Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18855 > unrolled thread

Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-30 17:17 -0400
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-30 19:27 -0400
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-01 01:05 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-05-01 07:52 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 08:56 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-01 14:58 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 19:16 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 01:01 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 22:04 -0400
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 04:37 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 09:08 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 02:31 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 08:14 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 19:59 +1000
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:54 -0400
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 04:35 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-30 21:19 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 12:06 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 01:52 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-05-02 11:02 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-02 20:51 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 07:55 -0400
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 10:50 -0400
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-02 20:46 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-05-01 10:06 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 17:50 -0400
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 08:22 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 08:51 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 18:49 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 19:22 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:58 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2025-05-01 08:16 -0700
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-05-01 07:11 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 09:00 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 18:05 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:51 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 21:51 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 04:38 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 09:11 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 12:35 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:06 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 19:47 -0400
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 02:16 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 07:41 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 16:01 -0400
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:27 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-10 04:33 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:24 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 00:37 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 04:47 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:57 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-04 20:04 +1000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 08:08 -0400
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 20:17 +0000
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 18:04 -0400
                                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:38 +0000
                                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-05 08:39 -0400
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:25 +0000
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:34 +0000
                                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-05 20:22 +1000
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:54 +0000
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-04 20:08 +1000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:24 -0400
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:49 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 07:49 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 16:12 -0400
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 01:03 +0000
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-10 01:41 -0400
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-15 21:05 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-01 13:46 +0000
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 22:55 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 19:46 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 23:53 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 13:27 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 10:40 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:33 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:08 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#19019

On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:11:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-05-02 00:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:51:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> Trump didn't like Poilièvre because he was combative. He actually
>>> preferred the ecological tyrant that got elected on Monday.
>> 
>> Why would you be unhappy about that, if your idol actually prefers this
>> guy?
> 
> I like Trump and when his tariffs were announced, rather than cry like
> other Canadians, I saw it as a good thing because it was going to force
> our government to look for new customers and develop a sense of
> nationalism where Canadian products were prioritized over American one.

But wasn’t that going against Trump’s declared goal of annexing Canada?

Or did you not agree with that part of the MAGA ideology?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19021

On 2025-05-03 19:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:11:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-05-02 00:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:51:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trump didn't like Poilièvre because he was combative. He actually
>>>> preferred the ecological tyrant that got elected on Monday.
>>>
>>> Why would you be unhappy about that, if your idol actually prefers this
>>> guy?
>>
>> I like Trump and when his tariffs were announced, rather than cry like
>> other Canadians, I saw it as a good thing because it was going to force
>> our government to look for new customers and develop a sense of
>> nationalism where Canadian products were prioritized over American one.
> 
> But wasn’t that going against Trump’s declared goal of annexing Canada?
> 
> Or did you not agree with that part of the MAGA ideology?

To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the 
United States, and I agree with him on that point. He also made it clear 
that the only kind of conflict he would have with Canada was an economic 
one. Only those who don't understand sarcasm and humour believed that he 
was willing to have any kind of armed conflict.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19022

On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
> United States, and I agree with him on that point. He also made it clear
> that the only kind of conflict he would have with Canada was an economic
> one. Only those who don't understand sarcasm and humour believed that he
> was willing to have any kind of armed conflict.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-trump-won-the-canadian-election/

I'm not familiar with Comppact but Media Bias labels them right center. 
They have an interesting take on how Trump trolled Canadians into a 
reignited national pride that Trudeau was trying to do away with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19031

On 2025-05-03 22:16, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
>> United States, and I agree with him on that point. He also made it clear
>> that the only kind of conflict he would have with Canada was an economic
>> one. Only those who don't understand sarcasm and humour believed that he
>> was willing to have any kind of armed conflict.
> 
> https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-trump-won-the-canadian-election/
> 
> I'm not familiar with Comppact but Media Bias labels them right center.
> They have an interesting take on how Trump trolled Canadians into a
> reignited national pride that Trudeau was trying to do away with.

