Thank you for your correspondence about Brexit and the "Meaningful Vote" due to take place in parliament later today.
I have received nearly 1,000 letters and emails about the draft Withdrawal Agreement. These ranged from residents going into detail about their views in personal letters to emails via campaign websites which allow residents to select an option, then send me an email.
The views expressed include the full spectrum of options from Revoking Article 50 to leaving without a withdrawal agreement and trading on World Trade Organisation Terms. In short it is impossible for me to agree with every view expressed.
Whilst Brexit is a major challenge for our nation a range of issues continue to affect our bay, hence my team and I have continued our work picking up matters such as our National Health Service, Transport Services, Homelessness, Defence, Regeneration, Hi-Tech Jobs, Universal Credit and individual problems affecting residents where my help is needed.
I did not come into politics or seek election as our bay's MP to only focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others, hence whilst I have read the many views sent, I simply cannot abandon all my other work to respond in detail to every point made. I will though seek in this letter to reply to the most common themes, some of the alternatives put forward and what may happen if the House of Commons does vote the deal down on Tuesday as is being predicted.
Some correspondents have argued Parliament should simply revoke Article 50 and stay in the European Union following a recent European Court of Justice ruling the UK could do so without the consent of other EU Member states.
The result of the referendum on the 23rd June 2016 was clear following a lengthy debate in which both sides put their case. Following the Referendum result 494 MPs from across the political spectrum voted to trigger Article 50, with only 122 voting against, nearly half of which were members of the Scottish National Party.
In June 2017 both main political parties also pledged in their manifestos at the General Election in 2017 to respect the EU referendum result, and these parties received over 80 percent of the vote nationally. Some MPs were elected who stood at the last election on a pledge to overturn the result and stay in the EU, yet the vast majority were not, with the SNP losing a third of its seats.
Parliament having freely voted to give the decision about the UK's continuing Membership of the European Union to the electorate in a Referendum it would be democratically unacceptable to just overturn this in a simple parliamentary vote. I therefore oppose this option.
Some commentators and correspondents have suggested the UK should seek to extend Article 50, delay leaving the EU, to allow either allow more time for negotiations so different suggestions can be put forward or just to give MPs more time to decide.
Extending for a set period, rather than revoking, Article 50 would require the unanimous consent of the European Council (Made up of all 27 continuing EU Member States). Whilst some EU Members have indicated they might accept this to facilitate the UK staying in the EU after a Second Referendum, just asking for an extension to in effect "kick the can" down the road rather than make a decision is not an effective strategy.
Many EU Leaders also want to resolve the debates about Brexit and move on to other matters, not drag things out further. Extending Article 50 does not change the fundamental choices facing us or likely to see EU states fundamentally change their view.
The biggest flaw in this strategy is the forthcoming European Elections being held on 23–26 May 2019. The UK would not only have to decide whether to take part in these elections having extended Article 50 but wait until a new European Commission has been appointed afterwards to continue further meaningful discussions. This is unlikely to be confirmed fully until after the summer.
The European Parliament, whose consent would be required for a Withdrawal Agreement of any type, will also enter a period of effective suspension just before and for a short period afterwards. This makes it harder to get any deal agreed, not easier, during an extension period.
The worst aspect though is the impact extending the period of uncertainty would have on the UK Economy. Businesses I speak with here in the bay cite uncertainty as the worst aspect of the Brexit process, they want to get on with planning for whatever the outcome is.
In Parliament those arguing for more time rarely seem able to outline exactly what benefit this will bring, other than delaying their need to decide on which option they will vote for and explain this to their constituents and local businesses. This option is about delay, not decision, I therefore do not support it.
These options are similar in theme as they suggest the UK looks to enter or copy one of the existing agreements the EU has with other states on its borders.
Norway is a member of the European Economic Area, placing it in the European Single Market and requiring it to abide by its rules on both products and services. Norway is also required to make significant contributions to the EU Budget.
Norway has also signed up to the Schengen Border Free Zone, which the UK is not a member of. This means Passport checks are not carried out at borders with other European Countries in the Schengen Zone or on travellers arriving from other Schengen Zone Countries. Those travelling to the UK from EU Countries, except the Republic of Ireland, must show a passport before entry is permitted.
Norway is not a member of the Common Fisheries Policy and instead has an agreement with the EU as an independent coastal state in relation to shared fisheries in the North Sea. Norway does pay a tariff on fish exports to the European Union, but has a thriving fishing industry, as does Iceland in a similar position.
The Fisheries Agreement Norway has with the EU is the model for the agreement proposed under the Withdrawal Agreement and future relationship being proposed by the Government. The Norwegian Fishing Industry is doing well, with much of its product consumed here in the UK.
Whilst the Norway model may suit the needs of Norwegians the overall position is not a suitable model for the UK. Adopting "Norway" would not only require the UK to follow rules on goods after the transition period, but crucially see our services industry (Including Financial Services) which makes up 80% of our economy included in single market regulations on a permanent basis. This despite us having no say on them having left the EU. Services are not covered by the NI Backstop provisions if they were to come into effect.
Some have suggested we could join this arrangement on a temporary basis. I struggle to believe either the EU, or individual EEA states, would allow a major renegotiation to let the UK in, only for the UK to leave a few years later.
The recently announced "Common Market 2.0" is mostly supported by those who have advocated the Norway option and seems more of a re-brand than a major change.
Finally some have cited Switzerland as an option, mostly in relation to the Northern Irish Backstop and a social media image highlighting how it has Open Borders with 5 EU states. Yet this is not due to the border being ignored by the EU, but because Switzerland, like Norway, is a member of the European Single Market (with a requirement to follow its rules permanently) and the Schengen Zone. This removes the need for either regulatory or passport checks at their borders with the EU, hence the open border cited.
Except for the Fishing Industry it is hard to see any specific benefit from adopting this model, with it appearing to be promoted by those who would prefer the UK to stay in the EU. It would also still require a Withdrawal Agreement to be completed with the EU which, depending on the model adopted, may still include a requirement for a Northern Irish Backstop.
Several residents got in touch asking if there could be another Referendum.
A Second Referendum would provoke cynicism among many voters as, having been told the Referendum in 2016 would make the final choice, they were asked to vote again because politicians disagreed with their decision. It would also be hard to argue the Second Referendum would be the final choice, having in effect ignored the first one by calling a second less than three years later. It also raises the question of when a third could be held if the result is similar or even "a best of five" referendum as one Labour MP stated last week.
When a decision of constitutional significance is made in a Referendum, it is important democratic processes are followed to ensure it is respected. Parliament gave voters the final say on the UK's membership of the EU and the result must be respected, even if it was unexpected by some or not the one I campaigned for.
The ballot paper presented voters with a choice to remain in the EU or to leave. The consequences of either decision were communicated by campaign groups through a variety of print, audio-visual and digital media. The Government also sent a document to every household in the UK on the benefits of staying in the EU, in which it was clear the choice made by voters would be implemented.
As in every election, it was up to the electorate to judge the merits of the different arguments and over 17.4 million voters decided to leave the EU. Some emails have pointed to fines issued by the electoral commission, yet it is worth noting this has happened to groups on both sides of the debate. Equally, the Electoral Commission has previously declared the referendum was delivered without any major issues and the result was clear.
Both sides made ill advised claims during the Referendum Campaign, with many of these debated and rebutted at the time. Yet ultimately voters decided to Leave, with the result in Torbay being clear and on a high turnout.
Whilst some emails pointed to opinion polls produced by campaign groups indicating a new Referendum may produce a remain result it is worth noting most polls before the last Referendum predicted the same. When out on doorsteps in the bay speaking with residents most would still vote the way they did last time, with some switching but crucially many who voted Remain respecting the decision needs to be implemented.
Given the timescales a Second Referendum would require parliament to bypass many of the usual procedures for such a vote and decide crucial questions, such as the wording of the question, politically rather than ask the Electoral Commission to consult on it. This type of behaviour would further undermine any confidence in the outcome.
For these reasons I do not support holding a second referendum.
The other option to get significant support in my correspondence is for the UK to leave without a withdrawal agreement.
I believe the UK could succeed under any circumstances after leaving the EU. Our people have high skills, many of our businesses are at the cutting edge of technology, the beauty of our bay will attract tourists and our financial services sector is globally dominant. I have never accepted some of the scare stories about this outcome, such as Troops delivering food or air drops by the RAF of Medicines. Whilst entertaining in the media, my role at Cabinet Office tells me they are very wide of the mark.
