We are al­ready work­ing with Brussels. This can be­come re­al­ity. But we need your help!Read the in-de­tail pro­posal, made in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the best startup le­gal teams, funds and founders in Europe.

Europe has the tal­ent, am­bi­tion, and ecosys­tems to cre­ate in­no­v­a­tive com­pa­nies, but frag­men­ta­tion be­tween European na­tions is hold­ing us back.“A startup from California can ex­pand and raise money all across the United States. But our com­pa­nies still face way too many na­tional bar­ri­ers that make it hard to work Europa-wide, and way too much reg­u­la­tory bur­den.”

Yes! But we need your help!So far, we sub­mit­ted our pro­posal to Justice Commissioner McGrath and Startup Commissioner Zaharieva. President Von der Leyen has setup a ded­i­cated work­ing group in the Commission with whom we are in reg­u­lar con­tact.Ad­di­tion­ally, the European Council and Parliament have each sig­naled in­ter­est in the EU–INC, or what in Brussel is called the “28th regime” (for 28th vir­tual state).

The en­tire com­mu­nity is cur­rently in­flu­enc­ing the up­com­ing European Commission leg­isla­tive pro­posal for a pan-Eu­ro­pean le­gal en­tity which is set to be re­leased in Q1 2026. We need your help, see be­low!Af­ter­wards, the European Parliament and the European Council (made up of the 27 na­tional gov­ern­ments) agree on the leg­isla­tive de­tails. The fi­nal im­ple­men­ta­tion of the EU–INC would then hap­pen in 2027. For more de­tails of what hap­pened so far and what comes next, read our roadmap.

In Europe, laws are still de­cided on na­tional level, mean­ing we need to con­vince all 27 EU mem­ber state gov­ern­ments to back the EU–INC. Thus we need YOU to ac­ti­vate your con­tacts, talk to your na­tional politi­cians about the ur­gency of the EU–INC, talk to the press about how cru­cial the EU–INC is for European star­tups.Na­tional gov­ern­ments need to un­der­stand the ne­ces­sity of EU–INC for the fu­ture of Europe. Read more in FAQ.

This repo con­tains a ver­sion of Anthropic’s orig­i­nal per­for­mance take-home, be­fore Claude Opus 4.5 started do­ing bet­ter than hu­mans given only 2 hours.

The orig­i­nal take-home was a 4-hour one that starts close to the con­tents of this repo, af­ter Claude Opus 4 beat most hu­mans at that, it was up­dated to a 2-hour one which started with code which achieved 18532 cy­cles (7.97x faster than this repo starts you). This repo is based on the newer take-home which has a few more in­struc­tions and comes with bet­ter de­bug­ging tools, but has the starter code re­verted to the slow­est base­line. After Claude Opus 4.5 we started us­ing a dif­fer­ent base for our time-lim­ited take-homes.

Now you can try to beat Claude Opus 4.5 given un­lim­ited time!

Measured in clock cy­cles from the sim­u­lated ma­chine. All of these num­bers are for mod­els do­ing the 2 hour ver­sion which started at 18532 cy­cles:

* 2164 cy­cles: Claude Opus 4 af­ter many hours in the test-time com­pute har­ness

* 1790 cy­cles: Claude Opus 4.5 in a ca­sual Claude Code ses­sion, ap­prox­i­mately match­ing the best hu­man per­for­mance in 2 hours

* 1579 cy­cles: Claude Opus 4.5 af­ter 2 hours in our test-time com­pute har­ness

* 1548 cy­cles: Claude Sonnet 4.5 af­ter many more than 2 hours of test-time com­pute

* 1487 cy­cles: Claude Opus 4.5 af­ter 11.5 hours in the har­ness

* ??? cy­cles: Best hu­man per­for­mance ever is sub­stan­tially bet­ter than the above, but we won’t say how much.

While it’s no longer a good time-lim­ited test, you can still use this test to get us ex­cited about hir­ing you! If you op­ti­mize be­low 1487 cy­cles, beat­ing Claude Opus 4.5′s best per­for­mance at launch, email us at per­for­mance-re­cruit­ing@an­thropic.com with your code (and ide­ally a re­sume) so we can be ap­pro­pri­ately im­pressed, es­pe­cially if you get near the best so­lu­tion we’ve seen. New model re­leases may change what thresh­old im­presses us though, and no guar­an­tees that we keep this readme up­dated with the lat­est on that.

Run python tests/​sub­mis­sion_tests.py to see which thresh­olds you pass.

A high res­o­lu­tion draw­ing of the ter­razzo lay­out. (Courtesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

The west­ern flank of the Hoover Dam holds a ce­les­tial map that marks the time of the dam’s cre­ation based on the 25,772-year ax­ial pre­ces­sion of the earth.

One of the two mas­sive bronze cast sculp­tures that flank Hoover Dam’s Monument Plaza. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

On the west­ern flank of the Hoover Dam stands a lit­tle-un­der­stood mon­u­ment, com­mis­sioned by the US Bureau of Reclamation when con­struc­tion of the dam be­gan in 01931. The most no­tice­able parts of this cor­ner of the dam, now known as Monument Plaza, are the mas­sive winged bronze sculp­tures and cen­tral flag­pole which are of­ten pho­tographed by vis­i­tors. The most amaz­ing fea­ture of this plaza, how­ever, is un­der their feet as they take those pic­tures.

The plaza’s ter­razzo floor is ac­tu­ally a ce­les­tial map that marks the time of the dam’s cre­ation based on the 25,772-year ax­ial pre­ces­sion of the earth.

Marking in the ter­razzo floor of Monument Plaza show­ing the lo­ca­tion of Vega, which will be our North Star in roughly 12,000 years. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

I was par­tic­u­larly in­ter­ested in this mon­u­ment be­cause this ax­ial pre­ces­sion is also the slow­est cy­cle that we track in Long Now’s 10,000 Year Clock. Strangely, lit­tle to no doc­u­men­ta­tion of this in­stal­la­tion seemed to be avail­able, ex­cept for a few va­ca­tion pic­tures on Flickr. So the last time I was in Las Vegas, I made a spe­cial trip out to Hoover Dam to see if I could learn more about this ob­scure 26,000-year mon­u­ment.

I parked my rental car on the Nevada side of the dam on a day push­ing 100 de­grees. I quickly found Monument Plaza just op­po­site the vis­i­tor cen­ter where tours of the dam are of­fered. While the plaza is easy to find, it stands apart from all the main tours and sto­ries about the dam. With the ex­cep­tion of the writ­ing in the plaza floor it­self, the only in­for­ma­tion I could find came from a speaker run­ning on loop, broad­cast­ing a ba­sic de­scrip­tion of the mon­u­ment while vis­i­tors walked around the area. When I asked my tour guide about it, he sug­gested that there may be some his­tor­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion and di­rected me to Emme Woodward, the dam’s his­to­rian.