That's exactly what I'm saying. My wife was immediately mad about his 
decision, but I loved it specifically because I knew that it was going 
to help Canadian companies to thrive. American goods would get expensive 
and some jobs would be lost, but those Canadian enterprises catering to 
a Canadian client base would finally get noticed. Additionally, people 
themselves would develop a certain distrust of the United States which 
only leads to renewed nationalism and a desire to find new places to 
sell their product: _exactly_ what I've been wanting our government to 
do since the late 90s. In other words, in punishing Canada, Trump has 
caused our collective brain to wake up from its slumber.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19042

On Sun, 5/4/2025 7:41 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-05-03 22:16, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
>>> United States, and I agree with him on that point. He also made it clear
>>> that the only kind of conflict he would have with Canada was an economic
>>> one. Only those who don't understand sarcasm and humour believed that he
>>> was willing to have any kind of armed conflict.
>>
>> https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-trump-won-the-canadian-election/
>>
>> I'm not familiar with Comppact but Media Bias labels them right center.
>> They have an interesting take on how Trump trolled Canadians into a
>> reignited national pride that Trudeau was trying to do away with.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. My wife was immediately mad about his decision, but I loved it specifically because I knew that it was going to help Canadian companies to thrive. American goods would get expensive and some jobs would be lost, but those Canadian enterprises catering to a Canadian client base would finally get noticed. Additionally, people themselves would develop a certain distrust of the United States which only leads to renewed nationalism and a desire to find new places to sell their product: _exactly_ what I've been wanting our government to do since the late 90s. In other words, in punishing Canada, Trump has caused our collective brain to wake up from its slumber.
> 

Nobody wins in a trade war with tariffs.

Ask an economist, for a projection.

For example, there was an article the other day, with a
quotation from an actual economist (I thought they had
given up on commenting on things). He indicated that when
the tariff levels hit 50%, that "pretty well stops all trade
on a dime". Thus when some knob names "125%" as a tariff level,
that amounts to an "embargo", if the individual had actually
asked an economist what the numbers mean :-/

Sure, some country might thrive. Another country might not.
But just as easily, Sparkle Ponies could fly out of my butt.

Would you risk your countries future. on unproven ideas ?
"I believe in the trickle down theory. If we make our
rich people even richer, the poor cannot help but thrive."
Which was never in evidence. Once you've bought your first
Gulf Stream jet, you don't keep buying them in proportion
to the size of your portfolio. Your consumption has limited
effect. Maybe you buy a rocket company to put
datacenters in space :-/ Which is what a rich knob just did.
But the guy has espoused Skynet ideas, he's a "1984 Matrix man",
so I can see why he is doing it, and it's not for the reason
in the press release.

We've done some trade deals in the past, where both countries
could go back to their people and say "see what a good boy am I ?
I make-a the trade deal". The proof is when actual trade occurs.
Maybe the distance or the transport cost or a currency problem,
completely thwart such an idea. What the trade deal does do,
is it is "promotional" and says "we're ready to do business",
but when later, you hear nothing at all about the effects
of the particular deal, you have to wonder whether any purpose was
served but promotion.

To believe that "globalization works", you have to have parties
that are "rich enough to afford your goods and want to go
to the trouble of acquiring them". If you look at the Earths surface,
there are precious few markets that qualify, that do not already
have a self contained economy. China buys agricultural goods,
as there likely isn't enough local production to feed everyone.
Maybe they have enough coal, to make all the power they need.

If I was you, I would think this way. "Every day, seven billion
people wipe their ass with bog roll. As a net producer of
bog roll, I cannot help but become rich! Profit!". This is not
in evidence. People who cannot afford bog roll, are wiping their
ass on something else. Fewer people like your bog roll with the
white kittens on the plastic packaging. For some, the exchange
rate makes your bog roll, an unreachable goal.

Idealogs and wishful thinking, serve no one.

There has to be some demonstrable (directly observable fact, like
pressing on this end of a lever, causes that end of the
lever to move), to make a policy worthwhile
(execution highly likely to have results).

The current era amounts to "break things", as a policy. Great.
I can easily compute my profit by doing that. It's ???
Fuck-Nose dollars in evidence.

Since there is no reason to agree to unreasonable trade terms,
then the tariffs will stay. And the global recession will begin.
As a government, do you have money to spend on new pipelines,
new shipping terminals, additional rail lines, when a recession
is present ?

