Depends on what you define as "meaningful", but lots of things have already reached that threshold in my opinion. Travel into the US has dropped by up to 50% in some cases, which severely hurts their tourism industry, especially in northern parts of the USA. US politicians are talking about it, claiming outrageous things like "Canada has banned US goods". Canadians stores are struggling to sell some USA products, being forced to put discounts on them and stopping or postponing the order of replacement stock.

Anyway, symbols are only worth something if they mean something.

Your comment comes off as a bit too gender normative IMO, but I do think you are correct in that it might be a bit blown out of proportion. The law does protect doctors who deem it necessary to do surgery to correct birth defects (especially those that involve or are around genitelia) and I think that's quite reasonable. It would be even better if the law set specific protections for intersex infants, though. There's a significant difference between someone born with a defect that can cause serious complications in the future (I heard recently that AFAB urethras are surprisingly often plumbed weirdly) and someone who's born intersex.

We are discussing what someone would use when writing about a hypothetical person.

And that changes it how? It's insulting to misgender someone, though I can understand how you'd think that there's no harm in insulting someone hypothetical.

I suggest you do some research on the history of language

Per your suggestion, "they" has been used to refer to a singular person since the 14th century. "He" is currently masculine-only. I apologize if you misunderstood my use of "never" to refer to things around the 18th and 19th century (when it apparently was considered bad to use "they" in the singular) when I presumed that there was an implicit limit to modern usage of English.

If you don't want to follow other people's suggestions on how to communicate your information better, that's fine. But insulting people who are just offering friendly suggestions (and explanations) is not ok.

Despite what you have seem to believe, I actually agree with your post's general thesis. It doesn't really matter to me whether you believe that though.

Just don't host it with a USA company.

(Self-promo: https://git.ngni.us/mirrors/Ryujinx is still up, hosted in Canada)

It’s confusing why it’s such a big leap.

Because saying "I'll do [thing] until I die" is not the same as "If I stop doing [thing] you can kill me".

Also it’s odd to assume you’d break the vow after not accepting them cheating. From my cultural POV when you cheat. You’d forfeit the vow.

If the vow is broken by cheating, then the part of the vow about being lawfully wedded until death is also broken. So then you'd also lose your right to murder them to get out of the vow, since you're already out of the vow. If you'd like a fun take on divorce as murder, see The Orville's Moclans.

Which would bring dishonour upon your family and that includes a direct disrespect of the other family.

Is your culture Klingon? Because honour is not a real thing, it's just an excuse to shame people for doing things some don't like. If you've got a good reason why it has to be this way, I'd love to hear it. As it stands, that's just intolerance by peer pressure, which are both bad things to do. I'd encourage you to spend a bit of time doing some critical thinking about your culture, since I saw some of your other replies saying that some of your beliefs come from your culture. I come from a culture that still likes marriage a lot (Canada + Catholic), but that same culture is also responsible for (triggers incoming) genocide, child abuse, cultural cleansing, and rampant pollution.

Hey I cheated, or tried leaving (Not leaving because of abuse) since I believe if someone was abusing you. They’d also break the vow since the vow is to protect, love and care until death.

I'm not going to defend cheating too much, but the vow has no statement about monogamy (though that is usually and reasonably assumed to be the case) so the pedant in me would like to point out that cheating is not breaking the vow. Even with the reasonable assumption that cheating is breaking the vow, the vow does not set consequences for breaking it. Technically, divorce does not even break the vow. It is also possible to protect, love, and care until death while ending the marriage. Even after a divorce, your partner was still your lawfully wedded partner. (I don't really agree with this paragraph, but it's a totally valid opinion with some strong arguments so I wanted to mention it)

For Time do us part. While it may seem lesser. It’s acknowledging the flow of time and how someone can change throughout life. Though in reality there could be a better option but it’s more making it apparent the importance of meaningful statements.

I'd like to believe that the vow is acknowledgement that they intend to fulfill it until death. From that basic tenet and knowing that humans aren't perfect [citation needed], it's easy to come to the premise that somebody might grow to realize they can't fulfill that vow, and so they want to get a divorce. It's actually probably the most protective, loving, and caring thing a partner could do -- realize they aren't good with their partner and so leave. The fact that they broke the vow does not invalidate their intent to fulfill it when they started the marriage. This is basically the idea behind no-fault divorce, btw.

If you want to acknowledge time by changing the vow from "death" to "time", you're definitely allowed to for your own wedding. But don't presume that people don't understand the meaning of what they're saying because they made a vow that they ultimately didn't keep.

Here's a parting thought: Would a good partner ever murder their spouse? Is human life truly valued lower than this made up concept called "honour"?

Honestly, I try not to think about them. It's an inherently selfish and self-serving class and they've got enough money to pay people to think about them, so I'm not going to do it for free.

