> there is no other way to resist US military power
I'm struggling with how to articulate the idea that seems to be in so many Canadian heads, regardless of their military experience.
Assume the worst case, that the US invades Canada and that no allies come to assist, for whatever reason.
The best the US can hope for is a pyrrhic victory: while it may well be true that the Canadian military and population cannot hope to resist the US military, anyone thinking there would be anything other than a pyrrhic victory does not understand how, uh, what words to choose, hmm, bloody mindedly petty and vindictive Canadians can be.
There is that old trope about mistaking "polite" for "nice". Canadians are mostly are the former, and are mostly the latter most of the time, and can even be the former while not at all being the latter. But remember too the trope as to why so many of the specific rules of the Geneva Convention, etm., exist.
Canadians don't pick fights, generally, but see fights to the end, always, and almost always no matter what. And it's not a red mist thing: That comes and clears. What is left is cold. Sober. Focused. Are you still here? Are you not retreating fast enough? Do I still have functional limbs/weapons/comms? Carrying on....
We don't stop until it is safe to stop, and by safe I mean we can stand down and not have to stand to again, or until there is no we left.
Now, more tropes:
Longest sniper kill: Canada has the top spot and at least two more of the top five. Those are all recent.
Only force to meet its D-Day objectives: Canada, with fighting as fierce on Juno as elsewhere.
Only western soldier to fire on a Soviet: A Canadian with the group sent to protect Denmark from Soviets who were rolling fast and hard over northern Germany. The RoE were sort of vague on that point, but they were explicit about not withdrawing, about not giving up an inch. Words didn't work, triggers were pulled, a standoff occurred until sufficient forces arrived to convince the Soviets to withdraw to their agreed lines.
Before becoming PM, Lester B. Pearson won the Noble Peace Prize for the idea of UN Peacekeepers, of putting Canadians in harm's way to separate combatants in hot zones. The idea was taken seriously because memories of Canadian performance in WWII and Korea were fresh in mind. "Oh, those guys? Yeah, OK, ceasefire and separation sounds good."
Again, I am not in anyway suggesting that the US would not win in an invasion of Canada, if Canada stood alone. What I am suggesting is that what would be left (of the US, let alone Canada) would make the victory hollow and bitter.
(You do know that the Canadian boycotts that are so impacting tourism and distillers, among others, are not economically motivated, right? So many US talking heads cite tit-for-tat tariff nonsense, and very few miss the point entirely: Canadians mostly didn't give a damn about tariffs, but when "51st state" was mooted, even if as a joke, Canadians stopped buying US stuff. The tariffs could disappear today and many would still push for closer ties with the EU, possibly even membership, for distancing Canada from the US even more, all because we are fiercely independent, and willing to sacrifice a great deal to retain that independence. Canadians are mostly quiet about it, but never mistake silence for acquiescence or consent.)
Site renders great for me, iOS Safari with blockers; text selection works fine.
Yeah, I know, karma hit coming, but the other comments are so counter to my experience (I quite like the page and content) that I could not not comment.
OK, so it's not hostile when a small subset of users with the carefully configured ad blockers and nerfing js settings can see it like it could be in the first place?
Perfmon essentially allows you to define commands you use daily, defined them in a toml file and tab them, ie customizable.
It could be docker or kubernetes commands and so on. This is different from btm.
Ha, I've literally never heard of bottom, and haven't looked it up yet, but it's just kind of funny doing Linux/Unix forever and knowing almost exactly what it must be about, just given the name. I'll edit this if I was wrong, but I bet I won't be.
Fascinating. Anecdata, sample size 1. If it works for OP, fantastic.
Definitely does NOT work for me.
My recipe, such as it is:
1. Be gentle with myself every morning. I may wake vaguely human, but consciousness and acuity require coffee, word games, ablutions, and point 2.
2. Dog walking, aka DW, aka Diagnostic Wandering, allows me to breathe fresh air, let my mind wander or perhaps let it focus. Most of the best code I've written in the last 4 years has been DW code. All of the weird bug discoveries have been DW discoveries. Most - and almost all - of my discoveries about how ND I am and how I really work have been DW discoveries.
3. Recognize which brain I have today, and select issues/workload based on that...
4. ...unless I really, really must, MUST, work on something specific, in which case force it, knowing there is a cost.
5. Recover from such costs as quickly as possible, but as gently as possible (cf #1, #2).
6. When off-roading with my very good friend the CTO, do NOT talk about work...
7. ...unless we both agree something needs 30-90s, after which resume #6.
8. Watch football all day Saturday, if possible, preferably Liverpool, but not necessarily. Detach. (If Saturday is impossible, e.g., family obligations, substitute Sunday.)
9. Read in bed every night before turning off the light, regardless of how tired I am. Subject is irrelevant (current bedside stack: LotR (again), two books of category theory, Ulysses). One sentence, one paragraph, one page, or as many as need be, until I start to drift off. If my GF has to collect the book from chest and turn off the light, so much the better! :-> (She's a night owl, there is no cost and there is much joy to her in this.)