You will notice, that the business response verbally so far,
is exactly what you would expect. "The tariff on China is too
high, I am moving my production to Vietnam." Notice how the
name of their own country, did not appear in the press release.
There was no indication of domestic policy change. Maybe our
electronics will be made in Saudi Arabia (do a search).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19047

On Sun, 4 May 2025 16:01:17 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Ask an economist, for a projection.

I became a bit skeptical when leading economists said 'the fundamentals 
are sound'  right before the shit hit the fan. It might be overlooked if a 
one time occurrence but the economists of 1929 said the same thing.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19215

On Sun, 4 May 2025 16:01:17 -0400, Paul wrote:

> If you look at the Earths surface, there are precious few markets
> that qualify, that do not already have a self contained economy.

The only “self-contained economies” in human history were subsistence 
farmers. Or maybe hunter-gatherers before that.

We were a trading species before we even invented civilization.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19023

On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-05-03 19:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> But wasn’t that going against Trump’s declared goal of annexing Canada?
>> 
>> Or did you not agree with that part of the MAGA ideology?
> 
> To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
> United States, and I agree with him on that point.

    "We’re taking care of their military," Trump said. "We're taking
    care of every aspect of their lives, and we don't need them to
    make cars for us. In fact, we don't want them to make cars for us.
    We want to make our own cars. We don't need their lumber. We don't
    need their energy. We don't need anything from Canada. And I say
    the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a
    state."

<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-wasnt-trolling-about-acquiring-greenland-canada-51st-state>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19024

On Sat, 5/3/2025 10:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-05-03 19:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> But wasn’t that going against Trump’s declared goal of annexing Canada?
>>>
>>> Or did you not agree with that part of the MAGA ideology?
>>
>> To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
>> United States, and I agree with him on that point.
> 
>     "We’re taking care of their military," Trump said. "We're taking
>     care of every aspect of their lives, and we don't need them to
>     make cars for us. In fact, we don't want them to make cars for us.
>     We want to make our own cars. We don't need their lumber. We don't
>     need their energy. We don't need anything from Canada. And I say
>     the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a
>     state."
> 
> <https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-wasnt-trolling-about-acquiring-greenland-canada-51st-state>
> 

They do need the lumber actually.

There is an area with fire damage on the west coast,
and they could use wood for the reconstruction as
part of fire cleanup.

The rebuild will be a lot more expensive now.
But, the people will pay. Will they get federal help ?
Is there still a FEMA ?

*******

If there was a flood in the 51st state, Trump would
fly up and throw us paper towels ["Puerto Rico North"] .
I have purchased a special paper towel catchers mitt,
for the inevitable photo op. I promise to look needy,
when you throw the towel.

One of the plans, is to loot the water supply up here.
But I'm sure you all knew that.

Once its looted, the unimaginative parts (no money in 'em),
can go to hell. We want it all to look like the prosperity
in upper New York state.

We have enough trouble in this country, without others
interfering in our sorry mess.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19025

On Sun, 4 May 2025 00:37:35 -0400, Paul wrote:

> If there was a flood in the 51st state ...

Surely each of the 13 (?) provinces would be eligible to be a US state in 
its own right.

Have the MAGA crowd considered the effect of adding such a large and 
heavily Liberal-leaning voter population to the US demographic?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19028

On Sun, 4 May 2025 04:47:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 4 May 2025 00:37:35 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> If there was a flood in the 51st state ...
> 
> Surely each of the 13 (?) provinces would be eligible to be a US state
> in its own right.
> 
> Have the MAGA crowd considered the effect of adding such a large and
> heavily Liberal-leaning voter population to the US demographic?

Yeah, he should be selective. We'll take Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, 
Quebec except for Montreal, and some of the Maritimes.  Definitely don't 
need Ontario and BC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19029

On 4/05/2025 2:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 00:37:35 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> If there was a flood in the 51st state ...
> 
> Surely each of the 13 (?) provinces would be eligible to be a US state in
> its own right.