Left: Monument Plaza with ac­cess road on left. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation). Right: Hansen lay­ing out the ax­ial pre­ces­sion. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I was able to get in touch with her af­ter re­turn­ing home. As she sent me a few items, I be­gan to see why the Bureau of Reclamation does­n’t ex­plain very much about the mon­u­men­t’s back­ground. The first thing she sent me was a de­scrip­tion of the plaza by Oskar J. W. Hansen, the artist him­self, which I thought would tell me every­thing I wanted to know. While parts of it were help­ful, the artist’s state­ment of in­ten­tion was also highly con­vo­luted and opaque. An ex­cerpt:

These [human] pos­tures may be matched to their cor­re­spond­ing re­flexes in terms of an­gle and de­gree much as one would join cams in a worm-gear drive. There is an an­gle for doubt, for sor­row, for hate, for joy, for con­tem­pla­tion, and for de­vo­tion. There are as many oth­ers as there are fleet­ing emo­tions within the brain of each in­di­vid­ual who in­hab­its the Earth. Who knows not all these pos­tures of the mind if he would but stop to think of them as us­able fac­tors for de­ter­min­ing pro­cliv­i­ties of char­ac­ter? It is a knowl­edge bred down to us through the past ex­pe­ri­ence of the whole race of men.

It is pretty hard to imag­ine the US Bureau of Reclamation us­ing this type of write-up to in­ter­pret the mon­u­ment… and they don’t. And so there it stands, a 26,000-year clock of sorts, for all the world to see, and yet still mired in ob­scu­rity.

Markings on the floor show­ing that Thuban was the North Star for the an­cient Egyptians at the time of the Great Pyramids. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

While I may never to­tally un­der­stand the in­ner mo­ti­va­tions of the mon­u­men­t’s de­signer, I did want to un­der­stand it on a tech­ni­cal level. How did Hansen cre­ate a ce­les­tial clock face frozen in time that we can in­ter­pret and un­der­stand as the date of the dam’s com­ple­tion? The earth’s ax­ial pre­ces­sion is a rather ob­scure piece of as­tron­omy, and our un­der­stand­ing of it through his­tory has been spotty at best. That this ma­jor en­gi­neer­ing feat was cel­e­brated through this mon­u­ment to the ax­ial pre­ces­sion still held great in­ter­est to me, and I wanted to un­der­stand it bet­ter.

The gi­ant bronze stat­ues be­ing craned into place. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I pressed for more doc­u­men­ta­tion, and the his­to­rian sent me in­struc­tions for us­ing the Bureau of Reclamation’s im­age archive site as well as some key­words to search for. The black and white im­ages you see here come from this re­source. Using the con­vo­luted web site was a chal­lenge, and at first I had dif­fi­culty find­ing any pho­tos of the plaza be­fore or dur­ing its con­struc­tion. As I dis­cov­ered, the prob­lem was that I was search­ing with the term “Monument Plaza,” a name only given to it af­ter its com­ple­tion in 01936. In or­der to find im­ages dur­ing its con­struc­tion, I had to search for “Safety Island,” so named be­cause at the time of the dam’s con­struc­tion, it was an is­land in the road where work­ers could stand be­hind a berm to pro­tect them­selves from the never-end­ing on­slaught of ce­ment trucks.

Hansen next to the com­pleted ax­ial pre­ces­sion lay­out be­fore the ter­razzo was laid in. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I now had some his­tor­i­cal text and pho­tos, but I was still miss­ing a com­plete di­a­gram of the plaza that would al­low me to re­ally un­der­stand it. I con­tacted the his­to­rian again, and she ob­tained per­mis­sion from her su­pe­ri­ors to re­lease the ac­tual build­ing plans. I sus­pect that they gen­er­ally don’t like to re­lease tech­ni­cal plans of the dam for se­cu­rity rea­sons, but it seems they deemed my re­quest a low se­cu­rity risk as the mon­u­ment is not part of the struc­ture of the dam. The his­to­rian sent me a tube full of large blue­prints and a CD of the same prints al­ready scanned. With this in hand I was fi­nally able to re-con­struct the tech­ni­cal in­tent of the plaza and how it works.

In or­der to un­der­stand how the plaza marks the date of the dam’s con­struc­tion in the nearly 26,000-year cy­cle of the earth’s pre­ces­sion, it is worth ex­plain­ing what ex­actly ax­ial pre­ces­sion is. In the sim­plest terms, it is the earth “wobbling” on its tilted axis like a gy­ro­scope — but very, very slowly. This wob­bling ef­fec­tively moves what we see as the cen­ter point that stars ap­pear to re­volve around each evening.

Long ex­po­sure of star trails de­pict­ing how all the stars ap­pear to re­volve around the earth’s ce­les­tial axis, which is cur­rently pointed close to our cur­rent North Star — Polaris. Note that when I say that the stars of the night sky “appear to” ro­tate around Polaris, it is be­cause this ap­par­ent ro­ta­tion is only due to our van­tage point on a ro­tat­ing planet. (Image cour­tesy of NASA)

Presently, this cen­ter point lies very close to the con­ve­niently bright star Polaris. The rea­son we have his­tor­i­cally paid so much at­ten­tion to this ce­les­tial cen­ter, or North Star, is be­cause it is the star that stays put all through the course of the night. Having this one fixed point in the sky is the foun­da­tion of all ce­les­tial nav­i­ga­tion.

Figure 1. The earth sits at roughly a 23 de­gree tilt. Axial pre­ces­sion is that tilt slowly wob­bling around in a cir­cle, chang­ing what we per­ceive as the ce­les­tial pole or “North Star.” (Image from Wikipedia en­try on Axial Precession, CC3.0.)

But that point near Polaris, which we call the North Star, is ac­tu­ally slowly mov­ing and trac­ing a cir­cle through the night sky. While Polaris is our North Star, Hansen’s ter­razzo floor points out that the North Star of the an­cient Egyptians, as they built the great pyra­mids, was Thuban. And in about 12,000 years, our North Star will be Vega. The work­ings of this pre­ces­sion are best ex­plained with an an­i­ma­tion, as in fig­ure 1. Here you can see how the axis of the earth traces a cir­cle in the sky over the course of 25,772 years.