The Government could implement plans to mitigate any negative impacts of this outcome yet faces a key challenge in doing so. The numbers in parliament which would vote against this, with it being clear a majority of MPs do not support this option or will seek to block it. The events of the last week confirm this, with some who want to see Article 50 revoked hoping to force parliament into a choice between the two opposites.
First the Speaker selected an amendment to the Finance Bill making use of the powers granted to Ministers to manage a "no deal" outcome subject to a further parliamentary resolution. The Amendment was questionable in terms of whether it should have been selected for debate, yet it was passed with a small majority.
I opposed this amendment on the basis it was totally illogical to complain about the potential impact of No Deal, then vote to make it hard to mitigate for. Yet the Government was defeated and the intention in doing so was to show a majority of MPs would oppose No Deal.
Second, and most significantly, was the moment on Wednesday when the Speaker over ruled all official advice on parliamentary rules and all previous precedents on such motions, to call for a vote on an amendment to what was an "unamendable" motion. The Speaker effectively using the privilege of his office to allow it to be voted on, with the Government again defeated.
What Wednesday indicates is every aspect of parliamentary procedure will be available to those determined to block no deal if the deal goes down on Tuesday, with a slim majority prepared to support this.
Those voting no to the deal in the hope of a "no deal" outcome based on World Trade Organisation rules will be voting in the same direction as those hoping for No Brexit. They cannot both be right.
Given the votes in parliament last week I do not believe voting against the Withdrawal Agreement will produce this outcome.
Finally other correspondents have been in touch asking me to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union.
For any Trade Agreement or Future Relationship with the EU, other than trading on WTO Terms, a Withdrawal Agreement will be necessary. It is in effect the divorce agreement which separates us from the Treaties which the EU is found on. The only relationship the UK will have with the EU after 29th March is what is in this Treaty or a future one agreed.
There are many aspects to it which are well covered by the House of Commons Library briefing and this could become a dissertation piece to cover each one. Many areas of the deal are supported by MPs across the House, even if they are not supporting the whole package. Few would argue with the idea the UK should continue to co-operate with our neighbours in terms of ensuring those who commit crimes face justice or intelligence is shared to prevent terror attacks.
Claims our military would become subject to the EU via the agreement are totally incorrect, not least given our position as a nuclear power and the constitutions of many continuing EU members. Some in the EU want to see a European Military force created.
Whilst the UK will co-operate, voluntarily, with EU missions after Brexit where we have a direct national interest in the arrangements do not replicate those of NATO where we can be compelled to take part. There is no equivalent of the Article 5 Mutual Defence provisions or the requirement to contribute to standing forces.
The first of these is relatively uncontroversial as during the Referendum all were clear those who have made Torbay their home under their treaty rights would be welcome to stay. The UK Government has already made clear if there is no agreement it will legislate unilaterally to protect the rights of EU Citizens under UK Law, except for a small proportion who have abused our hospitality by committing criminal offences.
The biggest difference in terms of securing a deal is the Withdrawal Agreement would see the rights of UK Citizens living in the EU guaranteed by the Treaty, with enforcement by the European Court of Justice. If we leave without a Withdrawal Agreement it will be down to each of the 27 Member States to decide their policy on UK citizens. Whilst many will make them welcome to stay there is no guarantee without a deal.
The second is an agreement on residual financial liabilities. It was predicted the financial settlement could be up to £100 billion due to demands by the EU. The final settlement is expected to come in at far below this at around £35 billion to £39 billion.
Whilst this payment may be queried any future Trade Deal with the EU, including models such as Canada, Norway or Chequers Style Model do require a settlement to this issue. The UK is also not handing this payment over in one lump sum as the table above makes clear.
The final aspect is the most controversial, the provisions for a Northern Ireland Protocol, commonly referred to as "the backstop". This part of the agreement covers the situation where the UK and EU have failed to reach an agreement on a Future Trading Relationship, which would keep the border open in Ireland without the need for checks at the border itself, at the end of the Transition Period on 31st December 2020 (It can be extended by up to a maximum of a further 2 years).
The backstop in essence requires Northern Ireland to maintain alignment with key EU goods regulations to avoid the need for regulatory checks at the Irish Border. Yet if Great Britain moved away from these more generally this could see checks needed on goods moving between the UK and NI, a key concern for many Unionists including myself.
There are currently animal health checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, due to certain health management being done on an Island of Ireland basis for sensible reasons of geography. Yet these were agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, not due to the UK Government changing the rules. Northern Ireland is also part of the All-Ireland Electricity Market\Grid which must operate under a single system of regulations.
The backstop does not cover areas such as the Common Fisheries Policy or European Single Market Rules on Services as neither of these are relevant to ensuring goods can flow across the Irish Land Border freely. It also does not apply to key East – West Trade Routes between Ireland and the UK Mainland.
The UK would be required to maintain the EU common external customs tariffs under the Northern Ireland Backstop, although the UK Exchequer would receive the benefit of the income from this. We would also not be required to make general contributions into the EU Budget, despite having access to the Single Market. This would be a unique and potentially costly position for the EU. The UK Wide customs area means there would be no prospect of tariff barriers between the UK and Northern Ireland.
Freedom of Movement is ended under the backstop arrangements as the Common Travel Area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, under our own law, prevents the need for Immigration Checks. Irish Citizens will continue to have their rights in the UK protected by the Ireland Act 1949 which supersedes the relevant provisions of the EU Treaties by giving them greater rights, including the ability to vote and stand for the UK Parliament. This position reflects the unique history of the Republic having been part of the UK until 1921.
I regularly speak with Unionist Politicians from Northern Ireland and they are rightly concerned about any potential of their home being treated as a "third country" in relation to the rest of the UK. Yet the industrial goods standards concerned have remained stable for some time. It is also highly unlikely a future UK Parliament will look to drop the standards of products in relation to areas such as safety, chemical composition or environmental standards.
The key controversy of the Backstop comes from a fear it might be used to force the UK to concede on other areas in future Trade Talks (Which are irrelevant to keeping the land border open) as they only way out is to agree a Future Trading Partnership with the European Union or agree via an Arbitration Process "Best Endeavours" were not being used to achieve one. This presents the concern it may become an instrument of blackmail, rather than merely a guarantee of keeping a border open.
This aspect has caused me to consider carefully what I should do on this agreement, with my paying great attention to the views of the Attorney General and colleagues such as Michael Tomlinson and Robert Courts who are both experienced lawyers. I have also had the chance to discuss it at some length with David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
I do take some comfort from the legal position of Article 50 only being able to be used to create a temporary structure, along with the impact its implementation would have on the EU's own Trade Negotiations. The Customs Zone created of 27, plus 1 (the UK) would create uncertainty with those nations they were talking with. Also the position of the UK having access to the Single Market without accepting Freedom of Movement or paying contributions to the EU Budget on a long term basis may prompt remaining EU States to ask for the same deal.
Finally if the position became completely untenable and the EU were clearly acting in bad faith our constitution would allow the UK to renounce the Treaty via Primary Legislation in Parliament. Whilst this would be a serious step and one which should only be taken with great reluctance it is still a final resort if needed.
Given the position outlined above in relation to leaving without an agreement and the other options put forward, this proposed deal presents the best option available for implementing the result of the Referendum in 2016. I do hope further progress can be made on the backstop, but I believe if there is to be a realistic hope of taking advantage of the exciting opportunities available to the UK after 29th March, such as joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, then this deal in some form does need to go through, so I will vote for it..
Whilst I am prepared to support the Withdrawal Agreement it is clear from the debate being held over the last week it is likely to be heavily defeated.
There is a strong chance the deal may not even be subject to a straight yes or no vote as several amendments have been submitted, some of which seek to ratify the deal subject to a change, others to reject it totally in favour of another option.
Up to 6 amendments will be selected by the Speaker for MPs to vote on tonight. The Government may well be beaten on one of these, which would see the amendment become the substantive decision.
The vote last Wednesday means if the deal is not approved MPs are likely to vote on a Plan B or different options.
I cannot offer any specific prediction as to what result this may produce as the options which will be available are unclear. As mentioned above large numbers of MPs believe very different outcomes will result from this process. The only certainty is continued uncertainty.
I will provide a further update when the next steps may be clearer, yet this period is one of the most unprecedented in recent political history.
"I have received nearly 1,000 letters and emails about the draft Withdrawal Agreement. These ranged from residents going into detail about their views in personal letters to emails via campaign websites which allow residents to select an option, then send me an email.
The views expressed include the full spectrum of options from Revoking Article 50 to leaving without a withdrawal agreement and trading on World Trade Organisation Terms. In short it is impossible for me to agree with every view expressed."


