I’m not sure. The price of oil is the price of oil…except that Canada sells its oil to the USA at a discount because where else can we sell it.

The fact that Canada sends almost all of our oil to the USA means that the USA buys less at the normal world price from other sources. This increases supply in the world market. If Canada shifts its sales to the world market, then the USA has to buy more from that world market at the higher price also balancing out the supply/demand on the world market.

Net result would be that the USA will have to pay more for Canadian oil, because why would we sell it to them at a discount if we can sell it on the world market at the full price. This just means that we get more money for the same production.

All that assumes that production stays the same. If that holds true then the net environmental impact is relatively neutral except for the pipeline itself.

If the pipeline allows production to increase, then there’s obviously a potential for greater environmental impact, although it’s not really clear that greater supply would mean greater demand. But the Canadian oil is dirty to extract no that’s bad.

However, any amount of excess pipeline capacity away from the USA is a win for Canada economically and politically, as far as I’m concerned.

If Brent crude drops below $40/barrel, that would probably mean that demand had dropped so much that the days of burning oil are coming to a close. I’m not going to complain about that.

I remember when typewriters often didn’t have a 1 key. You just used l (lowercase L) instead.

Us that technically a missing Oxford comma, or just a missing comma?

Hmmmm…

I give you Mark Carney.

I despise the idea of a hiring process that treats the applicant as a supplicant. As a manager I once attended a training session on “Behaviour Based” interviewing. The approach itself - the idea of asking situational questions - had some merit, but the process they taught depending on keeping the applicant in the dark as much as possible and concentrated all the power in the hiring side.

To me the process needs to be two way. The applicant needs to know if the company, and the position itself will be a good fit for them. I can see an applicant asking the same kind of questions, “Can you describe how you would handle a situation where an employee behaved inappropriately to a female coworker?”. That kind of thing.

It’s beneficial to both sides. The applicant doesn’t want to land in a bad fit, and the hiring process is expensive and dealing with the vacancy has its own costs.

Taking the attitude that every applicant is simply wants to get the offer, and will lie and cheat to get it sets a bad tone right from the start, and the approach makes it difficult for the applicant to make an informed decision.

I realize that the OP example is the way that the world is going, but having an AI interview would just be a giant red flag for me. I would be tempted to just set an AI of my own to interact with the company’s AI directly and just sit back and watch.

I say, “would be”, because I’m retired, and will never have to deal with this BS. However, I hope that the people that I interviewed in the past appreciated the cooperative approach that I tried to take.

Something about this question rankles me.

It feels like there’s some underlying assumption of superiority of US law enforcement over that of the rest of the world. Even just by asking the question the way it is asked, “…flex a LAPD badge”, like anyone outside the US would even know what it was.

Flip the question around, could a Romanian cop who didn’t speak English, or one from the DRC maybe, “flex” his badge in Wyoming? It’s laughable. The OP probably wouldn’t ever consider the possibility that anyone in the US would ever care about a foreign police badge.

I dunno. The whole question smacks of, “Team America. World Police”.

The Cold War, the threat of “Mutually Assure Destruction” that hung over all of heads for decades until the USSR dissolved, was “fairly minor”???

My objection centres around the wording, “Premier is essentially the same as a US Governor”.

Not, “similar”, or “somewhat the same responsibilities”, “essentially the same”.

Yes, lots of countries use the term “Governor” for the leaders of states and provinces. But specifying, “US Governor”, adds a ton of baggage to the term that essentially makes the statement incorrect.

It’s a Parliamentary system, a different form of government and the roles are not “essentially” the same.

I didn’t see the “at war” part in the full text of the speech, and I don’t rememer hearing it when I watched it. Perhaps it was in response to one of the questions after the speech?

The Cold War. Transfer of Hong Kong to China. The collapse of the USSR. Arab/Israeli wars. Vietnam and the Peace Movement. The oil crisis. 9/11. End of Segregation in the US. Womens’ Rights especially after the Pill Gay/Trans Rights The Korean War The Beatles

It’s pretty much constant.

The scope of the powers is virtually identical within their jurisdictions. Provinces are clearly not going to be negotiating international treaties, for instance, but they are going to be negotiating inter-provincial relations.

Well, I object to the need to somehow relate everything to an American frame of reference. The two systems are fundamentally different, and the roles are not really analogous. Far better to say, “Like a Prime Minister, but for a province.” What’s hard about that?

Describe a time of geopolitical non-change please.

This is essentially incorrect. Canadian provinces use a parliamentary system very similar to the federal government. The Premier of a province is analogous to the Prime Minister of the country, but for a single province.

The Premier in not elected separately like a US Governor, nor does he act separately from the legislature of the province. He’s the leader of the party that holds the most seats in the Legislature and forms the Government of the province.

I literally only use “literally” when I literally mean “literally”.

Isn’t that what the current one does constantly???

“If so why don’t people buy more 70’s cars?”. IMHO, this is actually the whole point of the OP’s question.

Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.

All good reasons to avoid the 70’s car.

They explained it more clearly later in the article. 4 weeks for the first year, then 1 week for each additional year of tenure. So a three year employee would get 4+2, which is the same as in Canada. But a 4 year employee would get 4+3 which is less than the statutory (1+1)*4 in Canada.

In Canada, once you get to about 6 years of employment, you can start to expect (1+1+2) * (# years). With a cap of about 80 weeks. You’d bust past the woeful 26 week cap with just 7 years of service.

And, BTW: You would need 23 years of tenure to hit that 26 week cap.

Interesting, that doesn’t even meet the statutory requirements in Canada, which is 1 week severence+ 1 week in lieu of notice per year of employment. One top of that civil case law will generally add another 2 weeks per year of employment for employees who have been with a company for more than 5 years. There are other factors involved in this however. The whole thing generally tops out at about 20 months, too.