Unfortunately it is a bit dif­fi­cult to see how this all works in the in­laid floor at Monument Plaza. The view that you re­ally want to have of the plaza is di­rectly from above. You would need a crane to get this view of the real thing, but by us­ing the orig­i­nal tech­ni­cal draw­ing as an un­der­lay I was able to mark up a di­a­gram which hope­fully clar­i­fies it (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Description over­laid on the orig­i­nal tech­ni­cal draw­ing for the lay­out of ter­razzo floor. (Underlay cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation, color no­ta­tions by Alexander Rose.)

In this di­a­gram, you can see that the cen­ter of the cir­cle traced by the ax­ial pre­ces­sion is ac­tu­ally the mas­sive flag pole in the cen­ter of the plaza. This ax­ial cir­cle is promi­nently marked around the pole, and the an­gle of Polaris was de­picted as pre­cisely as pos­si­ble to show where it would have been on the date of the dam’s open­ing. Hansen used the rest of the plaza floor to show the lo­ca­tion of the plan­ets vis­i­ble that evening, and many of the bright stars that ap­pear in the night sky at that lo­ca­tion.

By com­bin­ing planet lo­ca­tions with the an­gle of pre­ces­sion, we are able to pin­point the time of the dam’s com­ple­tion down to within a day. We are now de­sign­ing a sim­i­lar sys­tem — though with mov­ing parts — in the di­als of the 10,000 Year Clock. It is likely that at least ma­jor por­tions of the Hoover Dam will still be in place hun­dreds of thou­sands of years from now. Hopefully the Clock will still be tick­ing and Hansen’s ter­razzo floor will still be there, even if it con­tin­ues to baf­fle vis­i­tors.

A draw­ing of the ter­razzo lay­out. Click here for a high res­o­lu­tion ver­sion. (Courtesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I would like to thank Emme Woodward of the US Bureau of Reclamation for all her help in find­ing the orig­i­nal im­ages and plans of Monument Plaza. If you have fur­ther in­ter­est in read­ing Hansen’s orig­i­nal writ­ings about the plaza or in see­ing the plans, I have up­loaded all the scans to the Internet Archive.

This is read by an au­to­mated voice. Please re­port any is­sues or in­con­sis­ten­cies here.

This is read by an au­to­mated voice. Please re­port any is­sues or in­con­sis­ten­cies here.

After ex­pe­ri­enc­ing one of the wettest hol­i­day sea­sons on record, still soggy California hit a ma­jor mile­stone this week — hav­ing zero ar­eas of ab­nor­mal dry­ness for the first time in 25 years.

The data, col­lected by the U. S. Drought Monitor, is a wel­come nugget of news for Golden State res­i­dents, who in the last 15 years alone have lived through two of the worst droughts on record, the worst wild­fire sea­sons on record and the most de­struc­tive wild­fires ever.

Right now, the wild­fire risk across California is “about as close to zero as it ever gets,” and there is likely no need to worry about the state’s wa­ter sup­ply for the rest of the year, said UC cli­mate sci­en­tist Daniel Swain. Currently, 14 of the state’s 17 ma­jor wa­ter sup­ply reser­voirs are at 70% or more ca­pac­ity, ac­cord­ing to the California Department of Water Resources.

California’s last drought lasted more than 1,300 days, from February 2020 to October 2023, at which point just 0.7% of the state re­mained ab­nor­mally dry, thanks to a se­ries of win­ter at­mos­pheric rivers that show­ered the Golden State with rain.

Before that, California was in a se­vere drought from 2012 through 2016.

But the last time 0% of the California map had any level of ab­nor­mally dry or drought con­di­tions was all the way back in December 2000. In re­cent weeks, a se­ries of pow­er­ful win­ter storms and at­mos­pheric rivers have swept across California, dump­ing heavy rain that soaked soils, filled reser­voirs and left much of the state un­usu­ally wet for this time of year.

“This is cer­tainly a less de­struc­tive weather win­ter than last year was and than many of the drought years were, so it’s OK to take that breather and to ac­knowl­edge that, right now, things are do­ing OK,” Swain said. He noted, how­ever, that “as we move for­ward, we do ex­pect to be deal­ing with in­creas­ingly ex­treme [weather] swings.”

Though it may seem coun­ter­in­tu­itive, cli­mate change is fore­cast to lead to both more in­tense droughts and more in­tense episodes of rain­fall. This is be­cause a warmer at­mos­phere pulls more mois­ture out of soils and plants, deep­en­ing droughts. At the same time, a warmer at­mos­phere holds more wa­ter va­por, which is then re­leased in fewer, more ex­treme rain­storms.

Scientists have coined a name for this phe­nom­e­non — the at­mos­pheric sponge ef­fect — which Swain said is “hopefully an evoca­tive vi­sual anal­ogy that de­scribes why as the cli­mate warms we ac­tu­ally are likely to see wider swings be­tween ex­tremely wet con­di­tions and ex­tremely dry con­di­tions.”

A key ex­am­ple of this ef­fect is the weather pat­tern in the run-up to the dev­as­tat­ing Palisades and Eaton fires last year.

In 2022 and 2023, California ex­pe­ri­enced ex­tremely wet win­ters. Mammoth Mountain, for ex­am­ple, set an all-time record for snow­fall in the 2022-23 sea­son.

But then Southern California ex­pe­ri­enced one of the dri­est pe­ri­ods on record in the fall and win­ter of 2024, which en­abled the sub­se­quent dev­as­ta­tion of January 2025’s firestorm.

“We did­n’t even have to be in a no­table mul­ti­year drought to have that se­quence of re­ally wet to re­ally dry con­di­tions lead us to a place where the fire risk was cat­a­strophic,”Swain said.

Recent storms have brought snow to the Sierra Nevada moun­tains, but the state’s snow­pack re­mains be­low av­er­age. According to the Department of Water Resources, the snow­pack now stands at 89% of av­er­age for this time of year.

Much of the West has seen warmer-than-av­er­age tem­per­a­tures and rel­a­tively lit­tle snow so far this win­ter. The snow in the Rocky Mountains re­mains far be­low av­er­age, adding to the strains on the over­tapped Colorado River, a ma­jor wa­ter source for Southern California.

Research pub­lished in the af­ter­math of the fire ex­am­ines how this ex­tremely wet to ex­tremely dry weather se­quence is es­pe­cially dan­ger­ous for wild­fires in Southern California be­cause heavy rain­fall leads to high growth of grass and brush, which then be­comes abun­dant fuel dur­ing pe­ri­ods of ex­treme dry­ness.

Fortunately, California should be clear of wa­ter sup­ply risks and wild­fire dan­ger for sev­eral months to come, Swain said, but in the long term, res­i­dents should ex­pect to see more of this weather whiplash.

