracting less investment money) you are at risk of being outcompeted. I'm not an expert in Canadian economy, however I guess paying the same salary in Ontario costs more vs profits, than in California, or Texas.

If you are competent at identifying talent and hiring it, paying more in this market is actually a quite "neat hack" to slay any competition that is obsessed with low margins and therefore ends up with, frankly, mediocrity, as a result.

If you think talent isn't worth the price, that's also a valid philosophy! But it's not the same thing as it being hard to attract talent.

True, it's a very user-oriented feature. That's why they let you disable it, and also let you edit the blacklist, so that you can prevent accidentally typing words that are offensive in your own cultural context.

... Actually I'm not sure if they let you do those.

TBF user choice and customizability aren’t very Apple things in any context.

My Apple Watch has a setting for how long the display stays on before sleep. It’s a dropdown with two choices: 15 seconds or 70 seconds. Would you prefer 30 seconds? Why not 60 seconds instead of 70 you say? Fuck you, you don’t know better than Apple designers. Take it or leave it, best we can do is 15 seconds.

But when you have a kid, you might want to share the experience with them. They'll see the magic.

My brother has our Xbox from when we were kids and his kids love all those games we grew up with.

Institutional memories of civil wars and uprisings?

Also because they make them all faceless and sleek and alien, like a human shaped iPhone. If they instead looked like little Gundams I think they'd be cool.

Probably too many pinch points though.

It's not necessarily at the expense of cars; the people riding bicycles on the bike lane are no longer driving cars blocking the way ahead of you, and parking their car in your favourite spot. Since bicycles use space more efficiently than cars, this can actually be a win for both the cyclists and the remaining drivers (who now have one less lane, but even less traffic). However this only happens if cycling adoption is high enough, which is why the bike routes have to be well connected.

Sometimes it doesn't even require sacrificing a lane, because many North American cities have lanes that are wildly larger than necessary or even appropriate given the posted speed limits. The lanes can simply be narrowed, and then this also causes the drivers to naturally drive at safer speeds, reducing traffic accidents, speeding tickets, and the unplanned delays that those both cause.

The bike lane space has to come from somewhere, parking space for bikes has to come from somewhere, intersections have to be set up to disadvantage one for the other.

Street space really is zero-sum, though more people in bikes and out of cars free’s up so much infrastructure that it can make less space work even better for cars- I’m sure urban designers are aware of this.

The major issue I presume that is faced in urban design is how to handle people coming from far away, the regional hub/spoke design (with train stations around a radial that have good parking allowing train access into the city) is not something actively pursued by advanced economies for some (presumably good) reason.

The bit you are missing is the space efficiency. Cars take up the most space by a large margin and getting people into more dense forms of transit (anything else) frees up space to be more efficiently used. Space is the most precious commodity in a city as many people are competing for every square meter.

This is also why suburbs and rural areas are a better fit for cars. Space is much more available and you can afford to be wasteful with it.

> The bike lane space has to come from somewhere

> though more people in bikes and out of cars free’s up so much infrastructure that it can make less space work even better for cars

Yes, you've reiterated my point...

In Chicago, more people ride the Ashland bus than drive down Ashland every day. We still couldn’t take a lane for bus rapid transit.

People are already stupid, put them in a car and their brains start leaking out of their ears.

The computer doesn't know we're running a test!

Ironically, these models have demonstrated awareness that they are in tests and chosen to act in ways that maximise their chances of deployment.

The Soviet Union existed for less than half of that time period, and a lot of talented researchers moved to the West after it collapsed. (I know because I've worked with a lot of them). So that's kind of a weird time period to sample. It's like saying if Einstein was so smart, how come he hasn't published anything recently?

Doesn't seem like a sexist movie to me, despite the fact that it depicts sexism. Maybe you didn't notice the difference?

Just saw the movie for the first time recently. If anything the movie toned it down for the sake of modern audiences.