It looks like they’re just going to lobby trading partners to please direct (actual) retaliatory sanctions towards products from red states, not their state. In general, I like that idea. But maybe now any excemptions for blue state products should come with a promise to actually fight the incipient fascist government…

Exactly. That’s what I heard from people who lived abroad a long time. While you’re away, the country of origin changes and after a while you’re homesick for a place that only exists as a memory.

They weren’t trying to convince you to come, they were trying to gently explain that it’s a little mean to judge 100% of the people for what is happening

So now that is in the hands of the folks who use the OSM data. It’s in a somewhat exotic tag, so by default any map that uses OSM will still show Gulf of Mexico, unless they actively intervene to show Gulf of America. So if you see an OSM based map showing the latter, you know they made that choice consciously.

OpenStreetMap also needs to deal with this kind of thing. In this case, several people already tried to add it to the map in some form of other, but generally not as something to actually be shown. There is a looong discussion about it here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571 . General opinion is that it is (or will be) “the official name that the US says it has”. In OSM you can invent tags for anything, so an object can have many names. Done like this, anyone using the data can still choose to give precedence to any “official US names that are not in common use yet”. Later it may be upgraded ased on if it becomes a common alternative name, just in the US, or maybe beyond. All those options can have their own special tag. And only very motivated data users will ever show it to map users. But if you do a search for Gulf of America, you will be able to find it.

I knew it sounded familiar. It even has a name and a wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck’s_principle

Glad you already learned this is probably nonsense. The wrong reasoning is very similar to much thought about overpopulation. The amount of people that makes for a place to be overpopulated is a function of how societies work and the technologies they have at hand. One extra issue there is that improvements in technology usually lead to population growth, so much progress gets cancelled out.

Didn’t he basically campaign with this?

I’m pretty sure they’ll do increasingly farcical votes for some time after.