“Not much. The real in­cen­tive for find­ing a vul­ner­a­bil­ity in cURL is the fame (‘brand is price­less’), not the hun­dred or few thou­sand dol­lars. $10,000 (maximum cURL bounty) is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, for some­body ca­pa­ble of find­ing a crit­i­cal vul­ner­a­bil­ity in curl.”

“My view is that there is an asym­met­ric re­la­tion­ship be­tween de­vel­op­ers (open source or not) and so-called “security re­searchers” (or even real se­cu­rity re­searchers). Regardless of whether the re­searchers are in ex­pen­sive or cheap coun­tries, the value pro­vided to the de­vel­oper is the same. However, on the flip­side, the value of a bounty is not the same for every re­porter — in low so­cio-eco­nomic lo­ca­tions, a re­ward which would be the cost of lunch in Sweden can be mas­sive for those low so­cio-eco­nomic-lo­cated peo­ple,” says Joshua Rogers.

Prenumerera på Elektroniktidningens nyhetsbrev eller på vårt ma­g­a­sin.

Efter en lång­dra­gen förhan­dling­sprocess har det statliga forskn­ingsin­sti­tutet Rise till slut fått loss Coherents epi­tax­i­mask­iner i Electrumlabbet. Det amerikan­ska före­taget beslu­tade för ett knappt år sedan att avveckla verk­samheten med spe­cialepi­taxi på kiselka­r­bid, en verk­samhet som Rise föregån­gare Acreo knop­pade av år 2011 i form av bo­laget Ascatron.

NyheterLäs mer…

Operatören Tre säger sig vara först i Sverige med 5G Standalone (SA) i sitt kom­mer­siella nät. Ungefär hälften av be­folknin­gen täcks sedan slutet av de­cem­ber.

NyheterLäs mer…

Chalmersavknoppningen Bioelectrix vill hjälpa krop­pen att få igång läkn­ing av sår genom att ap­plicera en lik­ström via en elek­trod av grafen be­lagd med en ledande poly­mer. Hos bland an­nat di­a­betiker kan de elek­triska sig­nalvä­garna mel­lan celler sluta fungera vilket leder till att sår blir större och större.

REPORTAGELäs mer…

När Tyskland nu åter­in­för el­bils­bidrag så får även bi­lar tillverkade i Kina en del av kakan. Regeringen tror att tyska bi­lar klarar konkur­rensen.

NyheterLäs mer…

Congatec släp­per en da­tor­modul på AMD:s proces­sor Ryzen P100. Den tänkta tillämp­nin­gen är edge-AI.

ProduktLäs mer…

Med am­bi­tio­nen att fler ska ha råd med ett PXI-system lanserar NI ett chassi, en kon­troller, ett os­cil­loskop­kort och ett IO-kort med ett lä­gre pris än föregån­garna. Tillsammans ut­gör de ett kom­plett test­sys­tem.

ProduktLäs mer…

Ingen belön­ing för bug­g­jakt i CurlDet sven­skledda kod­bib­lioteket Curl tar bort möj­ligheten att tjäna pen­gar på att rap­portera bug­gar och hop­pas att det ska min­ska voly­men av AI-slaskrapporter. Buggjägaren Joshua Rogers — som själv flit­igt an­vän­der de­bug-bot­tar –  ty­cker att det är en bra idé.

NyheterLäs mer…

EU-kommissionen har läggt fram en up­p­dat­erad ver­sion av cy­ber­säk­er­het­sak­ten. Den vill för­b­juda ki­ne­siska pro­duk­ter i kri­tisk in­fra­struk­tur. Om förslaget an­tas skulle det in­nebära att län­der som inte im­ple­menterat EU:s så kallade verk­tygslåda nu tvin­gas sätta stopp för Huawei, ZTE och an­dra ki­ne­siska lever­an­törer i 5G-näten.

NyheterLäs mer…

Amerikanska Risc V-pionjären Sifive in­te­gr­erar Nvidias datalänk­teknik NV-link Fusion i sin data­center-IP. Därmed kan vi komma att få se AI-datacenter med Risc V-cpu:er som pratar med Nvidias AI-acceleratorer.

ProduktLäs mer…

Mobilindustrin tar nu sats för ny stor ex­pan­sion med hjälp av glob­ala satel­lit­sys­tem. Amerikanska Starlink lig­ger i täten med en lös­ning som visar vad detta hand­lar om, att kom­mu­nicera di­rekt med van­liga mo­bil­tele­foner utan att gå via nå­gon land­baserad bassta­tion i mo­bil­nätet.

REPORTAGELäs mer…

S12 är en ul­tra­kom­pakt sen­sor för CO₂-mätning från Senseair. Den är utveck­lad för bat­teridrivna och trådlösa sys­tem som mäter luftens kvalitet i byg­gnader.

ProduktLäs mer…

Kina: Batteri och el­bil måste skro­tas till­sam­man­sKina kom­mer att kräva att el­bilens bat­teri sit­ter kvar i for­donet vid skrot­ning. Det kom­mer att får ef­fek­ter på mark­naden för åter­vin­ning och åter­an­vänd­ning av bat­terierna.

NyheterLäs mer…

Under det senaste året har snab­blad­dan­det ökat vilket satt ett drama­tiskt avtryck på el­bils­bat­terier­nas livs­längd. Analysen kom­mer från telematik­före­taget  Geotab.

NyheterLäs mer…

USA och Kanada har inte län­gre en enad han­dels­front mot Kina efter att Kanadas och Kinas ledare skakat hand om en fri­are han­del med bland an­nat el­bi­lar och en­er­giteknik. Polestar, Volvo och Tesla hop­pas snabbt kunna åter­ställa sin försäljn­ing.

NyheterLäs mer…

Amerikanska Micron har teck­nat en avsik­ts­fök­lar­ing om att köpa en halvledar­fab­rik i Taiwan av foundryt PSMC, Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation. För 1,8 mil­jarder dol­lar får min­nesjät­ten ett topp­mod­ernt ren­rum på 2 800 kvadrat­meter med 300 mm-mask­iner.

NyheterLäs mer…

Genom att mäta ar­mar­nas rörelser med vad som kan beskri­vas som två ak­tivitet­sarm­band går det att up­p­täcka ett strokein­sjuk­nande och au­toma­tiskt skicka ett larm. Lundabolaget Uman Sense håller på att kom­mer­sialis­era tekniken som just nu tes­tas på åtta sven­ska sjukhus.

REPORTAGELäs mer…

Den amerikan­ska minnestil­lverkaren Micron star­tar of­fi­ciellt bygget av sin nya megafab­rik i del­staten New York idag sedan alla nöd­vändiga till­stånd är bevil­jade.