text:
Q: socket.io client side in node js Am I doing something wrong? When I run node client.js. I am getting this error message:
/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/node_modules/engine.io/lib/server.js:358
  var listeners = server.listeners('request').slice(0);
                         ^
TypeError: Object http://localhost:8080 has no method 'listeners'
    at Server.attach (/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/node_modules/engine.io/lib/server.js:358:26)
    at Function.attach (/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/node_modules/engine.io/lib/engine.io.js:124:10)
    at Server.listen.Server.attach (/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/lib/index.js:226:21)
    at new Server (/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/lib/index.js:51:17)
    at Server (/web/ws/node_modules/socket.io/lib/index.js:39:41)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/web/ws/client.js:2:14)
    at Module._compile (module.js:456:26)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:474:10)
    at Module.load (module.js:356:32)
    at Function.Module._load (module.js:312:12)

Here is my code:
var io = require('socket.io');
var socket = io('ws://localhost:8080');
  socket.on('connect', function () {
    socket.send('hi');
    socket.on('message', function (msg) {
      // my msg
    });
  });

Please suggest something. where I am doing the mistake ?

A: The problem here is that you are trying to use socket.io package which is for configuring the server.
Instead you need to use socket.io-client package to be able to act as a client.
You can find usage examples by following provided links.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
View parents Singles in Shrewsbury
I am a: Woman seeking a Man Man seeking a Woman Man seeking a Man Woman seeking a Woman
Between ages: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 and 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
Near ZIP code:
VIEW PHOTOS »
Woman seeking a Man Man seeking a Woman Man seeking a Man Woman seeking a Woman
By clicking continue, I agree to receive transactional and promotional emails from Match.com. I understand that I am free to withdraw consent at any time.
Birthday: Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Year 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
By using our site, you agree to the Match.com Terms of Use.
38 - Shrewsbury, MO
Active within 5 days
Parents Dating in Shrewsbury, MO
We have thousands of singles in the Show Me State of Missouri looking for love. Relationships are a two-way street, start searching for your match today! A global community of quality single adults who share common goals — intelligent individuals who want to find great dates, make new friends, form romantic relationships or meet life partners. Why start at the bottom and work your way up? Match.com is the ultimate online dating site, with thousands of exciting date possibilities available in Shrewsbury.
Join the conversation and connect with us:
Official Match.com Blog
Affton, Breckenridge Hills, Brentwood, Cahokia, Charlack, Clayton, Crestwood, Creve Coeur, Des Peres, Dupo, East Carondelet, Fenton, Frontenac, Glendale, Kirkwood, Ladue, Lemay, Manchester, Maplewood, Mehlville, Normandy, Oakland, Oakville, Olivette, Overland, Pagedale, Richmond Heights, Rock Hill, Saint Louis, Sappington, Sauget, Sunset Hills, Town and Country, Twin Oaks, University City, Valley Park, Vinita Park, Vitilas Reid, Warson Woods, Webster Groves view all states »
Top Communities:
Asian , Black , Catholic , Christian , Divorced , Free Online Dating, Gay Singles, Gay Dating, Jewish , Lesbian Singles, Single Parents, view all communities »
About Match.com
Terms of Use**
Online Dating Safety Tips
Dating Articles and Advice
How Online Dating Works
Match International
Advertise on Match.com
Promotions & Sponsorships
** Our Terms of Use Agreement was revised 2019/11/12.
© Copyright 2020 Match Group, LLC wwa3-011f-s-

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


ALT requires partial payment (50%) upon confirmation of availability or within 30 days of scheduled tour date and remaining balance at the beginning of the tour. Checks should be made out to Carris Kocher and mailed to American Liberty Tours, P.O. Box 778, Concordville, PA 19331. Please use Paypal on www.americanlibertytours.com for credit card payments.
Changes or cancellations more than 48 hours in advance of tour: You may cancel your reservation without penalty up to 21 days before the scheduled tour. A full refund of any deposit will be given if written request is received 21 days prior to scheduled tour date. After that, monies refunded will be prorated according to number of days remaining before the scheduled tour. Email us at AmericanLibertyTours@gmail.com.
Changes or cancellations less that 48 hours in advance: When a cancellation is within 48 hours of the start of the tour, half (25%) of the required deposit (50%) will be refunded with a minimum payment due of $50.
Consideration will be given to emergency situations upon request.
If one or more arrive late, the tour will still end at the designated time.
While we always endeavor to avoid cancellations and changes, we must reserve the right to do so. However, we promise we will only cancel your confirmed booking where we are forced to do so as a result of circumstances outside of our control. If we have to make a significant change or cancel, we will tell you as soon as possible. If we have to cancel, we will pay back the full amount and will not deduct any non-refundable expenses. Compensation will not be payable and no liability assumed by us.
Please contact us at AmericanLibertyTours@gmail.com to let us know about any changes or cancellations.


Abstract: The purposes of this study were (a) to explore and compare two methods for obtaining individualized fit in patterns which might be used as individualized slopers for flat pattern design courses and (b) to assess whether a better fit could be achieved with the use of a computerized pattern rather than a basic fitting pattern adjusted to individual measurements. The latter is designated as the traditional method for obtaining an individualized sloper. Data were obtained from a comparison of the fit of garments made from the two types of patterns. Students assigned to two sections of the Dress Design and Construction I course offered during the spring semester, 1974, at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro participated in the study.


text:
Q: how to show a pop up dialog like this following picture? i want to make a pop up button like traffic racer games share button.
this button shows three item when it is pressed like this picture.   http://i.stack.imgur.com/6VrIz.png .
Actully this button is like this.    http://i.stack.imgur.com/wFnmg.png  but after pressing it you will see something showing on above image.
If anyone know this answer please help me.
i have searched a lot but i couldn't find anything.

A: Use the following library you will get what you want as shown in image https://github.com/futuresimple/android-floating-action-button/raw/master/screenshots/menu.gif
Library
Android FLoating Action Button -> check the sample app too
https://github.com/futuresimple/android-floating-action-button

A: You can also use a PopupWindow to create a custom drop down popup:
PopupWindow popupWindow = new PopupWindow(customLayout, width, height, true);// Create a custom layout with icons
popupWindow.setBackgroundDrawable(new ColorDrawable());
popupWindow.setOutsideTouchable(true);
popupWindow.setFocusable(true);
popupWindow.showAsDropDown(buttonMenu);// Define on your UI a button which will trigger your custom popup


text:
We tried Victoria Beckham's R100-a-loaf breakfast bread and here's why we'll probably stick to our regular R16 loaves
Futhi Masilela
Victoria Beckham at The Fashion Awards. Photographed by Jeff Spicer
Jeff Spicer
Being likers of things, we were not to be left behind when Posh Spice posted what looked like a reasonably achievable breakfast on her Instagram page.
Bread and avo — well, it wasn't regular bread because a loaf will set you back at least R100, and since a duo of avos never goes for anything below R60 these days, we thought R160 is a bit much to spend on such a basic breakfast — excluding the coffee.
But then again, who said a Hollywood lifestyle comes cheap?
READ MORE: Victoria Beckham's breakfast consists of bread that costs over R100 a loaf, and up to R770 if you order in SA
Back to the bread, it's known as the Ezekiel 4:9 bread, named after the Bible verse which sets out the recipe for it.
The verse reads: Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself.
The first thing we have to mention is that it was quite a mission to find the bread in South Africa.
Our quest to find the Spice Girl's breakfast began with making numerous calls to bakeries in Johannesburg; however, we found that most have never heard of the bread nor do they know how to make it, despite the recipe being given in the most famous book in the world.
READ MORE: Tips on how to maintain your healthy eating goals throughout the year
We eventually found two bakeries that sell the bread, but there were conditions to getting hold of a loaf.
At one bakery, you are required to order the bread, and they will only take your order if you are ordering three or more loaves.
The bakery that we eventually opted for is based in Bryanston and only makes two loaves of Ezekiel bread a week — you have to pre-order, and you can only get one (or both) of the loaves on a Wednesday. Basically, they only make about eight loaves a month.
Here's the tricky part, the bread costs R43 a loaf, but according to our prior research, a loaf goes for upwards of R100 and even up to R770.
We assumed the price is due to the fact that this loaf is made of considerably fewer ingredients than others we've seen online, so we indulged ourselves and pre-ordered.
Victoria's Ezekiel bread. Image by Instagram story. The Ezekiel bread we tried out. Image by Nikita Coetzee
READ MORE: Vegan diets are adding to malnutrition in wealthy countries
We picked up the freshly baked bread on Wednesday morning, and here's what we can tell you about it:
First impressions, the bread is white and not brown as Victoria's looked on her Insta snap — but hey, not all breads are equal. Or are they?
At this point, we quickly realised that this was probably not Victoria's loaf [the price should have been a warning sign], but seeing as the label said it was, we went ahead and had a taste test.
But first the label: our bread had the following ingredients — rice flour, spelt flour, millet flour, sourdough, yeast, and salt.
On the contrary, most online recipes require these ingredients — sprouted wheat, sprouted barley, sprouted millet, malted barley, sprouted lentils, sprouted soybeans, sprouted spelt, water, fresh yeast, and sea salt.
Also, we expected the bread to be of a denser consistency, but it wasn't too far from the regular loaves that most of us eat. A disappointment, to be honest.
Here is what some of our team had to say about the taste:
The bread smells nice, but I really don't think it's too different from any other savoury bread that regular supermarkets sell.
I would probably buy the bread, but the price might need to be a bit lower for me to consider it.
The bread has a bit of an after-taste and to me it doesn't taste fresh. I really wouldn't have this bread again.
I like the taste of this bread, but I just don't think it's healthy. It's just white bread with some seeds in it, I enjoyed the avo though.
It may be that the bread we got was just not Ezekiel bread at all, which we suspect because the ingredients don't seem too common in South Africa, plus judging from how difficult it was to find the loaf and the lower-than-expected price, we're convinced we're right.
Assuming we're wrong, R160 [if you're able to find the R100 loaf] is a bit steep for our economy and going through so many hoops just for a slice of bread and avo doesn't seem like economic use of time and energy.
So, we'll sit this one out and stick to our good old mass-produced R16 loaves.
How much are you willing to spend to mimic your favourite celeb's lifestyle? Tell us here.
Follow us on social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
Sign up to W24's newsletters so you don't miss out on any of our stories and giveaways
Woman loses 44kg after being hypnotised to believe she received weight loss surgery, her hypnotherapist weighs in
ezekiel 4:9victoria beckhamfuthi masilela
Gabrielle Union enjoys the love she shares with her husband, saying he makes every day beautiful


A tall and wide cylindrical amphora. The rim is round in section, sometimes underlined by an internal groove, with a short cone-shaped neck with quite massive handles. It has a very wide body, terminated by a small solid cylindrical foot, thickened at the base. There is combed decoration on the neck and shoulder.
Sixth to seventh centuries AD.
Production is attested to in the Zeugitana region at Sidi Zahruni (Nabeul) (Ghalia et alii, 2005).
Distributed in northern Tunisia, Carthage (Peacock, 1984a: Type 48), Sidi Jdidi, Nabeul (Bonifay, 2004) and perhaps also in Catalunya (Keay, 1984: Type 64).


