Perhaps you missed The Fine Headline ("In Last-Minute Move, Canada Rescinds Digital Services Tax, Restarts Negotiations", emphasis added) and the rest of TFS? I am sure you were not being intentionally off-topic....

Canada's Digital Services Tax was promised in 2019 and passed in 2024, so it's pretty safe to say it was not "a response" to anything Trump did as president. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...

There's been a broad obligation to do that for four years: https://www.canada.ca/en/reven..., although maybe some companies claim their goods or services are exempt. Google, for example, apparently collects and remits GST/HST for sales through its platforms unless the seller provides documentation that a Canadian official has determined that the good or service is exempt.

Really? I was in Canberra recently, and stayed in Braddon. In easy walking distance were Jarochos, Guzman y Gomez, Mad Mex (mall food court food could count either more or less), Fonda and Mezcals. Loquita and Paloma's are more bars than restaurants but very Mexican themed.

For sure it's less common than various Asian cuisines or even "modern Australian", but it did seem to be something that Australian do. Maybe Canberra is a special case.

Patrick was not happy with the veto.

Abbott has called a special session for the purpose of writing a new bill. I suspect that Patrick will get a very slightly looser version of SB3 passed, which may itself get vetoed.

The number of times that my wife has had to submit a copy of her marriage certificate to confirm her original name even though we've been married for 11 years baffles me. It made some sense in the first year or two, but she still has to do it a couple of times a year for seemingly random things. I encouraged her to keep her original name when we were planning the wedding, but she insisted on the name change.

Both of those cases came after the DMCA was passed in 1998, and the second was a major case applying the new rules in the DMCA. The US passed the DMCA to enact two 1996 treaties.

In contrast, Section 230 was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act in 1996, in response to two earlier lawsuits that were not about copyright -- as suggested by the name of the law.

Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree whether the way the general public uses "make [someone or people] healthy" is about diet and exercise to reduce fat, increase muscle mass and improve cardiovascular health. And whether those are all things that vaccines are really bad at doing. And also whether one's criticisms should be accurate and well-founded, even when one is criticizing a bad person. And on top of that, whether it's bad to take the kind of extremist position that says "nothing else he will ever do can matter by comparison" unless that person is actively killing a lot of people.

Section 230 is part of Title 47 (Telecommunications) of the U.S. Code. It has nothing to do with copyright, which is covered by Title 17.

If you want to consider copyright cases in the context of the Internet we could look at Metallica v. Napster Inc, which ... led to no changes to the law after it became clear that Napster would have to settle or lose.

Or we could consider Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., which ... led to no changes in the law after YouTube lost an appeal and settled the case rather than lose for good.

I think it is entirely fair to point out that the OP only makes sense if you read it as a cheap troll that means something other than what it actually says. You illustrated my point by rewriting the OP as "how modern populations get and stay healthy". Subtlety is not what insists on rewriting language -- dishonesty is.

My point is that the original comment was wrong because it was stupidly reductive. Vaccines don't "make America healthy"; they reduce the disease burden of specific illnesses, and they are only one part of improving QALYs. Your doctor prescribed tapping, for example, not a vaccine -- because the mechanism is different and the specific desired outcome isn't reasonably achievable with a vaccine.

But some asshole wanted to post an anti-RFK troll, and shitty moderators rewarded that.

The point isn't "lived experience", but how you achieve the desired goal, and the different mechanisms involved are really damn important if you want to make that a fairly reliable outcome. That is why doctors take so many measurements, run so many tests, watch for trends over time, and use a lot of words with very specific meanings. Blurring distinctions to make a cheap political point undermines the goal of having a long, healthy lives -- and is a huge part of why the RFK Jrs of the world generate so many bad effects.

There absolutely is a difference, because you need more than one mechanism within your body to be working well. No number of shots or pills can -- at least with current knowledge -- replace the effects of exercise.

Next time you're at the doctor's office, try telling them to shut up about all the jargon and technical terms because "there's no meaningful so-what" in all the different words they use, and you only care about "adding years to life, and life to years". Let us know how that works out for you.

That study had a total of 17 rats in four groups. If that's the most convincing data, I stand by my statement because we were talking about human populations rather than a handful of rodents.

Based on how quickly my data consumption has grown over the past decade (from 50 Mbps to 100 Mbps), I think the CAT6 in my walls will last me for a while yet. It's there for moving data quickly within my house, not for streaming stuff from the Internet.

WiFi 6 is probably as fast as it makes sense to plan for. It supports up to 9.6 Gbps nominal, but the bigger reason is that the practical range for higher speeds shrinks to a single not-very-big room because you need such high SNR and such wide channels. Almost no one will put a WiFi 7 AP in most rooms of their house in order to achieve those peak speeds.