NyheterLäs mer…

Uppgifter: Nvidias su­per­proces­sor får inte föras in i Kina Kinesiska tullmyn­digheter med­de­lade denna vecka sina tulltjän­stemän att Nvidias kon­tro­ver­siella proces­sor H200 inte får tas in i Kina. Det har tre per­soner med in­syn berät­tat för ny­hets­byrån Reuters.

NyheterLäs mer…

Efter att ha tagit fram, och un­der två år te­s­tat, en lös­ning för au­toma­tiskt bat­teribyte för tunga last­bi­lar, vill ett tyskt kon­sor­tium bygga ett nätverk av stan­dard­is­er­ade se­riepro­duc­er­bara bat­ter­i­mackar i Europa.

NyheterLäs mer…

Uppsala Innovation Centre, UIC, och Flygvapnet har star­tat ett samar­bete som ska un­der­lätta för up­p­starts­bo­la­gen att hitta be­hovsä­gare inom Försvarsmakten och ini­tiera pi­lot­pro­jekt.

NyheterLäs mer…

I re­cently saw a dis­cus­sion where some­one ar­gued that IPv4 is more se­cure than IPv6 be­cause “the NAT-by-default of IPv4 ef­fec­tively means that I get the ben­e­fit of a de­fault-deny se­cu­rity strat­egy.” This is a com­mon mis­con­cep­tion that I think is worth ad­dress­ing.

The fun­da­men­tal is­sue here is con­flat­ing NAT (Network Address Translation) with se­cu­rity. NAT is­n’t ac­tu­ally a se­cu­rity fea­ture—it’s an ad­dress con­ser­va­tion mech­a­nism that be­came nec­es­sary be­cause we ran out of IPv4 ad­dresses. (Although it is to­tally pos­si­ble to use a NAT with IPv6 too!)

NAT al­lows mul­ti­ple de­vices on a home net­work to share a sin­gle IP ad­dress on the pub­lic Internet by rewrit­ing the des­ti­na­tion IP of a packet based on its des­ti­na­tion port. It chooses a new des­ti­na­tion IP based on the “port map­pings” or “port for­wards” con­fig­ured by the net­work ad­min.

The con­se­quence of this is that when re­ceiv­ing in­bound traf­fic to a NAT’d IP, pack­ets with an un­ex­pected des­ti­na­tion port (one which has not been for­warded) will keep the des­ti­na­tion IP of the pub­lic ma­chine and will not be routed to an­other ma­chine on the net­work.

But the se­cu­rity ben­e­fits peo­ple at­tribute to NAT ac­tu­ally come from the state­ful fire­wall that’s typ­i­cally bun­dled with NAT routers. Modern routers ship with fire­wall poli­cies that deny in­bound traf­fic by de­fault, even when a NAT is not be­ing used. The fire­wall will drop pack­ets with an un­ex­pected des­ti­na­tion be­fore even con­sid­er­ing whether to rewrite or route the pack­ets. For ex­am­ple, UniFi routers ship with these de­fault IPv6 fire­wall rules:

Therefore, in or­der to al­low un­so­licited in­bound traf­fic to any IPv6 de­vice hosted be­hind the router, you must ex­plic­itly add a fire­wall rule to al­low the traf­fic, whether us­ing a NAT or not.

Civic in­sti­tu­tions—the rule of law, uni­ver­si­ties, and a free press—are the back­bone of de­mo­c­ra­tic life. They are the mech­a­nisms through which com­plex so­ci­eties en­cour­age co­op­er­a­tion and sta­bil­ity, while also adapt­ing to chang­ing cir­cum­stances. The real su­per­power of in­sti­tu­tions is their abil­ity to evolve and adapt within a hi­er­ar­chy of au­thor­ity and a frame­work for roles and rules while main­tain­ing le­git­i­macy in the knowl­edge pro­duced and the ac­tions taken. Purpose-driven in­sti­tu­tions built around trans­parency, co­op­er­a­tion, and ac­count­abil­ity em­power in­di­vid­u­als to take in­tel­lec­tual risks and chal­lenge the sta­tus quo. This hap­pens through the machi­na­tions of in­ter­per­sonal re­la­tion­ships within those in­sti­tu­tions, which broaden per­spec­tives and strengthen shared com­mit­ment to civic goals.

Unfortunately, the af­for­dances of AI sys­tems ex­tin­guish these in­sti­tu­tional fea­tures at every turn. In this es­say, we make one sim­ple point: AI sys­tems are built to func­tion in ways that de­grade and are likely to de­stroy our cru­cial civic in­sti­tu­tions. The af­for­dances of AI sys­tems have the ef­fect of erod­ing ex­per­tise, short-cir­cuit­ing de­ci­sion-mak­ing, and iso­lat­ing peo­ple from each other. These sys­tems are anath­ema to the kind of evo­lu­tion, trans­parency, co­op­er­a­tion, and ac­count­abil­ity that give vi­tal in­sti­tu­tions their pur­pose and sus­tain­abil­ity. In short, cur­rent AI sys­tems are a death sen­tence for civic in­sti­tu­tions, and we should treat them as such.

Authors:

Woodrow Hartzog

Boston University School of Law; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

Jessica M. Silbey

Boston University - School of Law

Hi every­one. We want to share a clear up­date di­rectly with the Nova com­mu­nity.

Instabridge has ac­quired Nova Launcher. We are a Swedish com­pany build­ing prod­ucts that help peo­ple get on­line, used by mil­lions of peo­ple world­wide.

Nova is not shut­ting down. Our im­me­di­ate fo­cus is sim­ple: keep Nova sta­ble, com­pat­i­ble with mod­ern Android, and ac­tively main­tained.

We also know many of you have lived through a long pe­riod of un­cer­tainty. Nova has a strong iden­tity and a com­mu­nity that still cares deeply. We take that se­ri­ously.

Our job is not to rein­vent Nova overnight. Our job is to be re­spon­si­ble own­ers.

* Keeping per­for­mance and cus­tomiza­tion at the core

* Fixing bugs and keep­ing pace with Android changes

We will be read­ing and col­lect­ing feed­back from Reddit, Play Store re­views, email, and other com­mu­nity chan­nels. We will not be able to re­spond to every post, but we will be pay­ing at­ten­tion. For sup­port re­lated is­sues, we will share a clear con­tact chan­nel shortly.

We have long ad­mired what Nova rep­re­sents: speed, cus­tomiza­tion, and user con­trol. When we saw how much the com­mu­nity still cares, it was clear to us that Nova de­served a sta­ble fu­ture with ac­tive main­te­nance.

Will Nova still feel like Nova?

Yes. Nova’s iden­tity is the point. Performance, flex­i­bil­ity, and user con­trol stay at the cen­ter of the prod­uct. Any fu­ture changes will be eval­u­ated through that lens.

