@DavidJPba What does it profit a man to gain the world but loose your soul.
English
Stabilized
323 posts
If Danielle Smith did receive a "golden cat", from a foreign power, as a personal gift, then she is compromised. For those who do not know, Danielle Smith entered into her job as Premier as a very poor individual. She had basically no wealth, the poor are easily corrupted.
English
@MPelletierCIO Thats impossible. Only Chuck Norris can end Chuck Norris.
English
I’m surprised my Canada number is so high
captive dreamer@captive_dreamer
Would love to see some of these big grifter conspiracy slop accounts post their audience metrics. Something tells me we would get some (not so) surprising results
English
@kurjatatat @TerryGlavin It will be a recurring charge . Administered by private equity (for a fee 30%) and enforce by the state. Climate grift is winding down so a new revenue stream is needed.
English
@TerryGlavin They may not demand your house, but they will certainly demand your money. Either annually in the form of long term leases or as a form of a property transfer tax. They aren't doing this symbolically.
English
To be clear: the lunacy is that anyone is making any suggestion of the kind. Canada is still recovering from the lunacy about mass graves containing the corpses of secretly murdered children. The new lunacy wants you to believe we're being asked to surrender our houses to the descendants of the tribes of 1846.
Terry Glavin 格立文@TerryGlavin
They should be considered lunatics now, too.
English
@MPelletierCIO Corruption kills empires. The Roman plebs got a debased denarius . While the military got paid in gold.
English
Adapt to new technology, warfare and secure resources. Entire nations especially ruling nations can be dethroned if they don't adapt.
Ritesh Jain@riteshmjn
Every Empire Dies the Same Way They miss the next technology. Most civilizations do not disappear because they are weak. They disappear because the technology that once made them powerful becomes obsolete. History is filled with empires that looked permanent—until the rules of power changed. When those rules changed, their decline was often swift and irreversible. Egypt ruled the ancient world for nearly two thousand years. Long before Greece rose or Rome existed, Egypt possessed the most advanced state in the Mediterranean world. Its bureaucracy, agriculture, and armies were unmatched. During the Bronze Age, bronze weapons and chariots defined military power, and Egypt mastered both. But bronze had a hidden weakness. It required copper and tin—metals that had to be imported through fragile trade networks. Then came iron. Iron weapons were not just stronger; they were dramatically cheaper and far more abundant. But iron required extremely high temperatures to smelt, which meant vast quantities of charcoal. Charcoal meant forests. Forests meant geography. Egypt was a river civilization surrounded by desert. It simply did not have the forests needed to produce iron at scale. Assyria did. Situated near the wooded hills of Anatolia and the Levant, Assyria mastered iron metallurgy and equipped its armies accordingly. Within a few centuries Assyria dominated the Near East with iron-equipped forces. Egypt survived, but it never again returned to the center of global power. A civilization that had ruled for millennia missed the next technological age. The pattern would repeat across centuries. In medieval Europe the armored knight was the ultimate weapon of war. A knight was a walking fortress—encased in steel, mounted on a powerful warhorse, and supported by an entire feudal economy. Training one took decades. Equipping one cost enormous wealth. Society itself was organized around sustaining this elite warrior class. Then came a weapon made largely from wood. The English longbow could be wielded by commoners. A skilled archer could release ten arrows in the time it took a knight to cross the battlefield. At battles such as Agincourt in 1415, thousands of English archers faced a much larger French army filled with heavily armored nobles. The result was devastating. The economics of war had changed. A weapon that cost almost nothing could neutralize a system that required immense wealth to maintain. The knight did not vanish overnight, but its dominance ended. Technology had quietly rewritten the cost structure of power. The same dynamic unfolded in South Asia. For centuries Indian armies relied on war elephants as their ultimate battlefield weapon. Elephants towered over infantry formations, crushed cavalry charges, and carried commanders above the battlefield. They were symbols of royal authority and instruments of shock warfare. But elephants belonged to an older military age. In 1526 at the First Battle of Panipat, the Central Asian warlord Babur faced the much larger army of the Delhi Sultan Ibrahim Lodi. Lodi possessed tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of war elephants. Babur’s force was far smaller. But Babur brought gunpowder artillery. When the cannons fired, the explosions terrified the elephants. The animals turned and stampeded through their own ranks. Within hours the Delhi Sultanate collapsed and the Mughal Empire was born. A military system that had dominated the subcontinent for centuries was undone in a single afternoon. Numbers had not changed. Technology had. Even more dramatic was the rise of the Mongols. To the sophisticated civilizations of the thirteenth century, the Mongols appeared primitive. China had cities and advanced engineering. Persia had wealth and scholarship. Europe had castles and armored knights. The Mongols had horses. But their system of warfare was revolutionary. Each warrior rode multiple ponies, allowing Mongol armies to travel extraordinary distances without exhausting their mounts. Their composite bows could penetrate armor at long range, and their decentralized command structure allowed rapid maneuver warfare that stunned slower armies. Mobility became the decisive advantage. Within a few decades the Mongols built the largest contiguous empire in human history, stretching from Korea to Eastern Europe. Civilization had been defeated by adaptation. Modern history offers an even clearer example. At the beginning