The article you cite says that Canada had 8,982 deportations, 5,821 exclusions, and 3,982 self-departures. For comparison, the USA, which is about 9 times larger, according to ICE had 605,000 deportations, about 1.6 million exclusions and self-departures, and another 525,000 or so deportation orders.
So you're right, the data here is quite relevant. It shows that the USA is deporting people at at least 10 times the per capita rate of Canada.
Well, it's a US news outlet, and US news reporting does tend to be rather parochial; I think it is more myopia than new suppression. The news here is the huge leap up in cases in the USA but I'm sure the RFK will be upset that you're not #1 yet.
It's worth noting that there are some strong similarities between the US and Canadian outbreaks in 2025. Both started in Mennonite communities with very low vaccination rates and spread through close community contact. The Canadian outbreak appears to have started at a wedding in New Brunswick in December 2024, where a large number of unvaccinated people travelled to the wedding and one of them brought an infection to the party too. This large scale close contact got the outbreak kick-started faster than the one in Texas, but then they grew at a similar exponential rate which alleged with the similar low vaccination rates in the communities where they took hold.
Sure I am not saying advances haven't happened and that it's not viable, it's very exciting technology but what really puts my hackles up is when it feels like it's being pushed as an alternative or better option to EVs, like we should shift focus and to me that's so wrong as to probably be malicious from some people, thus the hydrogen example. IMO these are parallel paths, all part of the big soup of energy mix we need.
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of EVs. I just worry that focusing solely on trying to replace 2.5 billion existing ICE engines with electric ones will take too long to make the necessary impact. Finding a way to effectively reduce the net carbon emissions of the existing installed base is going to be a critical part of the solution. When you couple that with the fact that there's a large overlap between the technologies needed for synthesis and sequestration, it seems like finding a way to get the market to switch from pulling oil out ground to pulling it out of the air seems like it would be worth the effort.
Spending government time, effort and money on improving the synthesis of fuel from CO2 and water would help all of them.
There's a reason this has never been demonstrated at scale though and at the end of the day the process is known but it requires gobs and gobs of energy input, like absurd amounts as you scale up.
The existing processes are inefficient for sure (most e-fuel systems have about 45% efficiency minus a a few percent more for the CO2 capture) but the efficiencies have been improving over the last 10 to 15 years with a bunch of new catalysts and if this was a market priority then I expect that we would see even more.
My feeling is Co2 synthesis is in fact another play by oil companies now that hydrogen has fallen on it's face. Remember all the oil companies saying they were gonna be hydrogen companies? What happened there?
I suspect that what happened is that people found hydrogen difficult to store, move and handle and it didn't fit will with the huge installed base of infrastructure, so the market rejected it.
Synthesis processes are one of the reasons I have always supported nuclear power expansion since that's the type of thing you can do by having a grid filled with a glut of power on it, you can start pushing it towards lossy processes like fuel synthesis and desalination. Since there's no real movement on that front as of yet I don't think it'll be something we can rely on short term, long term it's got prospects
There's not enough movement on nuclear, but we are already reaching the point where we have gluts of electricity in the wrong place (just search for news stories about the spot price of electricity going negative). Wind and solar are abundant but unreliable and unevenly distributed. Deploying technology that can store the energy (even if inefficient) and then enable it to be moved to where it is needed (very efficiently) has value even if building new nuclear capacity is slow.
I always thought that the EU's goal of phasing out all new internal combustion engines was attacking the wrong problem. The problems of climate change have not come from burning hydrocarbons per se, they have come from taking carbon-based fuels from the ground. We should phasing out the use of extracted oil for powering internal combustion engines and demanding that cars use air-to-liquid synthesised fuels instead.
There are currently somewhat over 260 million passenger cars in the EU, of which around 90% use an ICE. Banning the sale of new ICEs won't do anything for these nearly quarter billion existing vehicles (or the other 2 billion around the world). Vehicles are long-lived capital purchases and they aren't going away any time soon.