Are you go­ing to add ads?

Nova needs a sus­tain­able busi­ness model to sup­port on­go­ing de­vel­op­ment and main­te­nance. We are ex­plor­ing dif­fer­ent op­tions, in­clud­ing paid tiers and other ap­proaches. As many of you have al­ready an­tic­i­pated, we are also eval­u­at­ing ad based op­tions for the free ver­sion.

If ads are in­tro­duced, Nova Prime will re­main ad free. Our guid­ing prin­ci­ples are clear: keep the ex­pe­ri­ence clean and fast, avoid dis­rup­tive for­mats, and pro­vide a straight­for­ward way to keep the ex­pe­ri­ence ad free.

Is the goal just to keep Nova alive?

No. Sustainability is not just about sur­vival. A healthy busi­ness model al­lows us to in­vest prop­erly in Nova over time.

That in­vest­ment en­ables deeper work on per­for­mance, more pow­er­ful cus­tomiza­tion, bet­ter long term com­pat­i­bil­ity with Android, and thought­ful fea­tures that re­quire real en­gi­neer­ing ef­fort. Our am­bi­tion is for Nova to re­main a launcher that power users choose be­cause it con­tin­ues to do things ex­cep­tion­ally well and evolves with the plat­form.

We will move de­lib­er­ately and pri­or­i­tize qual­ity over rush­ing fea­tures out the door.

We re­spect every­one who has sup­ported Nova over the years. We in­tend to honor ex­ist­ing Prime pur­chases, and Prime fea­tures will con­tinue work­ing for ex­ist­ing Prime users. Nova Prime will also re­main ad free.

What about the price of Nova Prime?

Some of you no­ticed that the price of Nova Prime in­creased shortly be­fore the app was trans­ferred to our ac­count. We have now changed it to 3.99 USD, ef­fec­tive im­me­di­ately, and we apol­o­gize for the tim­ing and the con­fu­sion it caused.

As we ex­plore a sus­tain­able long term model, we may eval­u­ate other pric­ing op­tions or tiers. If we do, we will aim to keep it fair and com­mu­ni­cate clearly ahead of time.

We know this mat­ters to many of you. It is some­thing we are ac­tively eval­u­at­ing. Open sourc­ing a prod­uct re­spon­si­bly in­volves li­cens­ing, se­cu­rity, build tool­ing, con­tri­bu­tion work­flow, and trade­mark stew­ard­ship. We do not have a de­ci­sion to share yet, but we will be trans­par­ent once we do.

We will keep data col­lec­tion min­i­mal and pur­pose dri­ven, and we will be clear about what is col­lected and why. We do not sell per­sonal data.

We are here for the long term. Trust is earned through con­sis­tent main­te­nance and clear com­mu­ni­ca­tion, not big promises. We will take this step by step.

Software pro­jects of­ten im­ple­ment “soft delete”, maybe with a deleted boolean or an archived_at time­stamp col­umn. If cus­tomers ac­ci­den­tally delete their data, they can re­cover it, which makes work eas­ier for cus­tomer sup­port teams. Perhaps archived records are even re­quired for com­pli­ance or au­dit rea­sons.

I’ve run into some trou­ble with soft delete de­signs. I’ll cover those, and pon­der ideas for how I’d build this in the fu­ture.

Adding an archived_at col­umn seems to ooze com­plex­ity out into queries, op­er­a­tions, and ap­pli­ca­tions. Recovering deleted records does hap­pen, but 99% of archived records are never go­ing to be read.

So, the data­base ta­bles will have a lot of dead data. Depending on ac­cess pat­terns, that might even be a sig­nif­i­cant amount of data. I’ve seen APIs that did­n’t work well with Terraform, so Terraform would delete + recre­ate records on every run, and over time that led to mil­lions of dead rows. Your data­base can prob­a­bly han­dle the ex­tra bytes, and stor­age is fairly cheap, so it’s not nec­es­sar­ily a prob­lem, at first.

Hopefully, the pro­ject de­cided on a re­ten­tion pe­riod in the be­gin­ning, and set up a pe­ri­odic job to clean up those rows. Unfortunately, I’d bet that a sig­nif­i­cant per­cent­age of pro­jects did nei­ther – it’s re­ally easy to ig­nore the archived data for a long time.

At some point, some­one might want to re­store a data­base backup. Hopefully that’s for fun and profit and not be­cause you lost the pro­duc­tion data­base at 11 am. If your pro­ject is pop­u­lar, you might have a gi­ant data­base full of dead data that takes a long time to recre­ate from a dump file.

archived_at columns also com­pli­cate queries, op­er­a­tions, and ap­pli­ca­tion code. Applications need to make sure they al­ways avoid the archived data that’s sit­ting right next to the live data. Indexes need to be care­ful to avoid archived rows. Manual queries run for de­bug­ging or an­a­lyt­ics are longer and more com­pli­cated. There’s al­ways a risk that archived data ac­ci­den­tally leaks in when it’s not wanted. The com­plex­ity grows when there are map­ping ta­bles in­volved.

Migrations have to deal with archived data too. Migrations may in­volve more than just schema changes – perhaps you need to fix a mis­take with de­fault val­ues, or add a new col­umn and back­fill val­ues. Is that go­ing to work on records from 2 years ago? I’ve done mi­gra­tions where these ques­tions were not triv­ial to an­swer.

Restoring an archived record is not al­ways as sim­ple as just run­ning SET archived_at = null – creating a record may in­volve mak­ing calls to ex­ter­nal sys­tems as well. I’ve seen com­plex restora­tion code that was al­ways a buggy, par­tial im­ple­men­ta­tion of the “create” API end­point. In the end, we re­moved the spe­cial­ized restora­tion code and re­quired all restora­tion to go through the stan­dard APIs – that sim­pli­fied the server im­ple­men­ta­tion, and en­sured that old data that had since be­come in­valid, could not be re­stored in­cor­rectly – it needs to pass the new val­i­da­tion rules.

I’m not a fan of the archived_at col­umn ap­proach. It’s sim­ple at first, but in my ex­pe­ri­ence, it’s full of pit­falls down the line.

Let’s look at some al­ter­na­tives (in PostgreSQL): ap­pli­ca­tion events, trig­gers, and log­i­cal repli­ca­tion.

All these ap­proaches store archived data sep­a­rately from live data — that may be a sep­a­rate data­base table, a sep­a­rate data­base, ob­ject stor­age, etc.

One team I worked with took the ap­proach of emit­ting an event at the ap­pli­ca­tion layer when a record was deleted. The event was sent to SQS, and an­other ser­vice would archive that ob­ject to S3 (among other things).