of the Second World War the most powerful warships ever built were battleships—massive floating fortresses armed with gigantic guns capable of firing shells across vast distances. Nations poured immense resources into these symbols of naval supremacy. Then aircraft carriers arrived. Aircraft launched from carriers could strike ships from hundreds of kilometers away—far beyond the range of battleship guns. In the Pacific War carriers destroyed battleships without ever entering their range. Within a few years the battleship became obsolete. Aircraft had replaced armor. Every military revolution follows the same pattern. A cheaper or more effective technology suddenly destroys the expensive system that once defined power. Iron replaced bronze. Longbows humbled knights. Cannons broke elephant armies. Aircraft replaced battleships. Each time the global balance of power shifted. Today we may be entering another such moment. For five centuries global dominance belonged to maritime powers that controlled the oceans. The Portuguese began the era of oceanic empires. The Spanish expanded it. The Dutch perfected global trade networks. Britain built a navy so powerful that at one point it exceeded the combined fleets of its rivals. In the twentieth century the United States inherited this system. Aircraft carriers became the ultimate instruments of global power projection. Control of the sea meant control of trade. Control of trade meant control of wealth. But the technologies shaping warfare are changing again. Drones, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and precision missiles are altering the economics of conflict. In modern battlefields inexpensive drones have destroyed tanks worth millions of dollars. A device costing a few hundred dollars can destroy equipment thousands of times more expensive. When such asymmetries scale, entire military doctrines become unstable. Even the aircraft carrier—the crown jewel of naval power—faces new vulnerabilities. A single carrier costs more than thirteen billion dollars, yet missiles capable of threatening such ships may cost a tiny fraction of that. But the deeper shift may not be destruction. It may be denial. In the twentieth century dominance meant the ability to project power anywhere in the world. In the twenty-first century victory may simply mean preventing your rival from reaching you. Access denial can be as powerful as conquest. Consider the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. If even a regional power could credibly deny access to that narrow corridor using missiles, drones, mines, and autonomous systems, the consequences for global trade would be immense. To challenge a superpower no longer requires conquering its cities. It may only require making key strategic routes too dangerous to enter. If a navy cannot guarantee safe passage through critical chokepoints, its ability to operate near heavily defended regions becomes far more uncertain. And that raises an uncomfortable question. If access to a narrow waterway like Hormuz can be contested, what does that imply about operating near Taiwan—surrounded by dense missile networks and advanced defenses? The balance between offense and defense may be shifting again. Whenever that happens, the global hierarchy begins to move. China appears determined not to miss this moment. It is investing heavily in artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems, and advanced manufacturing. It already produces a dominant share of the world’s industrial robots and graduates enormous numbers of engineers every year. The United States still possesses immense advantages—its universities, capital markets, and technological ecosystem remain powerful. Old powers rarely fade quietly. But technological transitions are rarely gentle. Which brings us to India. Every technological shift divides nations into two groups: those who build the future and those who live inside it. Egypt missed iron. Knights missed the longbow. Elephant armies missed gunpowder. Battleships missed aircraft. The twenty-first century will be defined by artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous warfare, and advanced manufacturing. The question is simple: who will build it? India has the population, the talent, and the intellectual capacity to be one of the defining powers of this age. But technological leadership demands long-term focus—investment in science, engineering, industry, and strategic capability. Yet too often the national conversation revolves around something else entirely. Instead of debating how to dominate artificial intelligence or robotics, political energy is consumed by the next election cycle and the next round of handouts. Welfare schemes designed to win votes—cash transfers, subsidies, and programs such as “Ladli Behna”—may bring short-term political victories. But they do little to build the scientific, technological, and industrial foundations that determine long-term power. History offers a harsh lesson: civilizations that focus on distributing wealth before creating it eventually fall behind those that invest relentlessly in capability. Empires are not lost only on battlefields. Sometimes they are lost in budgets. A society obsessed with the next election rarely prepares for the next technological revolution. The countries that dominate the coming century will be those that build laboratories, factories, engineers, and machines—not just welfare rolls. India therefore faces a choice that will define its future. It can commit to the hard path of technological leadership—massive investment in research, robotics, AI, manufacturing, and military innovation. Or it can remain trapped in a narrow cycle of electoral politics and populist giveaways, slowly drifting toward the margins of global power. Egypt missed iron. Others missed gunpowder. Still others missed aircraft. The question of this century is simple. Will India seize the age of AI and robotics—or miss it? Because every empire that misses the next technology eventually learns the same lesson. It becomes a spectator in a world shaped by others. (Written by Vikas Sehgal. He is an investor with @PineTreeMacro )
English
Ask yourself this:
Does your country have your back??