I like to divide my spending into two broad categories: needs and wants. For example, I need food and shelter to survive, but I only want that really cute blahaj (even though it feels like I need it). Things that I want I can skip, things that I need I cannot. You have to be very honest with yourself for that to work well though.

Of course life is not fun if you're only surviving, so it's OK to treat yourself occasionally with things you want. Just make sure you're saving enough before spending on "wants".

It's also often possible to break down "needs" further, since you may need some functionality (e.g. something to eat, something to hit nails with, etc.) but the specific item is not a need. I will prefer the cheapest option if I don't have any other requirements. I tend to like things that'll last though (they're usually cheaper in the long run), so I'm willing to not cheap out if that's a factor.

I am a very pragmatic and minimalist person though, so I don't think this advice will work for everyone.

It'll be interesting to see how the launch goes. Maybe Decky itself will get onto the Steam store one day...

They're mostly breaking the GUI of game mode, which causes it to restart the game mode GUI. The underlying OS isn't really affected -- you should be able to SSH into an affected system or force boot into desktop mode.

I haven't been to a Loblaws in ages, but I'm happy to continue with that.

I tend to get my groceries from local independent (not Independent) stores and Giant Tiger. They're closer so I can walk anyway.

I'd like to set the record straight, since you've made some pretty large leaps and factual errors which I hope doesn't mislead anyone else.

Disclaimer before I start: I have a Fairphone 4, I'm probably one of the first to get it in North America (especially Canada), and I'm the first Fairphone Angel in that region. So yeah, I'm biased in favour of Fairphone, but I get nothing out of supporting them.

the fairphone company makes grand promises of 7 years support, despite historically really doing 2-4 years of support very badly.

The Fairphone 2 got 7 years of support, the Fairphone 3 just got it's 5 years promise upgraded to 7. They make no promises about how timely the updates are, but they do keep your phone usable for 7 years if "usable" is defined as "having reasonably up to date Android security patches". This doesn't work for everyone, since some workplaces require very timely security updates, but I think that's a quite reasonable niche to miss for a small company with much more limited resources than the big two phone companies. On the other hand I can confirm first hand that CalyxOS has had very quick turnaround for Fairphone 4 Android security patches (e.g. it's July 12th, I just installed Android's July security patch).

especially when they make claims outside of SoC OEM support periods despite knowing that they can’t provide those updates

Firmware updates aren't the only sort of security patch. You drill this point home a bit more in your linked post as well, as though firmware is the only thing that determines whether a phone is secure. Blame the SoC makers for that, if you must, but Fairphone has not made any claims about firmware updates in that 5-7 year promise.

the fairphone 3 even launched on the same day as android 10 but instead of quickly porting over, they instead ported over their next line of phone (fairphone 3+)

Fairphone 3 and 3+ are the same phone for most intents and purposes. The 3+ has an upgraded camera module and DAC [citation needed], but the base software/OS is identical so that statement simply can't be true.

the phone removed expandable storaged

All Fairphones have expandable storage, including the Fairphone 4.

the phone removed [...] a headphone jack [...], at the same time as they released their unrepairable line of wireless products. this is just begging for e-waste.

Are USB-C DACs really a big source of e-waste? Anyone who cares about e-waste would probably get one that's going to last a while or at least have a replaceable USB-C cable since that'll probably fail sooner (and it's a easier to recycle than the actual circuitry). Wireless earbuds are infamously hard to make repairable, but Fairphone throwing their hat into the ring at least guarantees that there's a more ethical option. If Fairphone doesn't follow market trends, then they're never going to get people to use their products, which would mean they'd be better off not existing at all. I don't think any of us think that is a preferable option. Refer to your Pixel for recent market trends.

the claims of being ethically sourced are not universal to the whole phone, the fair trade gold standard is limited to some parts that they source.

Fairphone was like 90% ethical (& ethical offset) according to their latest impact report. You seem to have extrapolated the claim of using any fairtrade gold into using all fairtrade gold, which I can find no evidence of Fairphone saying. You're also sort of throwing away any effort to be ethical because it's not 100% ethical. As OP said, there is no [absolute] ethical consumption under capitalism (but there is more ethical).

they have hardware for an extra SIM slot on the fairphone 4, but made it unusable to the user. clearly just an anti-consumer move.

Qualcomm chips only support 2 active sim cards (called "5G Global multi-SIM" if you like marketing gibberish, FP4 has the X52 modem), so it's not a big stretch to imagine that they didn't want to confuse people when they try to activate both physical SIMs and an eSIM and it doesn't let them. (I also can't find anything that says how many physical SIMs the chip can support, so I wonder if Qualcomm would even allow for that configuration).

You've jumped to some conclusions on your own which don't line up with what Fairphone has said, and then you conflate those conclusions with the actual facts. Marketing is all about telling people what's good and why they should buy it, so it's usually best to read it like a lawyer: read it literally and try to see find the loopholes. Hoping no one is going to ever make another big purchase without doing extensive research.