This had a few big ben­e­fits:

* The pri­mary data­base and ap­pli­ca­tion code were sub­stan­tially sim­pler.

* Deleting a re­source in­volved clean­ing up re­sources in var­i­ous ex­ter­nal sys­tems.

Handling this in an async back­ground sys­tem im­proved per­for­mance and re­li­a­bil­ity.

* The record and all its re­lated records can be se­ri­al­ized to JSON in an ap­pli­ca­tion-friendly lay­out, rather than a se­ri­al­ized data­base table lay­out, so it’s eas­ier to work with.

* It’s more likely to have a bug in the ap­pli­ca­tion code, and in­deed this hap­pened more than

once, which meant archived records were lost and man­ual cleanup of ex­ter­nal re­sources was nec­es­sary.

* It’s more in­fra­struc­ture to un­der­stand and op­er­ate: mul­ti­ple ser­vices, a mes­sage queue, etc.

* Archived ob­jects in S3 were not easy to query – finding records to re­store re­quired ex­tra tool­ing from the cus­tomer sup­port teams.

A trig­ger can copy a row to an archive table be­fore it’s deleted. The archive table can be a sin­gle, generic table that stores JSON blobs:

CREATE TABLE archive (

id UUID PRIMARY KEY,

table_­name TEXT NOT NULL,

record_id TEXT NOT NULL,

data JSONB NOT NULL,

archived_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),

caused_­by_table TEXT,

caused_­by_id TEXT

CREATE INDEX idx_archive_table_record ON archive(table_­name, record_id);

CREATE INDEX idx_archive_archived_at ON archive(archived_at);

The trig­ger func­tion con­verts the deleted row to JSON:

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION archive_on_delete()

RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$

BEGIN

INSERT INTO archive (id, table_­name, record_id, data)

VALUES (

gen_ran­dom_u­uid(),

TG_TABLE_NAME,

OLD.id::TEXT,

to_j­sonb(OLD)

RETURN OLD;

END;

$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

Attach this trig­ger to any table you want to archive:

CREATE TRIGGER archive_users

BEFORE DELETE ON users

FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE FUNCTION archive_on_delete();

CREATE TRIGGER archive_­doc­u­ments

BEFORE DELETE ON doc­u­ments

FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE FUNCTION archive_on_delete();

When a par­ent record is deleted, PostgreSQL cas­cades the delete to child records. These child deletes also fire trig­gers, but in the con­text of a cas­cade, you of­ten want to know why a record was deleted.

One ap­proach is to use a ses­sion vari­able to track the root cause:

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION archive_on_delete()

RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$

DECLARE

cause_table TEXT;

cause_id TEXT;

BEGIN

– Check if we’re in a cas­cade con­text

cause_table := cur­ren­t_set­ting(‘archive.cause_table’, true);

cause_id := cur­ren­t_set­ting(‘archive.cause_id’, true);

– If this is a top-level delete, set our­selves as the cause

IF cause_table IS NULL THEN

PERFORM set_­con­fig(‘archive.cause_table’, TG_TABLE_NAME, true);

PERFORM set_­con­fig(‘archive.cause_id’, OLD.id::TEXT, true);

cause_table := TG_TABLE_NAME;

cause_id := OLD.id::TEXT;

END IF;

INSERT INTO archive (id, table_­name, record_id, data, caused_­by_table, caused_­by_id)

VALUES (

gen_ran­dom_u­uid(),

TG_TABLE_NAME,

OLD.id::TEXT,

to_j­sonb(OLD),

cause_table,

cause_id

RETURN OLD;

END;

$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

Now when you delete a user, you can see which archived doc­u­ments were deleted be­cause of that user:

SELECT * FROM archive

WHERE caused_­by_table = ‘users’

AND caused_­by_id = ‘123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000’;

Triggers add some over­head to deletes, and the archive table will grow. But:

* Cleaning up the archive table is triv­ial with WHERE archived_at < NOW() - INTERVAL ‘90 days’.

* Queries don’t need to fil­ter out archived records

* Applications and mi­gra­tions only deal with live data

* Backups of the main ta­bles are smaller

The archive table can even live in a sep­a­rate ta­ble­space or be par­ti­tioned by time if it grows large.

PostgreSQL’s write-ahead log (WAL) records every change to the data­base. Change data cap­ture (CDC) tools can read the WAL and stream those changes to ex­ter­nal sys­tems. For archiv­ing, you’d fil­ter for DELETE events and write the deleted records to an­other data­s­tore.

Debezium is the most well-known tool for this. It con­nects to PostgreSQL’s log­i­cal repli­ca­tion slot, reads changes, and pub­lishes them to Kafka. From there, a con­sumer writes the data wher­ever you want — S3, Elasticsearch, an­other data­base, etc.

PostgreSQL → Debezium → Kafka → Consumer → Archive Storage

For sim­pler se­tups, there are lighter-weight al­ter­na­tives:

* pgstream — streams WAL changes di­rectly to web­hooks or mes­sage queues with­out Kafka

* wal2j­son — a PostgreSQL plu­gin that out­puts WAL changes as JSON, which you can con­sume with a cus­tom script

The main down­side is op­er­a­tional over­head. You’re run­ning ad­di­tional ser­vices that need to be mon­i­tored, main­tained, and made fault-tol­er­ant. Debezium with Kafka is a sig­nif­i­cant in­fra­struc­ture in­vest­ment — Kafka alone re­quires care­ful tun­ing and mon­i­tor­ing.

The lighter-weight al­ter­na­tives re­duce this bur­den but shift re­li­a­bil­ity con­cerns to your cus­tom code. If your con­sumer crashes or falls be­hind, you need to han­dle that grace­fully.

Prime Minister Mark Carney de­liv­ered a frank as­sess­ment of how he views the world in a provoca­tive speech in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, where he said the long­stand­ing U. S.-led, rules-based in­ter­na­tional or­der is over and mid­dle pow­ers like Canada must pivot to avoid falling prey to fur­ther “coercion” from pow­er­ful ac­tors.

Without in­vok­ing U. S. President Donald Trump by name, Carney ref­er­enced “American hege­mony” and said “great pow­ers” are us­ing eco­nomic in­te­gra­tion as “weapons.”

“Canadians know that our old, com­fort­able as­sump­tion that our ge­og­ra­phy and al­liance mem­ber­ships au­to­mat­i­cally con­ferred pros­per­ity and se­cu­rity is no longer valid,” Carney said.

As it grap­ples with this new dy­namic, Carney said Canada must be “principled and prag­matic” and turn in­ward to build up the coun­try and di­ver­sify trad­ing re­la­tion­ships to be­come less re­liant on coun­tries like the U. S., now that it’s clear “integration” can lead to “subordination.”