Looking at Worldometer 
https://www.worldometers.info/geography/countries-of-the-world/  USA pop 
approx 350 million for its 50 states. Canada has approx 40 million .... 
so, if U.S. of A. does absorb Canada, shouldn't it rate just five or six 
States?? ;-)

> Have the MAGA crowd considered the effect of adding such a large and
> heavily Liberal-leaning voter population to the US demographic?
> 
Probably NOT!!
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19034

On 2025-05-04 00:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 00:37:35 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> If there was a flood in the 51st state ...
> 
> Surely each of the 13 (?) provinces would be eligible to be a US state in
> its own right.
> 
> Have the MAGA crowd considered the effect of adding such a large and
> heavily Liberal-leaning voter population to the US demographic?

Only the metropolitan areas and Atlantic provinces are left-leaning. The 
moment you leave Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, the population leans 
right. Much like in the United States, the high population centres have 
way too much influence over who gets elected.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19044

On Sun, 4 May 2025 08:08:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Only the metropolitan areas and Atlantic provinces are left-leaning. The
> moment you leave Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, the population leans
> right. Much like in the United States, the high population centres have
> way too much influence over who gets elected.

Montana and Alberta have much more in common than either do with the urban 
areas. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19046

On 2025-05-04 16:17, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 08:08:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Only the metropolitan areas and Atlantic provinces are left-leaning. The
>> moment you leave Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, the population leans
>> right. Much like in the United States, the high population centres have
>> way too much influence over who gets elected.
> 
> Montana and Alberta have much more in common than either do with the urban
> areas.

Yep. Considering that, there's not much resistance to the idea of 
joining the United States as a state now. Even Saskatchewan would be 
interesting in joining. I notice the northern parts of Manitoba and 
Saskatchewan voted for the Liberals, but the United States wouldn't want 
those parts anyway.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19049

On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:04:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Yep. Considering that, there's not much resistance to the idea of
> joining the United States as a state now. Even Saskatchewan would be
> interesting in joining. I notice the northern parts of Manitoba and
> Saskatchewan voted for the Liberals, but the United States wouldn't want
> those parts anyway.

Caribou vote? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19065

On 2025-05-05 02:38, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:04:16 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Yep. Considering that, there's not much resistance to the idea of
>> joining the United States as a state now. Even Saskatchewan would be
>> interesting in joining. I notice the northern parts of Manitoba and
>> Saskatchewan voted for the Liberals, but the United States wouldn't want
>> those parts anyway.
> 
> Caribou vote?

Aboriginals, mostly. It's a population that is never satisfied with 
anything the government offers, demands complete autonomy on its own 
land then demonstrates gross incompetence once they get it. They're like 
blacks but with less bling.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19045

On Sun, 4 May 2025 08:08:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Much like in the United States, the high population centres have 
> way too much influence over who gets elected.

Actually, not enough. The Electoral College is deliberately designed to 
minimize the value of the vote for those who live in high-population 
centres, in favour of the slave-owning states.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19048

On Sun, 4 May 2025 21:25:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 4 May 2025 08:08:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Much like in the United States, the high population centres have way
>> too much influence over who gets elected.
> 
> Actually, not enough. The Electoral College is deliberately designed to
> minimize the value of the vote for those who live in high-population
> centres, in favour of the slave-owning states.

Er, no. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

It was designed to keep the less populated states from being totally 
trampled. This state used to have 3 votes. I think it was NY that lost 
enough population that now we have 4. Whoopee.  It's true we have more 
votes per capita that California, but 54 beats 4 any day. You can tell by 
the way politicians campaign really, really hard in North Dakota. Who 
gives a shit if you win ND with their 3 votes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19055

On 5/05/2025 4:34 pm, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 21:25:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 May 2025 08:08:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Much like in the United States, the high population centres have way
>>> too much influence over who gets elected.
>>
>> Actually, not enough. The Electoral College is deliberately designed to
>> minimize the value of the vote for those who live in high-population
>> centres, in favour of the slave-owning states.
> 
> Er, no.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
> 
> It was designed to keep the less populated states from being totally
> trampled. This state used to have 3 votes.

Similarly in Australia, of our six states and two territories, the two 
most populus states would have nearly 50% of the population.

In our Lower House, The House of Representatives has 150 (used to be 151 
but reduced by one for the election we had over the weekend just gone) 
and they are based on roughly equal Electors per Division. All Divisions 
are up for re-election each three years max.

In our Upper House, The Senate, each of the six states, regardless of 
population, has 12 Senators and the two Territories have/had 2 each. 
Half are up for (re-)election at each Federal Election.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web