Implements the gene-based segregation test(GESE) and the weighted GESE test for identifying genes with causal variants of large effects for family-based sequencing data. The methods are described in Qiao, D. Lange, C., Laird, N.M., Won, S., Hersh, C.P., et al. (2017). . Gene-based segregation method for identifying rare variants for family-based sequencing studies. Genet Epidemiol 41(4):309-319. More details can be found at < http://scholar.harvard.edu/dqiao/gese>.


text:
Q: update data in one table based on another table data I have table A and Table B like below. Where both has account numbers and ID.
I want to find out ID for account number in table B from table A and update the table B with ID value from Table A. I want to make Table A looks like Table B. How to achieve this?
I tried
select distinct  A.ID,A.ACCTNO,B.ACCTNO from  TableA as A
inner join TableB as B on A.ACCTNO = B.ACCTNO

my output should be:

A: Use JOIN with update.
Query
update t1
set t1.ID = t2.ID
from TableB t1
join TableA t2
on t1.ACCTNO = t2.ACCTNO;

Update
For filling the null rows.
Query

;with cte as(
    select rn = row_number() over(
        partition by acctno
        order by acctno
    ), *
    from TableB
),
cte2 as(
    select rn = row_number() over(
        order by acctno
    ), *
    from TableA
    where not exists(
        select 1 from TableB
        where TableA.acctno = TableB.acctno
    )
)
update t1
set t1.Id = t2.Id,
t1.Acctno = t2.Acctno
from cte t1
join cte2 t2
on t1.rn = t2.rn
where t1.Id is null;

A: Update based on join... you can also neglect null in ACCTNO for better performance...
update B
set B.ID=A.ID
from TableB as B
join TableA as A
on  A.ACCTNO = B.ACCTNO
where B.ACCTNO is not null;

A: Use this Query:-
update t2
set t2.id=t1.id
from tableB t2
inner join tableA t1
on t2.acctno=t1.acctno

A: You need to run both this queries to your desired output
INSERT INTO TableB (ID,ACCTNO)
SELECT
a.ID,
a.ACCTNO
FROM TableA as a
LEFT JOIN TableB as b on a.ACCTNO = b.ACCTNO
WHERE b.ACCTNO IS NULL;

and
update b set b.ID = a.ID
from TableB as b
left join TableA as a ON a.ACCTNO = b.ACCTNO
where b.ACCTNO IS NOT null;

A: with a CTE
WITH CTE
     AS (SELECT T1.ID AS TABLEA_ID,
                T1.ACCTNO  AS TABLEA_ACCID,
                T2.ID AS TABLEB_ID,
                T2.ACCTNO   AS TANLEB_ACCID
         FROM   TableA T1
                INNER JOIN TableB T2
                  ON T1.ACCTNO= T2.ACCTNO)
UPDATE CTE
SET    TABLEA_ID= TABLEB_ID

Hope Its Work !!
Happy Coding !!

A: The following SQL will populate table B with the IDs from table A where the acctno matches:
UPDATE table_b
SET ID=table_a.id
FROM table_b
INNER JOIN table_a on table_b.acctno=table_a.acctno


Nearly half of the 22 paintings in the East Meets West exhibition in Toronto are from an extended trip to Victoria and the West Coast of British Columbia this past winter. The rest are from painting trips to Eastern Ontario and the Eastern Townships of Quebec this year.
For an artist, the West Coast has a great deal to offer. On an extended visit to Victoria last winter I met many wonderful artists who introduced me to the marvelous painting opportunities there. Some of the artists have lived on the West Coast all their lives, others have roots in many parts of Canada – on numerous occasions I listened to a familiar story: they came for a visit, fell in love with the Island and stayed.
The rugged coastlines, mile-high Douglas firs, wilderness mountain terrain and magnificent eagles soaring above are mesmerizing. The Victoria area alone presents plentiful painting opportunities. Owing to the moderate temperatures and abundant rainfall, there are many parks and wonderful gardens throughout the city. The downtown core offers numerous painting possibilities with its colourful Chinatown district, marinas and sailing clubs and boardwalks. Traveling up island by vehicle, seaplane or boat, offers many towns, villages, harbours, rain forests and remote islands to explore, with scenes recorded by artists Emily Carr, Robert Bateman, Toni Onley, Robert Genn and others.
I found I was immediately drawn to the rugged West Coast landscape and the many serious painters there. And I know that my West Coast paintings reflect the infectious raw energy that I experienced from just being there. I had artists calling about new places to see and paint. "If you don't like the weather in Victoria" I heard "wait a minute". We painted in the lea of a cliff with thundering waves crashing onshore, we took shelter from storms and then painted the incredible clearing skies and we stood in awe of the magnificent Douglas firs and the pervasive vivid green moss.
It is obvious that I would love to return to this wonderful island one day, as would my wife. Our memories will remain forever.


Why should I spend more than 1 night in Copan?
People usually think of Copan Ruinas in terms of only the ruins. It is a small town, yes. The ruins here are renowned for being the "Paris of the Mayan World," some of the most intricate carvings found in the Mayan world. We typically do not get a lot of press about much more than that. Few know about the other cool attractions we have here.
Macaw Mountain Bird Reserve - This spectacular park is an expanse of land and old growth forest along the river. The park is home to more than 53 species of macaws, owls, parrots, toucans, and other tropical birds. There is a breeding program for the most endangered species, an educational program for the community, a reintegration program to reintroduce the scarlet macaws to the river valley, not to mention a gorgeous Jungle Bistro overlooking the river, a coffee shop for their locally-produced Miramundo arabica coffee, and a gift shop featuring quality local artisan talent. The park is only a 5 minute mototaxi ride from town – 20 Lps ($1). $10 entrance fee. Good for 3 days.
Canopy Tour – This amazing course is 16 ziplines from mountaintop to mountaintop. The longest line is 1km and takes you 300 ft above the treeline for spectacular views of the Copan River valley and the Mayan ruins. $35, includes pickup and drop off.
Luna Jaguar Hot Springs - The one hour, scenic drive to the hot springs takes you through spectacular countryside with vibrant tropical flowers and the river valley. Once at the hot springs, you will explore the coolest (and hottest) spots in the 15 thermal pools property. Each pool is completely different. Spa entrance – $10 per person. Transport, tour and guide price varies.
Coffee Tours – There are several amazing coffee fincas around the Copan valley – Finca el Cisne, Welchez Coffee, and Miramundo Coffee. You can take a half day, full day, or overnight tour, depending on availability. Prices range from $20 per person to $77.
Massage – There is nothing more incredible than receiving a proper massage on a table in the jungle listening to the sounds of a river valley, or on a mountaintop listening to the breeze and the tropical birds. You can receive Swedish, Deep Tissue, Hot Stone, or Reflexology. Price varies.
If you would like to stay in Copan Ruinas long term, there are housing and Spanish school options.
Now that flights are coming to Copan directly, traveling to Copan is less of a hassle from San Pedro Sula or Roatan. Contact us for more information on any of the above options.


Variables with null values change to an empty string after pg_query_params. This is not reported in pg_query_params manual.
From what I can see, there is no sense in converting params to string as long as we don't support OUT parameters (?).


