I don’t think you understand that the EU and Canada both have deep vested interests in protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. Canada shares a large Arctic border with Russia, and is geopolitically motivated to prevent Russian expansionism. The EU is motivated to defend its eastern flank, and impose cost on a Russia that may just eye the Baltic states next.

Of course they have an interest. Still, the US provoked the proxy war and should pay for it. I don't begrudge Ukraine getting money from the US.

Why doesn't the US provoke Russia in Siberia? We know the answer: There are no proxies.

What in the world is this train of thought? Do you not understand that the American President has directly threatened Canadian sovereignty multiple times over the last 2 years, even if under the auspices of “trolling” or “jokes”? In addition to that, the President is seeking direct control over Canadian trade relationships, control over its natural resources and all while attempting to destroy its industrial output.

This ignorance makes it very clear that the American voting populace does not take positive relations with erstwhile allies seriously. Increased trade integration may not be the ideal situation for Canada, but nothing about the situation is ideal. At least we won’t be subjugating ourselves to hostile hegemons like China and the USA.

You can aim to expand your addressable markets. A small town is a small market. Open a second location in a nearby town. Lower profit margins to undercut competition.

This is frankly a selfish take. Society is a compact between the dead, the living and the yet to be born. Having a piece of someone’s deepest thoughts is a treasure for future generations. By deciding to destroy, you choose to destroy the past that the future generations might value.

No, its the natural cycle. What passes away fades away. Anything that is kept up needs to be kept up actively by the generations. That which is valued needs to be preserved, such as wisdom, knowledge, art, science etc. All your drama and idle musings, maybe not. Unless you're deemed worthy by the next ones. I understand that this is a scary thought but our impact is only kept if we act such that the next generations want to preserve it. 5 generations down even your genetic impact is people who share 3% genes with you and 97% other people. Imagine a classroom with 32 people. For each of your descendants 5 generations down (which can be zero or many, the count varying greatly based on choices made by not-you), you're one person out of that classroomful of ancestors.

Sure it's kinda cool to see some fragments here and there. But would I want it to be the standard that we keep all the emails, chat messages, phone camera roll, GPS logs etc of people... Hell no. I'm not advocating for absolutely forgetting everything. But we have to filter.

I disagree strongly with your broader point. We now have the technology to sort through the minutia of the past and learn deep things. Here's one tiny example. I was able to find out where one of my ancestors lived because someone sent him a letter via General Delivery around 1900 that he didn't pick up. The Post Office listed everyone with letters waiting for them. The smallest detail, but it proved useful for me in tracing my family's origins across the Wild West.

Deeply agree. I think it is the other way round and it is selfish to expect those that come after you to carry that burden. The OP says it is "something that weighed her down for the last 15 years of her life", and that she felt the duty to scan the diaries even after the diagnosis of cancer. Wow, now that sacrifice is a beautiful precious gift, and anyone expecting such gift is utterly selfish imho.

> Society is a compact between the dead, the living and the yet to be born. Having a piece of someone’s deepest thoughts is a treasure for future generations

If you want to be remembered, live a life worth remembering.