Carney said mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism and the “architecture of col­lec­tive prob­lem-solv­ing” — re­ly­ing on in­sti­tu­tions like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations and Conference of the Parties (COP) for cli­mate talks — has been “diminished” and coun­tries have to ac­cept they may have to go it alone more of­ten than in the re­cent past.

“Many coun­tries are draw­ing the same con­clu­sions. They must de­velop greater strate­gic au­ton­omy: in en­ergy, food, crit­i­cal min­er­als, in fi­nance and sup­ply chains.

“A coun­try that can­not feed it­self, fuel it­self or de­fend it­self has few op­tions. When the rules no longer pro­tect you, you must pro­tect your­self,” Carney said.

Carney said this more iso­la­tion­ist ap­proach, where there’s a “world of fortresses,” will make coun­tries poorer, frag­ile and less sus­tain­able. But it’s com­ing nonethe­less and Canada must work with like-minded al­lies where pos­si­ble to push back against dom­i­na­tion by larger, wealth­ier and well-armed coun­tries.

“This is not naive mul­ti­lat­er­al­ism. Nor is it re­ly­ing on di­min­ished in­sti­tu­tions. It is build­ing the coali­tions that work, is­sue by is­sue, with part­ners who share enough com­mon ground to act to­gether. Middle pow­ers must act to­gether be­cause if you are not at the table, you are on the menu,” Carney said.

“We are en­gag­ing broadly, strate­gi­cally, with open eyes. We ac­tively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be,” he said.

“The old or­der is not com­ing back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strat­egy. But from the frac­ture, we can build some­thing bet­ter, stronger and more just.”

Carney said that since tak­ing of­fice, he has moved to change Canada’s tra­jec­tory: dou­bling de­fence spend­ing, rapidly di­ver­si­fy­ing trade by sign­ing 12 trade and se­cu­rity deals on four con­ti­nents in six months and draw­ing even closer to the European Union.

Earlier this week, Carney also cut a trade deal with China on elec­tric ve­hi­cles and farm prod­ucts — end­ing years of bi­lat­eral bad blood — and courted Middle East power Qatar.

Canada is also pur­su­ing free trade pacts with India, Thailand, the Philippines and the coun­tries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Mercosur, the South American bloc that in­cludes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

“Great pow­ers can af­ford to go it alone. They have the mar­ket size, the mil­i­tary ca­pac­ity, the lever­age to dic­tate terms. Middle pow­ers do not. But when we only ne­go­ti­ate bi­lat­er­ally with a hege­mon, we ne­go­ti­ate from weak­ness. We ac­cept what is of­fered. We com­pete with each other to be the most ac­com­mo­dat­ing. This is not sov­er­eignty. It is the per­for­mance of sov­er­eignty while ac­cept­ing sub­or­di­na­tion,” Carney said.

“In a world of great power ri­valry, the coun­tries in be­tween have a choice: to com­pete with each other for favour, or to com­bine to cre­ate a third path with im­pact.”

While strik­ing a skep­ti­cal tone about some global in­sti­tu­tions and lament­ing what he called a “rupture” to how things have long worked, Carney said he feels con­fi­dent about Canada’s fu­ture de­spite the shift­ing sands.

Canada is a “stable, re­li­able part­ner” that “values re­la­tion­ships for the long term,” which makes it ap­peal­ing to other coun­tries, he said.

“Canada has what the world wants. We are an en­ergy su­per­power. We have the most ed­u­cated pop­u­la­tion in the world,” he said. “We have cap­i­tal, tal­ent and a gov­ern­ment with the im­mense fis­cal ca­pac­ity to act de­ci­sively. And we have the val­ues to which many oth­ers as­pire.”

Speaking later at a fire­side chat at the World Economic Forum, Carney ac­knowl­edged Canada is vul­ner­a­ble to an in­creas­ingly as­sertive U. S. given ge­og­ra­phy and long­stand­ing eco­nomic ties.

But he said Canada has al­ready proven its re­siliency in the face of a U. S. trade war: the coun­try has added more jobs than the States since Trump slapped tar­iffs on global goods.

Still, he said, there are “pockets of ex­treme pres­sure,” a likely ref­er­ence to the steel, alu­minum, auto and lum­ber sec­tors that have faced par­tic­u­larly high U. S. tar­iffs.

At a White House news con­fer­ence to mark one year since his sec­ond in­au­gu­ra­tion, Trump cited trou­ble in Canada’s au­to­mo­tive in­dus­try as one of his self-de­scribed ac­com­plish­ments.

“A lot of the Canadian auto plants are clos­ing, and they’re mov­ing into the United States,” he said. “They can’t pay the tar­iffs, so they’re com­ing here.”

Auto as­sem­bly plants in Brampton and Ingersoll, Ont., have been idled since Trump launched his trade war. But, de­spite the pres­i­den­t’s rhetoric, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pre­lim­i­nary data show there has ac­tu­ally been a con­trac­tion in auto in­dus­try jobs south of the bor­der over the last year.

Asked if cut­ting deals with China amid U. S. un­cer­tainty makes Canada overly re­liant on the Asian su­per­power, Carney said he is play­ing “offence” and deep­en­ing eco­nomic ties to the world’s sec­ond-largest coun­try is a pru­dent move at this junc­ture.

“We should have a strate­gic part­ner­ship with them,” he said of China, while say­ing there will be “guardrails” in place. “You need a web of con­nec­tions.”

As Trump in­sists the U. S. must take over Greenland, sup­pos­edly for na­tional se­cu­rity pur­poses, Carney said Canada stands “firmly” with Denmark, which ul­ti­mately con­trols the au­tonomous ter­ri­tory.

“Our com­mit­ment to Article 5 is un­wa­ver­ing,” Carney said, re­fer­ring to the NATO prin­ci­ple of col­lec­tive de­fence. “We are work­ing with our NATO al­lies to fur­ther se­cure the al­liance’s north­ern and west­ern flanks.”

Speaking of the Danish ter­ri­tory cov­eted by Trump, Carney said: “I think clearly NATO is ex­pe­ri­enc­ing a test right now.”

He said Canada is bulk­ing up its mil­i­tary pres­ence in the Arctic while also urg­ing “discussions” among al­lies to bring about a “better out­come” in the north Atlantic.

Carney’s re­marks fol­low Trump’s ex­tra­or­di­nary threat to im­pose tar­iffs on European al­lies and Britain un­til Washington is al­lowed to ac­quire Greenland. The prime min­is­ter said Canada “strongly op­poses” the U. S. plan to hit al­lies with pun­ish­ing levies if they won’t go along with Trump’s im­pe­ri­al­ism.