text:
← What Just Happened?
Seasons Greetings! →
Posted on December 18, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox
Congratulations to all of you for surviving the Smith government's first session in the Legislature. It started on Nov 29 and ended on Dec 15 and it felt like an eternity.
Smith has been premier for two months. she sat in the Legislature for 15 days and already she's created more chaos than Hurricane Fiona.
Tempting though it may be to rage about the Sovereignty Act, or the fact that roughly half of the UCP MLAs are in cabinet, or that Smith quietly appointed Tracey Allard the new parliamentary secretary of civil liberties (she's responsible for free speech on campus, property rights, the rights of the unvaccinated, and something to do with federal laws on gun ownership and online news), we won't.
Instead we'll step back and ask ourselves what Smith has in store for us in 2023. What's her strategy? Does she have one other than yelling at Ottawa every chance she gets?
Smith and Notley
Smith's Strategy
It appears that Smith's strategy, indeed her very existence as premier, is derived from the Free Alberta Strategy (FAS), that wacko document penned by Rob Anderson, Barry Cooper, and Derek From.
So let's see what the kind folk at FAS have in store for us in 2023.
In an email sent out last week they congratulated themselves on a job well done. "In 2022, our Free Alberta Strategy swept a new Premier to power, our Sovereignty Act swept through the Legislature, and our agenda for Alberta swept across the country."
In 2023 they will pursue their remaining priorities, including:
An Alberta Revenue Agency to collect provincial taxes, with the ultimate goal of a single tax return where Alberta collects all revenues and remits what we owe to Ottawa
An Alberta Pension Plan that would guarantee every retiree the same benefits as the CPP at a lower cost, or even more benefits at the same cost.
An Alberta Police Service which would be more focused on Alberta's priorities (public safety, rural crime, gang activity, theft, not federal priorities like gun confiscations, covid fines and environmental regulation enforcement).
Smith is aligned with these priorities having already tasked Finance minister Toews to review and provide recommendations on the first two agenda items and Justice minister Shandro to work with the minister of Public Safety & Emergency Services to finalize the decision on the Alberta Police Service.
It's important to note that the business community, you know, those folks who actually drive the economy, do not appear to be on board with Smith's strategy.
Right from the start people like Deborah Yedlin, the head of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, condemned the Sovereignty Act. One can only imagine the Chamber's reaction when Smith dutifully delivers on FAS's expectation of legislation creating Alberta regulated banks and financial institutions, an Alberta unemployment insurance scheme, a provincial tax court, and banning federal judicial appointments.
Notley's strategy
While Smith and her FAS backers have been busy trying to create a sovereign nation within (or perhaps outside) of Canada, Rachel Notley has been laying the foundation for a return to a "stable, no surprises government" that's focused on growing the economy and providing strong public healthcare and education.
Last week she addressed a crowd of 375 at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. The event was sold out in 72 hours and had a waitlist.
In it Notley laid out the NDP's Competitiveness, Jobs and Investment Strategy which promises:
an Alberta's Future Tax Credit targeting emerging sectors like critical minerals, clean technologies, etc
expanding the Alberta Petrochemical Incentives Program to include for example, recycled plastics, end products and partial upgrading,
consulting on expanding the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (which now includes projects like the Northern Corridor and the Lindbergh Co-Gen facility) to include energy projects of a smaller scale and other sectors
establishing a Regulatory Performance Fast Pass (like a Nexus card) for companies with a proven track record for compliance and adding experienced staff ("navigators") to fast track approvals in sectors like clean energy, agriculture, life sciences and advanced manufacturing, and
repealing the Sovereignty Act which creates instability and uncertainty
Notley's speech emphasized the fact that Alberta's economy is changing and Alberta must be willing to collaborate in order to be ready to meet the future.
Yedlin said Notley's speech was well received.
No one stomped out in disgust when they heard words like "emerging sectors" or "clean technologies" or "recycled plastics" and most importantly no one pushed back on Notley's promise that an NDP government would repeal the Sovereignty Act.
As Yedlin put it, "Everybody in the room is very, very focused on certainty and stability."
It would appear that the UCP government's strategy of waving an angry fist in Ottawa's direction and threatening to leave the country if Ottawa doesn't yield simply doesn't cut it, notwithstanding what Barry Cooper, or Rob Anderson, or Derek From (did I miss anyone…oh yes, their lackey Danielle Smith) think.
This bodes well for the May 2023 election.
This entry was posted in Politics and Government and tagged Barry Cooper, Danielle Smith, Deborah Yedlin, Derek From, Free Alberta Strategy, NDP Competitiveness Strategy, Rachel Notley, Rob Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.
60 Responses to A Tale of Two Strategies (okay, one strategy and one gong show)
Jim McPhail says:
No doubt that Notley is a smoother, saner politician than Smith. As a climate activist, Notley worries me more. She is a staunch Fossil Fuel supporter and uses skilled greenwashing via the misunderstood terms such as "clean energy," "renewable hydrogen," "essential CCS/CCUS," and "sustainable biomass," for example, to fool most of the public. Her stated Fossil Fuel plans will prevent effective climate action under her possible premiership.
jerrymacgp says:
Mr McPhail:
Protesting Rachel Notley's environmental credentials is a classic case of perfection being the enemy of good. Alberta voters will be faced with a stark choice in May: a sensible, stable, rational government that can walk and chew gum at the same time in terms of supporting the Alberta workforce while at the same time working to gradually and incrementally diversify the economy away from oil and gas extraction — or an extremist whackadoodle government that will chase away business investment and double down on this sovereignty nonsense.
Remember, in order to begin the transformation of Alberta from being a one-industry province — which, in fact it really isn't, but that's what you'd think if you only paid attention to the UCP — the Notley-led NDP has to get elected, and in order to do that, it can't be too far ahead of public opinion when it comes to support for the fossil fuel industry. If it is too aggressive in greening the economy, it will lose the election — then all of us will be the losers.
susanonthesoapbox says:
Jerrymacgp: well said. You absolutely nailed it!
While I understand that some people think Notley is moving too slowly, if she moves too quickly the NDP will never form government. I think it's important to note that all of the pillars of the NDP's competitive strategy support diversification and renewable energy, and (this is the critical part), her strategy was well received here in Calgary, the epicenter of the fossil fuel sector. This is remarkable.
I agree with you Susan that Notley's program on renewal energy is a success and despite the UCP it continues to accelerate. At least we can save one industry from the destroying hands of the current government.
Jim, as you can tell I'm with Jerry on this one. I do believe the tide is turning even in the fossil fuel (FF) sector. I was talking to a retired FF executive the other day. I asked him what he thought about Alberta's future. I expected a tirade about environmental activists trying to shut down the oilsands, and while he did mention that, he went on to say Alberta's future was bright because it had abundant renewables (sunlight, wind) as well as hydrogen and critical minerals. I've known this man for 15 years. This is the first time I've heard him say anything positive about renewables. Looks like we can teach an old dog new tricks, it just takes a little while.
Did you ask what colour of hydrogen? Fossil Fuel companies are making out like crazy, hiding how they can continue their production while pretending it's sustainable. I attended a webinar today where one Green expert was run over by 2 FF types who minimized any issues using natural gas and got away with it.
Susan sorry for my hasty reply a few minutes ago. Adding counterviews:
There is much reason for FF companies to be positive.
* Minister Wilkinson is a staunch FF advocate, as we saw before Guilbeault moved into the portfolio. He continues to back them domestically and on the international stage, including –
* Supporting proposed enormous $Billions in continuing to subsidize them to develop CCS/CCUS technology while not having to account for where the $$ goes.
* CCS/CCUS have never been shown to be successful at scale. EOR is touted as leading the way while increasing the O&G GHG's. And try to find any studies showing that the injected carbon does not make its way back to the atmosphere.
* FF companies are still expanding production and building new infrastructure, even coal, claiming CCS/CCUS negate their GHG's. And much of the public is buying this line. The IEA is clear that FF new production must be stopped immediately and BAU has to change to decrease production immediately.
I'd be optimistic too as a FF exec with our "Green" Federal political party in power let my colleagues and write the laws, policies and regulations governing my activities and the Opposition is panting to sell the farm for us. Then we have the provincial governments at our beck and call. Sweet!
Tina Dmytryshyn says:
She is not a fossil fuel supporter but she is smart enough not to bite off the hand that feeds Alberta. Rachel l knows we have to go slowly but surely toward renewable energy and to provide incentives along the way.
I agree with your assessment Tina. I suspect Rachel will begin to accelerate her green/renewable agenda once she's got the reins.
Mm says:
FAS does a lot of sweeping. They must be preparing for a future career of sweeping. FAS reminds me of another acronym, but that is neither here nor there.
Mm: yes FAS is fond of grand rhetoric. They are delighted "one of the the centrepieces" of their plan has been implemented. They believe Bill 1 is a good bill. they think it was simply an oversight that Smith filled it full of Henry VIII clauses giving Cabinet the power to make laws behind closed doors. They are so naive, they think they can control Smith, but they can't and in the end Smith will go down and she'll take them and the UCP down with her.
Rob Ballantyne says:
Am I wrong in thinking Danielle Smith is unsurping the role of the CIA in destabilizing Canada and making the Federal Government's job of "good governance" harder and harder? Do we have to remind her that her job is to "add" to Canada rather than to "add" to the US ownership of Alberta? Sheesh.
I do not think you are wrong at all.
I am sure she has much more in common with the Trump lunatics than anything else in Canada.
Rob and Carlos, I agree with you both. The Opposition asked Smith to confirm that she would never call a referendum on separation (this is one of Barry Cooper's favourite talking points. He told CBC that if Canada fails to respect Alberta then Alberta will call a separation referendum and it's "in" or "out.") In response to the question Smith said "I am not a separatist" (reminded me of Nixon saying "I'm not a crook") but she did NOT say she wouldn't call a referendum on separation.
And why anyone would think Alberta would be better off as the 51st state in the great U.S. of A. is beyond me.
Dwayne says:
Susan: Thanks for another great blog. Danielle Smith any the UCP are getting worse and worse, as time goes by. They are burning bridges, instead of building them. They are more interested in fighting, and aren't interested in doing what's best for Alberta. I still don't see the Sovereignty Act succeeding. I'll share some more fitting music. This is in my music collection. It is a Don D. Robey and a Joe Veasy composition, Further On Up The Road, and is from Eric Clapton's live album, Just One Night, released in 1980. I did see Eric Clapton live in 2007.
Susan: Here is my second song pick. This is from Cat Stevens, and it is his own composition, released in 1967, The First Cut Is The Deepest. This is also part of my music collection.
Paul Pearlman says:
We have the 3 Musketeers and their mouth piece who only opens it to change feet. Leading us to the promised land of the unknown no Alberta Premier has ever won a fight with Ottawa and I'm sure they won't win their fight either! So MerryChristmas to all 2023 is going to be very interesting for all of us Albertans as for every month the Clowns are in power it might take years to repair.
Paul the premier who actually won a fight with Ottawa was Peter Lougheed. The law prof Al Lucas did a short piece on how Lougheed secured economic protection for Alberta by using a carefully developed legal and political strategy to get section 92A into the Constitution.
The irony is that Barry Cooper, who couldn't hold a candle to Peter Lougheed, derides Lougheed's accomplishments and instead threatens to burn the place to the ground as a way to bend Ottawa to his will. It's sad.
Here's a link to the Al Lucas piece: https://ablawg.ca/2012/09/27/peter-lougheeds-section-92a/
Thank you Susan, I always feel Premier Lougheed is in an entirely different category than all of those who followed him. I will read the piece you sent along with your answer. I often comment more out of frustration than KNOWLEDGE!!!
Susan: Here is my final song pick. It is from 1968. Jeff Beck is doing a version of Greensleeves (also known as What Child Is This?). This is from 1968, and is also in my music collection. I did see Jeff Beck twice live, and met him. Along with Eric Clapton, and Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck is one of the former Yardbirds guitar legends.
Dwayne, these were lovely picks. I especially liked Greensleeves.
I still can't get over how many of these amazing musicians you've actually seen live. You must have spent your entire youth on the road. Lucky you! 🙂
Something is very wrong with any system that allows a separatist premier to be elected by 0.1% of the population of a province through the back door.
That is not democracy and I hope that once we are back into a more reasonable time we think about ways to fix a decrepit political system instead of banging our heads against the wall every time something crazy like this happens.
Daniele Smith is the premier of extremists and not the rest of us. She has a severe case of mental delusion and needs to step aside and allow regular people to run this province. She will continue force feeding us with her sick vision of politics and life in general and there is only one way to fight delusional force.
Carlos: Danielle Smith is driven by her ego, and by a very small ultra right wing base. It's not helping Alberta. If apathy sets in, as we have seen in the by-election where Danielle Smith got elected, or such as when the Alberta PCs were in power for all those years, it's not going to help. Until electoral reform happens in Alberta, look what we are stuck with.
Carlos I agree with you, something is indeed terribly wrong with our system that Smith has been allowed to do what she's done.
As Dwayne says we're stuck with this system and we have to combat apathy and exhaustion to ensure she's not elected by a greater proportion of the population in May 2023 because we all know that if she gets even 40% of the vote she'll declare "the people" have given her a mandate and she'll go hog wild.
1. Kenney's strategy consisted solely of yelling at Ottawa every chance he got so she's just following in his footsteps.
2. Business does not run the economy, people do. Consumers do. Big business will pull out of AB but we could do fine regardless if consumers can afford to keep the economy going.
3. I'm not confident Albertans will vote out the UCP. So many of us seem to think we've been hard done by for decades. I'm so disappointed.
Janna. I agree. I'd add to your #1 that Kenney used the Fair Deal Panel to ingratiate himself with the far right. It gave air time to whiners and snivellers and created expectations that Kenney's government would solve everything if it just did what the whiners and snivellers wanted. His government accepted some of the Fair Deal Panel's recommendations and parked the rest as unworkable or simply ludicrous. The whiners and snivellers got rid of him and the Free Alberta Strategy people are using the Fair Deal Panel's input as a blue print for a "sovereign" Alberta. If we don't boot Smith and the UCP out in May 2023 we'll be stuck in the muck for a long time.
Frankly, some of us will say enough is enough and move to a saner province.
Speaking of Alberta being "hard done by", did you see this? "Federal equalization payments to Manitoba jump by $577 million". Alberta's constantly wailing on about equalization, but will they be wailing about Manitoba getting over half a billion more than last year? My guess is … crickets, because Manitoba isn't Québec. I've long felt that Alberta's resentment of equalization — aside from not being based on facts or an accurate understanding of who pays into it — is really rooted in a resentment of Québec and of francophones in Canada. It goes as far back as people complaining about French on their cereal boxes in the 1960s. It's hate, pure and simple.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/12/19/federal-equalization-payments-to-manitoba-jump-ndp-say-use-it-for-health.html (sorry if it's paywalled… )
On CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-millions-equalization-transfers-1.6691730
Mike J Danysh says:
jerrymacgp, I wouldn't characterize Albertans' feeling toward Quebec as hate; maybe in the '60s, but not for a long time now. Envy—yes, especially among the Free Alberta Fantasists and Take Back Alberta (to the 1800's) mob. The noisy separatists among us have, I believe, become jealous of Quebec's ability to "get stuff from Ottawa." That's not so very true anymore, but (like the mantra "Oil = Alberta") it's powerful propaganda.
As for Manitoba—the government is Progressive Conservative, even though the Premier, Heather Stefanson, hasn't won a general election since she became party leader (just like Queen Dannie). Smith isn't going to call attention to either of those facts.
Even worse, Alberta now has a budget surplus. Mostly, it's because of Putin's illegal war driving up global oil prices. Partly, it's due to the end of Ralph Klein's excessively generous "1% royalty while building" tax breaks for bitumen companies. Even for Queen Dannie, it'd be a stretch to demand money from Ottawa while protesting payments to fellow-Cons in Manitoba—and spending like a drunken sailor in a pre-election binge.
My guess is you're right jerrymacgp. Barry Cooper summed it up this sentiment nicely on CBC when he was asked whether he really believed Albertans would be better off outside of Canada. He said there was no question. We'd have pipelines to the coast and "We also wouldn't have to pay Quebec all the transfer payments. And if you don't think that is something that appeals to Albertans…you underestimate the redneck quality of a anti-Quebec sentiment in the province. And it's not it's not anti-French, it's anti-Quebec. One province has taken a huge amount of money from Alberta. And guess what? They've never said thank you."
They've never said thank you? To whom? To all the Canadian taxpayers from BC to PEI to the NWT, from across the country who pay federal taxes which are then divvied up by the federal government of the day and allocated into many different buckets including the equalization payments bucket?
To say that Cooper doesn't understand how equalization works would be an understatement.
Ingamarie says:
Let's all work to that end…ie: The coming spring election. We've been knocking on doors, and there is a real appetite out there for genuine discussion….and very little of the nastiness that we encountered in past years. Yes, there are committed conservatives, but they identify as such and are for the most part polite if not cordial.
Those of us who like to discuss issues on sites like this, need to take the conversations outside now. Alberta isn't out of the 'entitled woods' yet….and the desire to stay inside, comfy and exceptional hasn't completely gone away, even under a Danielle Smth.
After all, she is just the culmination of years of exceptionality thinking. She's the kind of politician you get when you reduce politics to being 'all about me and mine'. There is a bigger and broader world out there…….even in the countryside I expect it is manifesting. Let's all join the opposition and take to the streets, get out the vote, and start the real work of preparing Alberta for the 21st Century, already well underway outside the Alberta fantasy state.
And many thanks to Susan for revealing where these BIG Alberta pipedreams come from. Why am I not surprised….Friends of Science who don't bother to read Science! We've already paid for that crew.
Ingamarie: thank you for this uplifting comment. I'm hearing similar things from other NDP candidates I know. They say the mood on the doors is very different from what they faced in the past.
I'd just like to add that if some of our readers can't go doorknocking anymore, there are other activities they could do to support the movement for change, including making regular donations to the party.
Thank you for this and merry Christmas and happy holiday to all. I am hopeful, that come election time, the Unhinged Clown Party and Dodo Danielle will get their lumps of coal. No, Barry Cooper, it isn't rocket science, people want a strong Alberta that is part of Canada. Those conservatives who are loathe to vote NDP need to be reminded Peter Lougheed and Rachel Notley think a lot alike….
Sharon, I liked your reference to Barry Cooper's "rocket science" comment. For those who didn't see it in Gary Mason's column in the Globe & Mail, a retiree wrote to Barry Cooper asking Cooper how he ever imagined Smith could lead Alberta into the future. Cooper replied by email saying, "Don't you get it? I want out as do many of my fellow citizens. If she won't do the job we'll get someone who will. It ain't rocket science."
Mason couldn't believe Cooper would express such separatist views and followed up with him. Cooper confirmed that if Canada won't deal with Alberta's grievances, there is only one option–a provincial vote on separation. "It ain't rocket science."
They come up with all kinds of weird referendums but lever the correct ones.
Who the heck is Barry Cooper and who cares he wants out?
Cooper can dream whatever he wants but if he wants out he can easily do it and move to the US for example. I am sure he will find a niche for his extreme ideology there.
Barry is a citizen just each one of us and he does not get to pick what he wants to do with Alberta. Unless of course we are silly enough to allow him to.
Someone should look into Cooper's PhD….where the heck did someone with his quirky take on reality get qualified to teach at a university? What does it mean to operate an organization called Friends of Science, when you refuse to 'get' basic climate models, or keep sticking your head in the sand when extreme weather around the world keeps proving you an ignoramus???
Hi Sharon. The Free Alberta "Strategy" document says Anderson and From are both lawyers (Anderson is a civil litigation lawyer, so we might want to temper our criticism. Maybe.) Cooper is a political scientist, and whether that includes a degree in law, I don't know. None claim to be constitutional lawyers.
I'd like to know two things: 1) how many constitutional lawyers are there in Canada, and 2) how many agree with Cooper's interpretation of the Constitution? I suspect the answers are 1) a lot, and 2) next to none.
Why would we temper our criticism? Do we have to now be afraid of a lawyer with extreme political views? I think that as a lawyer he should temper what he puts out as strategies that are unconstitutional. Not the other way around.
We are in deep doodoo if we have to be hiding from extreme ideology lawyers in Canada. That will be the day we cease to be a democracy.
I am surprised that the Layers Association does not say or do anything about their members. Do they not have the responsibility to keep their members following the law?
Well, Carlos, I'm the careful sort who'd rather watch from the sidelines. I'm not keen to defend myself against a SLAPP suit. If it comes, it comes, but I won't give 'em an excuse.
Sharon, Ingamarie, Mike, Carlos, you've raised some really interesting issues here.
Just to clarify. I've checked Derek From's LinkedIn profile. He lists constitutional law as one of his areas of practice. However I note that the only two people speaking out about the Free Alberta Strategy are Rob Anderson and Barry Cooper. From is strangely silent.
Barry Cooper is a political scientist, he does not have a law degree. When he says things like Pierre Elliot Trudeau duped "Saint Peter" (Lougheed) into signing off on the Constitution because Trudeau knew that by "turning all this stuff over to the Supreme Court of Canada for final interpretation, you'd get a legalisation of politics" Cooper is saying the SCC are a bunch of Liberal hacks. This is patently untrue and insulting to every justice who's ever sat on the SCC.
I fully understand where Mike is coming from when he talks about tempering his criticism. I think it's important not to slander and libel people because (1) none of us wants to be sued and (2) ad hominem attacks are not effective arguments. Having said that we all have to vent sometimes, as long as we're venting with real facts, I'm good.
Other than yelling at Ottawa, which does have some appeal with Alberta voters, the rest of Smith's strategy seems to be things that will cost us money and voters do not really want. Is anyone in Alberta (other than the separatist crowd) really wanting a provincial police force, a provincial pension plan or separate tax system? Nope.
Perhaps all the yelling and the constitutionally doubtful legislation will distract voters enough from the rest of her dubious agenda, but I doubt it. Kenney thought holding a meaningless referendum on equalization would satisfy the right wing, but it accomplished nothing and just showed his ineffectiveness.