Spending government time, effort and money on improving the synthesis of fuel from CO2 and water would help all of them. The fundamentals of the process have been understood for 150 years, but the oil companies have never had a strong incentive to commercialise them. The oil companies are rich and politically connected, but they also employ many of the best chemical engineers around. Whether you like them or loath them, pragmatically if you want to solve the problem of burning new carbon pulled from the ground then finding a way to have them as an ally who will benefit from the change, rather than an enemy who will fight you tooth and nail, is going to be more effective and quicker.
Personally I like the torque characteristics of electric motors, the low moving part count of EVs and their quiet interiors, but the fact is that there is a huge installed base of old-fashioned motors and a vast infrastructure in place to support them. If you want to cut the net CO2 going into the atmosphere then you need to cut off the source of the new carbon and force the market to pull the existing CO2 out of the air. Couple that with tight particulate regulation on new engines and the market will move to EVs eventually in due course, but in the meantime you can cut the net emissions of the billions of vehicles out there already.
This is a proposed restriction on a program that lets people from a handful of countries come to the US without a visa. It doesn't impact people using a traditional visa.
It applies to 42 countries, including 32 of the 35 members of the OECD that don't have some other form of visa-free entry. These countries account from a little over a third of visitors to the USA and given that the OECD represents the largest economies in the world it's likely that their spending is disproportionately higher.
And quite honestly, if someone has spent the last few years talking about killing Americans or Jews, I don't ever want them to come here.
If they were only looking for people who were talking about killing people (of any nationality, ethnicity or religion), and they couldn't get that information some other way, then there might be some case for this. The problem is that all the evidence so far indicates that this is an administration which will be looking for and punishing people who happen to oppose this administration, even if they are highly supportive of America and Americans in general. What makes you think that this won't be abused once it's in place?
I needed to have an internet connection for the camera to be installed, something that wasn't easy at the location it was needed.
Were you setting up using the app? Had you set up any other systems with the app previously? I have set up several Unifi systems using the phone app and Bluetooth without needing a functioning internet connection, but none of them were the first I'd installed.
The unifi stuff leans heavily towards cloud, you can force it to do direct connections but its not the default and there are some limitations,
That's simply not true. Ubiquiti doesn't currently even offer cloud storage for the UniFi Protect. They do offer cloud connectivity back to your local storage, and they support archiving of local storage into Google Drive or OneDrive, but in the first instance the recording always goes to local storage. The main limitation is that it requires you to use their NVR products, but IMHO these are reasonably priced and they don't have any limitations about you adding your own drives to them, so you can source the bulk of the storage yourself.
... but you are eligible for a FIFO Faux Peace Prize.
It think it's FIFA. As in "Fee Faa Faux Fum..." from the fairytale.
Why do European companies not have this problem?
Generalising wildly, German engineers seem to be obsessed with manufacturing tolerances. Based on my experience disassembling and rebuilding German vs Japanese motorcycle engines, for as long as I can remember the manufacturing tolerances on parts made by German companies are just tighter. With thicker oils forming thicker lubrication layers you could get away with looser tolerances, but when you have to move to thinner oils the irregularities come back to bite you. If you've not had a company culture of tight tolerances forever then it's probably more expensive to tighten things up after the fact.
My only guess is drugs.
Surely Gen-Z drug dealers take cryptocurrency. That's what it's for, after all.
RTFA. BBC reported that.
No. The article says:
"Some reports have suggested the UK government will seek to retain the seized funds."
The post I replied to said:
"Reports have suggested the UK government will seek to retain the seized funds to pay off its own debts,... "
It's normal for seized funds to be retained, and they are given to the CICA. It's highly unusual to use them for paying the government's debts.
Which reports are these? Can you offer a citation rather than a vague accusation?
In the UK seized assets are returned to direct victims if they can be identified and if not they are used to fund the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which provides compensation the blameless victims of crimes. Seized funds are generally not allowed to be used by the police (unlike in the USA) since legislators (rightly) believe that it would bias the police to be more inclined to seize assets.
Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning
