I get the impression that most humans in 40k are fairly comfortable. It's no utopia like Star Trek, but on the Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid, they're looking for love and belonging. Their physiological and safety needs are met. Sure war exists in the 40k universe, but for most humans it's a very distant thing.

Maybe if you lived a full lifetime in a 40k universe there would be at least one disaster you had to deal with, that would be pretty awful. But, 5 minutes would be a piece of cake.

He might have read it, but did he understand it? He's a fan of the Torment Nexus.

Americans have a weird idea of what a king is or does.

That seems like a great reason to not like the guy. He takes our money whenever he visits. If I visit another country they don't pay for anything.

The monarch visits about once a decade. The King came by for 2 days recently to open Parliament. The last visit by a monarch before that was a 1 week visit by the Queen in 2010. One estimate I've seen is that the entire funding of anything Royal in Canada, including every expense related to the Governor General amounts to about $50m/year. That's about 0.01% of the Federal Budget. If Canada had a president (even a ceremonial one) instead of a Governor General those costs would barely change. A ceremonial president would cost roughly the same. Germany has a largely ceremonial president and his office costs the country 30m euros per year.

Basically, the amount spent on the royals / the governor general is tiny compared to the entire federal budget. Is it worth it? Who knows. The GG basically acts as an ambassador for the country and I'd argue many of them have been useful, and that's where almost the entire royal-related budget goes.

If Canada decided to switch to a republic without even a ceremonial president, the cost of that change would be equivalent to decades worth of spending on the GG / royals.

"Soft power" is another term for influence, so the king still has power.

Yeah, but so do TikTok influencers.

Also, Air India goes by the unfortunate initialism "AI", which will really gum up the headlines here.

What am I on about? Anarchism, which seems to be something people have a hard time grasping.

Because it's unworkable? Sure.

Ok, now that I see your mental illness, I can safely just ignore you.

On a video posted to Reddit you can hear the Ram Air Turbine running, suggesting there's a hydraulic / engine problem. You also don't hear the high pitched whine from the engines you'd expect if the plane were taking off normally.

So, what matters to you is that theoretically a monarch in a constitutional monarchy still has some powers. And, somehow, that makes the system worse than the US, where theoretically a president doesn't have those powers. And yet, the actual president is actually doing things that a king would never be allowed to do?

Obviously "presidency" is not compatible with a free society, so what are you on about?

Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow?

I mean, it's pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system "Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?" you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.

An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he's dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he's alive.

So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say "No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax."

but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding

Because we know what "understanding" is, and that it isn't simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.

then continue to shill it for use cases it wasn't made for either

The only thing it was made for is "spicy autocomplete".

If you've ever heard Germans try to pronounce "squirrel", it's hilarious. I've known many extremely bilingual Germans who couldn't pronounce it at all. It came out sounding roughly like "squall", or they'd over-pronounce the "r" and it would be "squi-rall"

Yeah, the so-called "lawful access" parts of Bill C-2 are especially bad. Here's constitutional law professor Michael Geist's take on it:

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2025/06/privacy-at-risk-government-buries-lawful-access-provisions-in-new-border-bill/

"the bill creates a new “information demand” for law enforcement that does not require court oversight."

In other words, if Bill C-2 passes, the police are allowed to demand information from an ISP about someone without a warrant, and it's illegal for the ISP to refuse that demand. There's no oversight mechanism of any kind, and the only requirement is that the cop has a hunch that maybe a crime might be committed. What crime? Any crime.

Know what's a crime? Lying to a cop. So, if a cop has a reasonable suspicion that you lied to them, or will lie to them in the future, that's legal grounds for them to get access to this data from a service provider. You know that every cop going through a divorce will be using this to get info on their spouses. Why not? It's perfectly legal.

Why are these so-called "lawful access" provisions being considered? It's a sore spot with the US that Canadians have a bit more privacy than Americans. And, for some reason, despite the US being incredibly hostile, the government still wants to work on that relationship by giving away Canadians' rights.

So-called "lawful access" is a terrible idea. The supreme court already decided that Canadians have a right to privacy and that giving away this data violates that privacy. These rights shouldn't be given away for any reason, but especially not to curry favour with the US, given that the US is already violating their treaties with Canada. But, even if someone might disagree and think "lawful access" is necessary, give it its own bill. Don't tack it onto a bill about the border. This has nothing to do with the border, and it's an important enough discussion that it shouldn't be hidden in a border bill.