So what is the solution for the UCP now? Shout louder and try more outrageous things. Yeah that will work with the delusional crowd who still think hydroxycloroquine is a reputable medical cure, but not so much with all those who are not already on team crazy.
Well it certainly looks like they all overdosed on hydroxychloroquine.
Carlos, they can have the hydroxychloroquine, if they leave the ivermectin alone. It's needed for horses throughout the province.
In short, the next decade is ours to lose.
Good points Dave. As you said, the majority of Albertans don't want their own police force, their own pension plan, their own unemployment insurance system, and their own banking system, all of which will cost them billions of dollars. Dollars that would be much better spent shoring up our healthcare and education systems and other social programs.
I've seen some polls that say UCP supporters care about the cost of living above all else, whereas NDP supporters' priorities are health, education, and social programs. Seems to me pointing out that the UCP will spend billions on programs that do nothing to reduce the cost of living, but will result in a decrease of Albertans' quality of life would be a no-brainer.
But then again, I'm not an ideologically driven UCP supporter.
Susan: It never seems to end with the UCP.
https://thenarwhal.ca/capp-oil-lobbying-alberta-government/
Dwayne, there was some coverage of this at the time (April 2020)—but nothing to indicate it was this bad. The reports said the federal government said, "No" and essentially tossed CAPP's wish list in the recycle bin. So of course, Jason Kenney, that stalwart supporter of all things oil except responsibility, gave 'em what they wanted.
From the Narwhal article: "Denhoff, the former deputy minister, had reservations not just about the list of requests, but the structure of the committee. 'The entire core operations committee is four lobbyists and a political chief of staff,' he said. 'It's just unbelievable.' "
No it isn't. Not in Oilberduhstan, it isn't.
I don't suppose we can 'Free Alberta' from the UCP before May 2023? Legally, that is. I can only hope Albertans in general realize the UCP needs to be removed asap. I'd add that if the UCP does retain their hold on power & manage to get their mitts on Albertan's CPP $ I for one will be making tracks to another locale.
Linda, the only way to "free Alberta" from the UCP is to throw them out of power in the next election. The big question is when will that happen.
Smith has been premier for roughly two months. In that time she had to walk back her plan to give Cabinet the power to make new law behind closed doors because, apparently, the UCP caucus didn't like it.
She had to appoint Tracey Allard as the champion of property and civil rights because the UCP caucus wasn't happy when Smith failed to amend the Alberta Bill of Rights to protect the so-called rights of the unvaxxed.
And now the Sovereignty Act, that Act that was going to shield Alberta from Ottawa, is being challenged by the Onion Lake First Nation on constitutional grounds. Smith boasted she'd welcome a court challenge from Trudeau, instead she got one from a Treaty 6 First Nation.
That's three missteps. How many more will caucus and the party (now run by Take Back Alberta) tolerate before they say she has to go? And when will they pull the pin?
Hi Susan. A lot going on which is more than cause to vote the UCP out of office. The authors of the FAS, for instance, are not as per the internet actual currently elected MLA's. So folks who were not elected representatives are creating policy. Isn't that the job of our elected representatives? Is the idea to blame any problems from said policy on the subcontractors who came up with these ideas in the first place? "Not our fault people, we were given bad advice". The UCP may or may not decide to remove Smith as leader. That doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of creating this mess in the first place.
Well I could not post this as an answer to Susan's comment on what Danielle Smith is doing without any mandate but it simply did not post so I am trying at the root level rather than a reply.
She goes hog wild with 0.1% never mind 40%.
She will sell the province to the lowest bidder.
We are not stuck with this system. We are stuck with politicians that keep this system for their convenience. They all want a majority and so they will not change this decrepit process.
What is about this rule that allows a leader of any party to take over a premiership if the previous leader quits? That is bizarre to say the least and should be changed immediately. You want to be premier? You should call an election and present your views, clearly and without any ifs or buts.
What she is doing is to game the system to her advantage and I am not sure what is the doubt about what is going on? Is it that hard to understand that Danielle Smith is gaming the system? So what are we waiting for to change this? We do not have the courage to stop this loophole? Where is the NDP? where is the Liberal party? where are all the politicians and committees that deal with these political processes? Are we all admitting we like this because it allows us to cheat? Are we that idiotic? We do not care anymore?
It has been done forever? Well change it. Not that hard. Just CHNAGE IT and while in the process take a deep look into the whole political process and change what will make the system an appropriate one for the 21 century instead of the 19th. Democracy is not a dead beast, it evolves and for the better.
Hi Carlos. I really wish we could fix this mess, preferably retroactively to May of 2019. Resetting to September 2021, when Kenney faced down a caucus revolt, would be almost as good. But…"(Sadly:) I've looked into the reset button. (Choking up:) The science is impossible!"—"Megamind," Dreamworks Animation, 2011.
I think the problem is less the system than the current players. Danielle Smith isn't the only premier without a popular mandate; Heather Stefanson of Manitoba is in exactly the same position. Heck, in 1935, the Social Credit Party of Alberta was so sure they'd lose the election, they didn't HAVE an official leader! The party had to beg the founder, William Aberhart, to take the job (he refused at first). Look how that ended….
No, our problem in Oiberduh (now "Oilberduhstan" thanks to Smith and her backers) is that Smith pushes the limits to the breaking point. She's over-enthusiastic, under-educated and far too suggestible. Worse, she has a whim of iron and no sense of self-restraint. Whatever half-baked idea she likes becomes her reality. Worst of all, she's a willing sock puppet for a handful of far-right, "it-ain't-fair" entitled crybullies.
The good news, for us anyway, is that Smith isn't immune to public pressure. As evidence, she's sort-of apologized for various gaffes. The best evidence is the way the UCP caucus chopped out the Henry VIII clauses from the Sovereignty Act. Smith seems not to have fought too hard. (BTW, Tyler Shandro must have signed off on Bill 1, but I suspect Barry Cooper wrote the first draft.)
For a quick review of how we got into this mess, here's a new analysis. Lots of interesting links to follow!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/western-premiers-danielle-smith-scott-moe-alberta-saskatchewan-alberta-sovereignty-act-1.6690861
Can we change it? Yes, BUT. The Westminster parliamentary system is based on both law and tradition. So yes, but not until we elect a government with a strong interest in changing the Westminster system. Then we have to learn how MUCH can be changed by a provincial government. We could demand changes to the unwritten Constitution, and maybe get our way quickly. Maybe. Changing laws is harder, but doable. Changing the written Constitution is way harder—the federal government, plus provincial governments representing at least 60% of the national population, must approve. That's a very high bar to clear.
I agree, wholeheartedly, the current chaos is intolerable (and I don't even own a business). For now, we're stuck with the rules and our best option is to change the party in power. Changing the system itself will have to wait. Sorry, buddy, but it's the only game in town….
I agree with most of what you said and without any doubt this is your best sentence
'She's over-enthusiastic, under-educated and far too suggestible. Worse, she has a whim of iron and no sense of self-restraint. Whatever half-baked idea she likes becomes her reality. Worst of all, she's a willing sock puppet for a handful of far-right, "it-ain't-fair" entitled crybullies.'
I think this is the best definition of Danielle Smith I have seen so far lol
I do not think that it is as difficult to make incremental changes to our political system as you suggest. I think the greatest obstacle is our own political under educated consumer society that seems to not even understand that the health of our society depends more and more on decisions made by informed citizens and not just consumers. The world is pathetically sick and we need to evolve if we are going to survive.
Not sure made much sense but this is why we talk.
Mike and Carlos, I see three problems with our system.
(1) the first past the post system allows politicians with less than 50% of the vote to govern, this is wrong.
(2) the FPTP system (unlike other systems like proportional representation for example) is a winner take all system. Consequently the winner doesn't have to negotiate with the other parties to stay in power. There is nothing to stop them from foisting their stupid policies on the people because while the Opposition can complain and suggest amendments they have no power to stop the government.
(3) our existing system is a combination of written laws and unwritten norms and conventions. Decent politicians adhere to both. Others, like Smith and Trump blow through them like wet tissue paper. This has come as a great shock to decent moral people. We have to wise up. It's time we realized that unscrupulous people will undermine written laws and simply ignore or blow up unwritten norms and conventions. The only way to protect ourselves from such politicians is to ensure they never make it into public office. (I keep coming back to Trump reciting "The Snake" (a woman takes a freezing snake into her home, it recover and bites her, filling her with poisonous toxin, the snake justifies its actions by saying she knew it was a snake when she took it in).
We know who these people are, we can't risk putting them into power under our existing system of governance.
Hi Carlos and Susan. Sorry my reply's been a bit delayed, but I'm glad to say we pretty much agree with each other. Heck, if it wuz just us three runnin' things, it'd all be good, right?
Carlos, you're right that change can be quick, but it's quickest when rival political parties keep swapping in and out of power. I'd not like that, mostly because of the chaos of "Yes we can!" "No you can't!" fighting that we see so often in the US. Real reform is much harder, darn it, because it means changing the system rather than political agendas.
And boy, are you right that we need "decisions made by informed citizens"! The problem, as you know, is where citizens get information. Danielle Smith is well-read and (as Susan has informed us) willing to learn. The trouble is that poisonous politics can lock people into intensely tribal "us vs. them" mindsets. Hence, Trumpies in the US and the Free Alberta Fantasists/ Take Back Oilberduh mobs here.
Right now, it looks likely that Smith's erratic, facts-don't-matter approach to politics will see her booted out, and Rachel Notley returned to the premier's office. We'll see how fast things can change. If we get more progressive than regressive decisions, the whole province will win. (Smith and Cooper, the founders of Alberta Grievance Unlimited, won't believe it. My ulcer bleeds for them.)
OK! I feel better. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Let's all enjoy all that we can over the holidays.
Jcurrie says:
Susan..I left a long comment yesterday mainly about the CPP. It never was posted and wonder if you got it or there is a problem on my end. Thanks JCurrie
Jcurrie: I'm afraid I don't see your comment from yesterday anywhere. I went into the admin section of WordPress to see if it got stuck because it contains links, but it's not there either. Very strange. WordPress may have had a hiccup, God only knows, I just found out on the weekend that a regular subscriber is no longer getting my posts, and he may have to re-subscribe. Anyway, if you still have your comment on your system somewhere please feel free to repost it. Hopefully it will come through this time. Thanks.
Jcurrie
Just so you know I have these problems very frequently. I found that the best way to deal with it is the following:
1) Avoid replies in replies
2) Copy your post every single time before you post
3) if it fails just put a different beginning sentence on it and try again at the root or the direct posting , not a reply. If you do not change it sometimes it complains that is repeated, although it never shows up
4) If all of these fail I suggest you use a different browser. Sometimes it works better with Chrome and other times with IE or Edge
Thanks for the pointers Carlos. I find WordPress mystifying and am glad you've shared your work-arounds.
You are very welcome Susan
I hope it helps a bit


text:
Q: tikz explain/annotate equation in LaTeX using straight arrows with right angles Thanks to this excellent answer, I can get an equation as in this figure: with bent arrows. But what I really want is as in this figure: with right-angled arrows.
To simply write the code, you may start by modifying the code from here.

A: Update: I've turned equation annotation into a LaTeX annotate-equations package (also on CTAN), which you might find useful.

Adapting Mike Renfro's answer
to straight edges is fairly straightforward: all I did was change from
\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay]
        \path[->]<1-> (nCPP) edge [bend left] (tCPP);
        \path[->]<2-> (nL) edge [bend left] (tL);
        \path[->]<3-> (nPPP) edge [out=0, in=0] (tPPP);
        \path[->]<4-> (nPP) edge [out=0, in=-90] (tPP);
\end{tikzpicture}

to
\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay,->]
        \draw<1-> (nCPP) -| (tCPP);
        \draw<2-> (nL) -| (tL);
        \draw<3-> (nPPP) -| (tPPP);
        \draw<4-> (nPP) -| (tPP);
\end{tikzpicture}

Changes explained:

*

*replaced the edge and bend options with -| (there's also |- to bend at right angles the other way)

*replaced \path with \draw to get the lines actually drawn

*moved [->] into the tikzpicture environment options because for some reason it didn't work as \draw[->].

I've also set aspectratio=169 so there's enough space for the arrow for Predictor Prior Probability (it's also possible to work around that, but more hacky). This is what it looks like:


It's not easy to keep track of everything you need when managing multiple international domains. That's why RWGUSA.com now offers SSL Certificates for your Madrid, Spain .madrid web sites and trust marks for all Madrid, Spain domains! Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in Madrid, Spain and savvy shoppers will demand the protection afforded by SSL certificates. Newcomers will feel more at ease when you request their most sensitive financial information when you back it with world class protection, driving you higher new visitor conversion.


text:
United States–Canada Border Slash
The United States–Canada border is the longest in the world. It stretches 5,525 miles from Maine to Alaska, traversing land, sea, and untouched wilderness. As such, you might assume this colossal border would be left untouched by humankind, merely an invisible line on a map. But you'd be wrong.
Every year, the average American taxpayer pays half of a cent to the International Boundary Commission (IBC) for the sole purpose of deforesting every inch of the U.S.–Canada border. With an annual budget of $1,400,000, the IBC ensures that the boundary will never be just an imaginary line.
Known as "the Slash," this treeless zone is 20 feet wide and covers everything from narrow isolated islands to steep hillsides. Spanning national forests and towering mountains, the vast majority of the Slash is so remote that it will never receive any visitors (aside from a handful of bears), yet it is still painstakingly maintained every six years with grueling hours of exhausting manual labor.
The Slash was initially deforested for the sole purpose of, according to the IBC, making sure that the "average person… knows they are on the border." It all started in the 1800s, when the western land section of the U.S.–Canada border was set at the 49th parallel. The Slash was cut and over 8,000 original border markers were laid down, most of which are still standing along with it to this day.
Unfortunately, there was no GPS system at the time, so the border markers were inadvertently placed in a zig-zag fashion, straying north or south of the official 49th parallel border by an average of 295 feet. The lack of sufficient cartography also led to irregular border cutoffs such as Point Roberts and the Northwest Angle.
Despite its errors, witnessing the Slash is still on the bucket list of hundreds of geography nerds worldwide. Seeing the Slash can be as simple as going to Google Maps, zooming towards the U.S.–Canada border, and switching to satellite view. Those looking for a more up-close view can travel to Newport, Vermont, and hop aboard Northern Star Cruises, which will take you right alongside the Slash.
Posted in Environment, Website Building
Tagged Environment
The Future of Smart Startups Lives Outside of Silicon Valley: Here's Why
How Color Psychology in Web Development Can Help Increase Conversions


text:
const babel = require('babel-core');
const content = `
// @flow
import type { AdPartner, Job, JobAlert, SeoText } from './JLCommon';
import type { DirectApplyDraft, DirectApplyFile } from './reducer/DirectApply';
import type { SearchQuery } from './joblift-query-parser';

// eslint-disable-next-line
export type { SearchQuery };

export type jpopunderPostResult = {
    items: Job[],
    adPartners: AdPartner[],
};

export type searchPostResult = {
    items: Job[],
    seoText?: SeoText[],
    query: SearchQuery,
    index: boolean,
    total: number,
    pages: number,
    resultId: string,
    facets?: { [key: string]: { key: number, amount: number, translation: string }[] },
};

// api/jobalert/me/
export type jobalertMeGetResult = {
    description: string,
    jobalerts: JobAlert[],
};

// api/joblocation-reverse-lookup
export type joblocationReverseLookupGetResult = {
    display_name: string,
};

// api/joblocation-suggestion
export type joblocationSuggestionGetResult = {
    suggestions: Array<{ value: string }>,
};

// api/jobsearch-suggestion
export type jobsearchSuggestionGetResult = {
    suggestions: Array<{ value: string, numJobs?: number }>,
};

// api/jobsearch-suggestion/popular
export type freqSearchSuggestionGetResult = {
    suggestions: Array<{ value: string, numJobs: number }>,
};

// api/charts
export type statisticalDataGetResult = {
    keys: string[],
    data: Object,
};

// api/joboffer
export type jobofferGetResult = Job;

// api/popunder
export type popunderPostResponse = {
    showPopunder: boolean,
    url: string,
    itemCount: number,
    partner: string,
    customer: string,
    customerId: number,
    suppressTransactionId?: boolean,
    ch: string,
};

// auth/json/login/local
export type loginPostResult = {
    displayName?: string,
    firstName: string,
    initialCreated: boolean,
    isAnonymous?: boolean,
    lastName: string,
    localAccounts: Array<{
        email: string,
    }>,
    socialAccounts: Object[],
    uniqueEmails: string[],
    uuid: string,
};

// api/direct-apply/offer/<jobofferid>/draft
export type directApplyDraftGet = DirectApplyDraft;

// api/direct-apply/files/recent
export type directApplyRecentFilesGet = DirectApplyFile[];
`;

it('real4', () => {
  const res = babel.transform(content, {
    babelrc: false,
    presets: ['@babel/env', '@babel/react', '@babel/flow'],
    plugins: [
      '@babel/syntax-flow',
      require('../'),
      "@babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties"
    ],
  }).code;
  expect(res).toMatchSnapshot();
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Superhydrophobic Coatings, as the name suggests are coatings which repel water. Made up by nanoscopic surface layers in an effort to mimic natural superhydrophobic surfaces, these coatings can be applied to glass, concrete, textiles, plastic, wood, and others while offering benefits such as resistance to dirt, corrosion, and abrasions. Market Research Future has released its latest report on Superhydrophobic Coatings which reveals various essential market factors and key figures for the forecast period of 2016 t0 2023.
With applications across a variety of industries such as building & construction, electronics & telecommunication, automotive, textiles & leather, and medical & healthcare industries, the superhydrophobic coatings market is expected to grow significantly, as the demand in these end-user industries increases. Superhydrophobic Coatings have several benefits such as the ability to extend product life and reduce or avoid water damage which indirectly translates to cost-effectiveness. Moreover, their properties provide added benefits of self-cleaning, anti-soiling and anti-fingerprint properties. As such, the electronics industry is a vital driver of the Superhydrophobic Coatings Market due to the use of these coatings to protect sensitive electronic components from water damage. Textiles are another key industry where Superhydrophobic Coatings are in high demand as consumers are highly attracted to the idea of clothing which does not stain easily and offers weather resistance during wet climates.
Moreover, the increased demand for Superhydrophobic Coatings is in response to the technological advances and R&D activities being carried out for the development of highly transparent coatings which provide optical clarity and will likely lead to the proliferation of various applications in the next few years.
The Global Superhydrophobic Coatings Market in MRFR's report has been segmented on the basis of raw material, property, end user industry, and region.
By Raw Material, the market is segmented into graphene, carbon nanotubes, silica nanoparticles, and others.
By Property, the market is divided into anti-corrosion, non-wetting, anti-microbial, and others.
By End-Use Industry, the market is segmented into transportation & allied logistics, medical, electricals & electronics, optical, construction, textiles and leather. Among these, the electronics segment is expected to lead the market with the largest share due to the requirement from the industry to offer cost effective electronics which are durable, thus leading to increased use of Superhydrophobic Coatings for protection of sensitive electrical components.
NeverWet, Advanced NanoTech Lab, Hydrobead, Rust-Oleum, Excel Coatings, Lotus Leaf Inc., P2i International Ltd, United Protective Technologies, Aculon, NEI Corporation, and UltraTech International Inc. are among the important market players of the global superhydrophobic coatings market.
The global market is divided into key regions which include North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific and the Middle East and Africa. The Asia Pacific accounts for the largest share of the Global Superhydrophobic Coatings Market and is expected to witness the highest growth during the forecast period. The region leads the global coatings market and has a truly significant electrical and electronics industry which drives the demand for Superhydrophobic Coatings. The region with its inclusion of China and India among others has established itself as a manufacturing hub. Moreover, rapid construction in swiftly urbanizing emerging economies are making extensive use of Superhydrophobic Coatings for construction purposes.
North America and Latin America are expected to witness increased market growth due to the increased demand for consumer electronics and automotive in these regions. North America is prominent region due to the presence of several important market players and their significant investments in increasing market opportunities. Moreover, Latin America has established itself as a key manufacturer of automotive as major automotive players move manufacturing plants to emerging economies to leverages lower costs.