MINE DOES!! 🫡🇺🇸
English
@MPelletierCIO Fluttering those elbows up and down. I do believe thats the chicken dance.
English
Middle Eastern governments will now promote and support Bitcoin to overthrow the reserve status of the US dollar.
War is waged on infinite fronts.
English
@kinsellawarren Methinks 3 downed f15s is why. Everything is now a potential incoming ordinance.
English
Can someone explain to me, like I'm five years old, why the Iranians are attacking Arab states which had opposed the American and Israeli military action? Use small words, if you like.
English
Bitcoin survives war
Do you get it yet?
English
Stop the cynicism!
- Iran is counter-attacking its Gulf neighbours
- Arab states are lining up with USA & Israel against Iran
- a decisive victory & regime change in Iran will lead to regional security
- regional security from this war may lead to Peace in the Middle East!
English
Translation: We started this war, and we have no idea how to finish it.
Fox News@FoxNews
BREAKING: War Secretary Pete Hegseth tells nation, 'We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it'
English
@kinsellawarren The first casualty of war is the truth. Winston Churchill
English
Wars are easier to start than to finish, yes, but holy moly this one is at least starting right
English
Just a reminder, the US has the capabilities to track most missile targets, and could have taken them out in advance.
Why didn't they?
English
@MPelletierCIO You can add Chinese and Russian missile technology to that . Estimates at about 100000.
English
The only weapon Iran has left is oil prices. Significantly higher oil prices are exactly what the world does not need at the moment. The real win for oil investors is a moderate boost to prices but signs of stability in supply preventing a large spike.
English
@MPelletierCIO Another regime change war. Only this time its different, again.
English
They were warned. Hopefully it leads to regime change without loss of civilian life. 🙏 for the people of Iran.
unusual_whales@unusual_whales
The White House and Trump administration, via Donald Trump, have just released a video saying they have attacked Iran and "defend the American people and eliminating the Iranian regime...a vicious group of very hard, terrible people".
English
@CanadianPolling Those last 10 years really suck though. We go it MAID.
English
Life expectancy in Alabama is 73.8 years
Life expectancy in Canada is 83.3 years
Chadwick Moore@Chadwick_Moore
Alabama does have a higher standard of living compared to Canada, with a GDP per capita of $66,000 USD compared to Canada’s $54,000. It’s also got warm beaches, great food, and home to NASA’s primary hub for rocketry and propulsion.
English
@MPelletierCIO " Truth is the first casualty of war." WINSTON CHURCHILL
English
Great read. Wonder if this is being factored into the billions in additional spending on Canada’s military. Arctic drones etc.
Fraser Nelson@FraserNelson
Rishi Sunak says Zelensky showed him real-time casualty data from the front in Munich. - 80% of Ukrainian kills are from drones - Russia is losing 1,000 soldiers a day. His conclusion: Europe is not ready for this kind of war. Fascinating column:-thetimes.com/business/compa…
English
@jax_joint @KatieMiller Planning mass murder. In fact thats way past the line.
English
@KatieMiller So where do we draw the 1A line, Katie?
English
Canadian trans shooter was flagged via internal systems at Open AI for writings about real-world violence, including gun violence.
Over a dozen Open AI employees debated telling law enforcement.
OpenAI leaders decided not to inform authorities about a potential mass murder.
WSJ Tech@WSJTech
Months before Jesse Van Rootselaar became the suspect in the mass shooting that devastated a rural town in British Columbia, Canada, OpenAI considered alerting law enforcement about her interactions with its ChatGPT chatbot, the company said on.wsj.com/4qQIpdg
English