10. Endeavour to start the bedtime process between 2300 and 2330 as often as possible - but see #1 re gentleness. DO teeth. EVERY night. REGARDLESS.
11. Nap occasionally. Ah, my 60s.
12. Recognize when #11 is a MUST, not just a SHOULD.
Let the brain cook and stew and bubble and backburn whilst doing other things. As effective as DWs for things that are more "R" than "d".
Yeah, so I only work "properly" for a few hours, and then I'd say I am gentle with myself the entire rest of the day. That's why I put all the "don't want to do, but need to get done" stuff in the first part. Then I'm chill for the rest of the day!
I got this idea from Brian Tracy's concept of "Eat That Frog" (and book of same title). "If you have to eat a live frog, it doesn't pay to sit around and look at it for very long."
I found the same principle applies in life in general. Once I've decided to do something I'm avoiding, I just have to jump into action right away, before the moment of hesitation can grow into a mountain of dread.
I guess, then, that one of the big benefits of my daily is that we don't swing wildly between WFH and RTO with whatever trend/fashion/panic/wind/fart is in the zeitgeist/ether/air/media?
With the exceptions of the occasional client meeting that must be onsite, or the occasional conference, and our monthly team lunches, I've been 100% WFH since mid-2020, not pandemic related (I was mostly WFH for since sometime in 2019 (waves vaguely), and it was changing from consultant to senior wage slave
that sealed the deal).
Just like the rest of my team. OK, sure, we're small, and OK, sure, perhaps we use the available communication channels more effectively than others seem to, and OK, sure, while some of us are friends, I don't think any of us make the category error of assuming that coworkers are supposed to double as our social life, but seriously, if people are effective working from home, and we are, then let them.
The world started WFH, we changed nothing. The world started RTO, we changed nothing. The world started complaining about gas prices, well, those of us who own trucks and/or off-road did too, but we changed nothing about how we work.
Triple the price of 1Gbps fibre to the home and we might get a bit more upset.
</s>
I'm struggling with how to articulate the idea that seems to be in so many Canadian heads, regardless of their military experience.
Assume the worst case, that the US invades Canada and that no allies come to assist, for whatever reason.
The best the US can hope for is a pyrrhic victory: while it may well be true that the Canadian military and population cannot hope to resist the US military, anyone thinking there would be anything other than a pyrrhic victory does not understand how, uh, what words to choose, hmm, bloody mindedly petty and vindictive Canadians can be.
There is that old trope about mistaking "polite" for "nice". Canadians are mostly are the former, and are mostly the latter most of the time, and can even be the former while not at all being the latter. But remember too the trope as to why so many of the specific rules of the Geneva Convention, etm., exist.
Canadians don't pick fights, generally, but see fights to the end, always, and almost always no matter what. And it's not a red mist thing: That comes and clears. What is left is cold. Sober. Focused. Are you still here? Are you not retreating fast enough? Do I still have functional limbs/weapons/comms? Carrying on....
We don't stop until it is safe to stop, and by safe I mean we can stand down and not have to stand to again, or until there is no we left.
Now, more tropes:
Longest sniper kill: Canada has the top spot and at least two more of the top five. Those are all recent.
Only force to meet its D-Day objectives: Canada, with fighting as fierce on Juno as elsewhere.
Only western soldier to fire on a Soviet: A Canadian with the group sent to protect Denmark from Soviets who were rolling fast and hard over northern Germany. The RoE were sort of vague on that point, but they were explicit about not withdrawing, about not giving up an inch. Words didn't work, triggers were pulled, a standoff occurred until sufficient forces arrived to convince the Soviets to withdraw to their agreed lines.
Before becoming PM, Lester B. Pearson won the Noble Peace Prize for the idea of UN Peacekeepers, of putting Canadians in harm's way to separate combatants in hot zones. The idea was taken seriously because memories of Canadian performance in WWII and Korea were fresh in mind. "Oh, those guys? Yeah, OK, ceasefire and separation sounds good."
Again, I am not in anyway suggesting that the US would not win in an invasion of Canada, if Canada stood alone. What I am suggesting is that what would be left (of the US, let alone Canada) would make the victory hollow and bitter.
(You do know that the Canadian boycotts that are so impacting tourism and distillers, among others, are not economically motivated, right? So many US talking heads cite tit-for-tat tariff nonsense, and very few miss the point entirely: Canadians mostly didn't give a damn about tariffs, but when "51st state" was mooted, even if as a joke, Canadians stopped buying US stuff. The tariffs could disappear today and many would still push for closer ties with the EU, possibly even membership, for distancing Canada from the US even more, all because we are fiercely independent, and willing to sacrifice a great deal to retain that independence. Canadians are mostly quiet about it, but never mistake silence for acquiescence or consent.)
reply