[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.