[awkwarddaturtle]

> We do have top-tier universities (UBC, University of Toronto, UWaterloo)

I agree. I didn't deny that. Now compare how many top universities we have in the US? If the US has hundreds of top universities and Canada has a handful, how does that make canada an education superpower? If canada is an education superpower, then is north korea a nuclear superpower? Isn't the word superpower supposed to mean something?

> We're home to top-tier companies like Shopify.

Shopify is top-tier? It has revenues of $151 million/year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopify

>On account of the British North America Act that became law July 1st 1867, these British colonies would be recognized as an independent nation."

But they weren't an independent nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982

Canada became "independent" in 1983. Canada celebrated its first Canada Day in 1983.

To claim canada is 150 years old is a verifiable lie.

Listen, canada is a wonderful nation. I have nothing against canada. My complaint is about the article. Its assertions don't make any sense.

[pmilot]

> I agree. I didn't deny that. Now compare how many top universities we have in the US? If the US has hundreds of top universities and Canada has a handful, how does that make canada an education superpower?

Comparing raw numbers like that makes no sense considering Canada has a population of 35 million against the U.S.'s 323 million.

> Canada became "independent" in 1983. Canada celebrated its first Canada Day in 1983. To claim canada is 150 years old is a verifiable lie.

Only if you measure the "start" of a country as the time of its declaration of independence. It makes sense for the U.S. considering its specific history, but in fact, there are very few countries in the world for which this makes sense.

A better way to look at it would be to mark the beginning of a country as the time its formal constitution was written. For Canada, that's 1867, which a major politically significant event. By comparison, the Canada Act of 1983 was a formality.

[awkwarddaturtle]

> Comparing raw numbers like that makes no sense considering Canada has a population of 35 million against the U.S.'s 323 million.

Even on a per capita basis, we outstrip canada easily. But raw numbers doesn't count? So the US has 7000 nukes and north korea has 5. So calling the US a nuclear superpower doesn't matter? The US has an $18 trillion economy. So it's wrong to call the US an economic superpower? Using your logic, north korea is a nuclear superpower and norway is an economic superpower?

So what's your definition of the word superpower? Just use it in a way that suits your agenda regardless of raw numbers?

I can't believe anyone on HN is advocating for the rejections of numbers and data on HN.

> Only if you measure the "start" of a country as the time of its declaration of independence.

No. If you measure when a nation became independent. Canada can't claim to be independent when their laws/government/etc was controlled by britain until 1983. You can't claim to be an independent nation when the final say rested with britain.

> For Canada, that's 1867, which a major politically significant event.

You mean when britain consolidated its territory? Canada was still ruled and controlled by britain. If that is independence, then once again, we have a difference on what words mean.

> By comparison, the Canada Act of 1983 was a formality.

Oh was it? When canada finally took control over its constitution?

Hong kong is more independent from china than canada was. Under whose rule did canada fight in ww1? Oh that's right. "Independent" canada fought under british rule. But certainly canada was "independent" by ww2 right? Nope. All the canadian soldiers fought under british commanders.

Instead of accepting reality, you are just changing the definition of words to suit your agenda. If you want to make up your own definition of superpower or independence, then so be it.